Digging into the topic of renewable energy last week, I became acutely aware how big an issue our current energy usage is today. In Energy Autonomy (2007), Dr. Hermann Scheer argues that our current reliance on traditional energies has resulted in (or augmented) what he calls the “seven energy-determined world crises” (the global climate crisis, the exhaustion and dependence crisis, the poverty crisis in the developing countries, the nuclear crisis, the water crisis, the farming crisis, and the health crisis). I believe that an honest consideration of Dr. Scheer’s argument brings about three potential responses.
First: Dr. Scheer is wrong and therefore these problems would not be alleviated if we altered our energy usage. Second: Dr. Scheer is right and we should therefore respond rapidly with more responsible energy usage. Third: There’s nothing that I can do (regardless of whether Dr. Scheer is right or wrong).
Individual research the past two weeks has brought me to this place… The preponderance of data suggests that Dr. Scheer is right in many of his claims. Therefore, as a citizen of the global community, I feel that it is my responsibility to work and advocate for a faster transition away from traditional energies and towards renewables.
In our discussion last week, we addressed a number of blockades to shifting the energy usage paradigm. Indeed, there’s a lot standing in the way. But if we take these crises seriously, I don’t think the third response (above) is an ethical option because of the potential severity for future generations.
The simple fact that the sun and it’s derivates supply more than 15,000 times our current usage in nuclear and fossil energies… coupled with our increasing scientific know-how/ engineering expertise… gives significant hope to the situation. The biggest hurdle is will-power.
The question – I believe – at the heart of this debate is about us as humans. Are we, as a society, inherently short-sighted and selfish or do we value the lives of those who are to come after us enough to make sacrifices now?
4 comments:
Not to sound so cynical, but I think for the most part, the majority of people are short sighted. That is why it takes a catastrophe in order for us to react. And that is also why I think the government needs to be the one mandating and instigating preventative measures. Issues concerning the energy and the environment are very pressing, but since it doesn't substantially effect most people tomorrow, or even next year, the issue is put on the back burner. That's why having a government that is prepared and proactive is so critical. Unfortunately, our government seems to be quite the opposite.
i agree with jen, i think people are mostly short-sighted. i think that governments are afraid of the economic, social and political costs of taking action. we all know the argument against that fear: that what we're doing is going to take us down in the not-so-long run. it's so interesting to study history, and see the same patterns emerge over and over--you start to think, do we ever learn? we've screwed up in similar ways before, you'd think we'd learn from documented mistakes in history. but unfortunately, it seems like it's usually knowledge, not wisdom, that's most successfully passed on and built on.
I've been reading the book David and I agree with his argument about our use of energy resulting in the “seven energy-determined world crises.” I would add conflict and war to that list, as this country's foreign policy has for too long been influenced and determined by our need for energy and the protection of our interests abroad.
I also agree with those who say that this is our generation's great challenge the way WWII was for the so called greatest generation.
But I am just one guy, what can i do. Plus if i go for the more expensive renewable energy option, I'll be paying more than the regular Joe for the same stuff which means that I lose out in the end. Now how do i change mindsets like these?
Post a Comment