So I did some research to find out the predictions that are out there in terms of the longevity of our resources. I stumbled upon some pretty negative websites, and then I found this:
As someone who is truly concerned about our environment, I am not sure I want to buy into this option but honestly, I think it is true. I think Friedman is wrong when he states that "we are, at best, going to experience a serious energy shortage." As the video states, we have been predicting that we will run out of energy for the past hundred years and it has yet to happen. As the world becomes more flat, the world also becomes more innovative.
What I do agree with Friedman on is the fact that consumption increasing is really going to destroy our planet. Friedman says "The best thing we in the United States can do to nudge China toward greater conservation is to set an example by changing our own consumption patterns." For one of the first times, I can wholeheartedly say amen to that, Friedman. America needs to make monumental changes in its consumption. American businesses need to only work with other businesses that follow these same practices. American consumers need to only buy from companies that care about the planet too. While I think we are definitely moving toward a greener world, I think we are far from it. The monumental change needs to come from the top in order to have an effect worldwide. While I do believe that each person can contribute to the solution of the problem by reducing their carbon footprint and encouraging others to do the same, I simply do not believe this is enough.
America needs to get serious about going green. We need to be greener than green. And it is going to take a lot of sacrifices on our part. We might not be running out of resources, but we are destroying our planet day after day. I might not fall into the category of believers that our oil will run out, but I definitely am one to believe in global warming. When Friedman said "A Green New deal today requires getting two things right: government regulation and prices," he was right on the money.
I don't believe a lack of resources is going to stop our world from flattening. But what happens when we get to that flat world and it is a piece of crap? Look at the effects of global warming today and then add in the consumption levels of an entirely flat world, and try to tell me that something doesn't need to change.
Dani,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post about how running out of resources should not be an environmental concern but that over-consumption of resources should be. Like you, I also agree with Friedman’s statement that the United States needs to set the proper environmental example to the world by decreasing the consumption of resources. Although some believe that the U.S. superpower status is declining, many countries still look to the United States for guidance of popular trends.
You mention in your post that American consumers need to purchase products from “green” companies. Your statement reads, “American consumers need to only buy from companies that care about the planet too.” I think that this would be a wonderful practice to adopt; however, it would only be possible in an ideal world. In reality, many “green” products are expensive, and the majority of Americans either cannot afford them or refuse to pay their higher prices. For example, the May/June 2011 issue of AARP reports that only 8% of Americans buy green products most of the time. Furthermore, the author of the article states,
“(…) A growing number of 50-plus Americans [are] rebelling against the expensive side of environmentalism, believing that value-for-money trumps value-for-planet. Most boomers who've never bought earth-friendly products say it's because the stuff is too expensive (…).”
The inability for many individuals to pay for green products is further echoed in a 2009 business newsletter for residents in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that is suitably entitled, “Another Inconvenient Reality.” The author writes,
“Although many surveys show that most of us are willing to pay for eco-friendly products and conserve for the benefit of all, the fact is many of us simply don’t practice what we preach. Why? Given the current economic downturn, perhaps many of us simply can’t afford it. It takes money to ‘go green’.”
So, although I agree with you that it would be overall beneficial for the planet if American consumers adopted greener practices and lifestyles, I disagree with your statement that it is something that Americans need to do because frankly, most citizens cannot do it. At this point in time, green products are just too pricey, and when individuals are faced with unemployment and/or staggering debt, they want to buy the cheapest products, whether they are “green” or not.
