Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
For decades the prevailing assumption has been that the primary enemies of environmental health, the essential aiders and abetters of catastrophic climate change, were the barons of industry, who sacrificed the planet for profit. Undeniably, they played a part. But they are not the main villains of this story.
An example: the speaker at the service-club meeting had done a good job of summarizing the scary, looming effects of climate change, he had the audience’s attention and concern. A questioner raised his hand: “We hear all this dire stuff but nobody ever says exactly what we have to do to avoid it.”
“Okay,” said the speaker, “let’s start with this; how about a 15% surcharge on all energy produced by fossil fuels to encourage conservation and fund mitigation?” The answer was immediate: “Oh, hell, no!”
And there you have it. The American consumer absolutely refuses to be inconvenienced or penalized in any way in order to deal with a threat that looms over the future of humankind on earth. If you can solve it without interfering with my lifestyle, fine, otherwise, “fuggedaboudit.”
Another example: when solar power first became available and affordable for home use, it held out great promise for the future. By generating our electricity where we consumed it, in sufficient numbers, we would be reducing the consumption of fossil fuels (and thus the emissions of greenhouse gasses), reducing the strain on the electric grid and the need to build more intrusive transmission lines.
But there was a snag. In order to transition to sustainable, off-grid solar power, consumers had to recalibrate their electricity use. The lavish, thoughtless consumption enabled by cheap fossil fuel energy was not possible with solar — consumers had to scale back a little, manage their consumption in sync with cloud cover, battery condition, and the requirements of various appliances and motors. Except for a very small minority of enthusiasts it was, “fuggedaboudit.”
The tireless marketers came up with a new offer: Instead of converting to solar, just add it to the mix, stay connected to the grid but reduce the amount of electricity you take from it and in some cases even sell your panels’ excess power to the grid, even further reducing your costs. This way consumers could continue their lavish consumption, give no thought whatsoever to going on an energy diet, and save money besides.
They loved it, and the solar business boomed. But there was yet one more snag. With half of all Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, unable to handle a thousand-dollar emergency, many homeowners gagged at the size of the initial investment solar required (even though the typical deal promised payback in 7 to 10 years). No problem! A new wave of deals appeared with solar providers offering installation with no money down and with lease payments subsidized by future savings.
It worked so well that it almost destroyed the entire industry. So many people signed up for their “free” installation that the providers were confronted with a huge cash crunch of their own. Fortunately, the wheelers and the dealers knew how to handle that, from recent history: remember debt securitization? A tried and true method by which multiple loans were packaged as a single security and sold to investors. This gave the solar providers the cash to do the next deal. I worked like a charm. Well, it brought on the crash of 2008, but until then it worked great.
And it worked great for the solar providers, until now. Just like in 2008, investors are finding that the performance of these jury-rigged “securities” does not measure up to the industry hype. And just like in 2008, the packagers of the “securities” are finding that they must constantly, rapidly expand their sales in order to stay afloat. And just like in 2008, eventually, inevitably, they can no longer keep up.
In 2023, more than 100 residential solar providers went into bankruptcy, six times the total number of failures in the previous three years. The largest surviving companies, such as SunRun and Sunnova are posting eye-popping losses. TIME magazine reported in January that the entire rooftop-solar industry is on the verge of collapse.
This is where, normally, we do the tirade about the ruthless, heartless corporate perpetrators of these destructive practices. But wait a minute.
What is to be said of these bovine consumers, obsessed with their limitless consumption and uninterrupted comfort, unwilling to give up a nickel for the future of their species, unable to grasp that while they gorge at the trough of consumerism the roof is falling in on them? Should we blame them at all?