Link to AARP article: http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/environment/info-04-2011/high-cost-of-going-green.html
Link to business newsletter: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:aWWr_ThPGToJ:www.blackinkassets.com/articles/Another_Inconvenient_Reality.pdf+american+consumers+cannot+afford+green+products&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShHV8KM5AokDZnALmOWqZuz-Dyn0ZPpX9SDaWaMLN2ut7ny7E62fvxCaVF5VrCT-VlinX1G7BMWSm8iMGVqV3hZATonENNs1CUfnNjvdgbjYm5SMfKMEVl1tyO44bcTu-p63M3h&sig=AHIEtbTvgAsSZ95wo0Un0mDzVISd3b1ZdQ&pli=1
Dani, you have some very valid points in your post, but at the same time I wouldn’t say consumption is a bigger problem than resources. I’m a deep believer of global warming like yourself as you mention. I ended up taking a whole class on the issue, and yes we are in trouble. When it comes to the amount of oil being used and the lack of development and usage of going green, yes our world is in trouble. CO2 levels have skyrocketed over the past 10 years compared to the last 30. Global warming is the cause of the abnormal weather we been having lately and It just going to get worse in the years to come. A lot of people are still in denial about global warming still, and I just want to shake my head at them. I guess people won’t get the hint until a category 5 hurricane comes their way. To be honest the thing that we go to war over, and trade with our enemies “Oil” will be our own demise. Oil was one of the major causes of 9/11, but that another story. The United States controls the market in pretty much anything when it comes to consumption. I love our country but we are the most selfish nation in the world, and our culture is having a negative impact of other countries. When it comes to global warming countries such as the United States and China are causing the damage, but it going to be the underdeveloped countries that are impacted the most by global warming. Resources are still always going to be a problem because a lot of countries barely have resources period. This is one of the reasons I don’t believe the world is flat, and probably never will be.
ReplyDeleteIn some energy policy course I had we were taught that for the past 100 years, we have been constantly in an energy shortage with resources expected to last only 20 years. Every time we came close to running out of fossil fuels, the market has driven innovation to increase the amount of usable resources (turning resources into reserves) and drive down fuel prices. While this isn’t exactly an appropriate argument against using a more responsible energy source, it does tend to make the sensationalist “end is near” signs seem rather ridiculous. However, there will need to be a common renewable energy in the near future. While this isn’t really an argument, it seems silly to continue using a resource that has such a definite lifespan attached to it. The question still remains whether market driven innovation will work fast enough to keep up with energy demand.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that your call for America going green is an important step in the equation solving the world’s energy problems. However, I see it happening solely in the businesses rather than with the people. Ultimately, American consumers are going to buy from the supplier offering the best product for the cheapest price. Our purchases will not affect our public image like a company. There are no immediate benefits to buying from a greener company if their product is the same or inferior. Despite a few companies who have earned a bad public image from being drastically “un-green”, working with the consumers seems unproductive. So while I agree with it being helpful for consumers to buy “green”, I agree more with your assertion that most change will come from the top.
Dani, you certainly raised interesting points regarding consumption of resources within the United States. I agree that resource consumption is a problem going into the future, but struggle with how to navigate this problem correctly. On one side, you have those that argue the government needs to create regulations to address the problem. Meanwhile, you have those that say the free-market will eventually solve the problem as technologies develop. Personally, I believe that a combination of free-market and governmental regulations is the correct path to solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteHistory has already shown that strict governmental regulations are not the correct path to go down solving this problem. When the United Nations created the Kyoto Protocol, the idea was to create a set of regulations for all countries in the world to follow regarding emissions. When President Clinton brought the treaty to Congress, they outright refused to ratify the treaty because it hurt US business interests. Straight governmental regulations often create unintended consequences and can cause more harm than good. In addition, if we created strict regulations it is unlikely China and other developing countries would adopt the same standards as the United States. There is no incentive for other countries to adopt the same regulations as the United States as they may view the problem of resource consumption completely differently.
Instead, the United States should promote the development of ideas through the free-market. In the end, if you create a product that reduces consumption and is the cheapest option available people will buy it. People do not shop at Walmart because they Walmart's business practices, they shop there because it has the cheapest prices. The government can help the free market develop solutions by providing incentives for developing new technologies that work to solve the resource consumption problem. While you may have the occasional Solyndra crisis, if new technologies are developed through these programs they can be considered a successes.