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
Changes in personal consumptive patterns won’t make any difference due to Jevon’s Paradox. The solution to AGW requires a systems change according to William Rees, professor emeritus of ecological economics at the University of British Columbia. According to the esteemed professor, AGW is a consequence of ecological overshoot, which in turn is due to industrial scale civilization, this in turn due to the infinite economic growth paradigm, which is an imperative because money is loaned into existence at interest. So, failing to change how money is created, changes nothing. Truly integrative systems thinkers have said that the most consequential step that could be taken to address AGW would be to end interest bearing debt. This would require an end to fractional reserve banking. As such, the imperative of endless growth would be broken, and we would have a chance at real climate change mitigation.
Yes but ending interest-bearing debt would require the consent of the governed, i.e. the consumers, and if they thought they would be inconvenienced by the change they would vote it down and its advocates out of office. Until and unless the voters are willing to make sacrifices, we are screwed.
I think what you have described is the reason that lending money for interest was prohibited after the fall of the Roman Empire/Hellenic Civilization. We’ll get back to it I expect, but not soon enough.
(There are four installments)
Thanks for the link, I had forgotten that series, but found proof I’d read it :-)
In George Bernard Shaw’s play ‘Pygmalion’ [My Fair Lady] the haughty Professor Higgins asks the impoverished dustman Alfred Doolittle as to why he is so lacking in common morals. Doolittle’s reply, “morals? Can’t afford ’em, govner!”
Such is the case with the common American. Who can finance an electric car or a solar power set-up when meeting short-term needs is a difficult enough challenge? Even to the enlightened few, separating the household garbage into recyclable and non-recyclable containers seems a futile task in the ongoing environmental catastrophe.
Horizons shrink and expectations become more primal, as society spirals downward, and such luxuries as a basic education or a family vacation become expendable to large segments of the voting public, many of whom would opt for the Big-Daddy delusion of an authoritarian dictatorship over the creaky mechanics of an ageing and impotent democracy.
Sacrifices?…Well, yes. But many Americans believe they’ve already made sacrifices, but to little avail. Bottom line – we ARE screwed.
[ As an aside, it occurs to me that ‘Pygmalion’ is the moniker of some new-fangled AI program of one sort or another. All I can figure is that God must love irony.]
Solar panels and wind turbines have only been possible to make with a ‘subsidy’ from fossil fuels, panels actually use some coal to make them. They will not replace fossil fuels at any reduced level of consumption except as a parachute technology.
We would do our decedents a great favour by investing instead in legacy technology, for example restoring and building canals such as were used widely before the Besmer process (using coal to make steel) made steel cheap enough to have railways, and would be useful and repairable by stone masons and carpenters indefinitely.
On a personal level I have had a masonry heater built. It is the cleanest, safest and most efficient way to burn wood and can burn stick wood, (prunings and such) very efficiently as well as cordwood. It will last for generations. They have been used in Europe for 500+ years. At my age it is very unlikely to amortize in savings in my lifetime but it will keep people warm, perhaps my descendants but no matter, into the next century. If it outlives my house it can be disassembled and used elsewhere. Meanwhile the hour or so ‘full throttle’ fire that heats up the masonry for the day is a delight to watch.
Long time since I’ve commented here. I suppose there is basic agreement among the habitués of this blog as to what ails us, though it can be sliced and diced myriad ways according to one’s preferred scientific or social paradigm. Since you place the blame broadly on insatiable human appetites, I would call the overarching problem one of metabolism wildly out of balance. Could be human metabolism (species level) or Gaia, doesn’t matter.
What we probably disagree on is solutions, whole or piecemeal. Indeed, while I am fairly confident of our badly deteriorating trajectory, I have no confidence whatsoever in potential solutions — mine or those of others. Rather, it’s like the RMS Titanic: possession of advance knowledge that most of us will go down with the ship no matter what is done.
Brutus, yer not dead after all – kool!…”metabolism wildly out of balance” says it all. Of course, Mother Nature will re-establish a balance in the fullness of time, but the process will most likely be ugly.
99%+ of Americans think we should double energy dissipation in the next 30 years but all “renewable.” Good luck. Lifestyle it is