Consume, Conform, Be Silent, Die
This is something that has been troubling me ever since Global Warming came onto our radars. Everyone is falling over themselves to try and find environmental solutions that will enable us to continue living the princely lives that we lead without fucking up the environment, which is a noble goal, but the simplest and most effective way we can change our footprint is to simply use less.
If we want to reduce the CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations by 25% then we could either work out a way to retrofit a thirty year old power station and make it produce the same power with less emissions, or we could all just use 25% less power. To me it seems simple. Turn off your appliances at the wall, turn your fridge up a few degrees and make a conscious effort to only turn on the lights that you are currently using. I have no doubt that most Aussies could easily cut their power usage by a quarter if they just stopped and thought about where and when they are using it.
The same goes for most products. It’s not a new idea. It’s right there on any greenie poster you care to look at. Reduce, reuse and recycle. But there is a side effect of this action that is not getting the attention it deserves in my opinion, the downturn in business.
What is the profit margin of most companies? I have no idea, but what percentage of sales could the average company afford to lose before it became unprofitable and shut down? 20%, 30%? These are exactly the kinds of figures that we are looking at reducing our usage by. Our entire capitalist economy is centred around one thing, us the consumer. We buy and buy and buy and if we ever stopped buying, our economy would collapse.
What I’m saying is that we are simply not prepared for reducing our usage. If everyone installed solar hot water heaters and dropped their power usage by 30% then Energex would immediately and permanently lose 30% in sales. That’s massive. They would have to do well just to survive that.
It’s the same thing with transport. If the government provides good bike paths, safe walking paths and cheap and reliable public transport then car usage could conceivably drop by 40%. That’s 40% less fuel usage, 40% less need for fuel maintenance workers, 40% less tires being purchased, 40% less brake pads being manufactured, and 40% less car parking profits.
What I’m trying to say here is that this slack has to be picked up somewhere, and the pipe dream of it being picked up in newly created green industries is simply not going to happen. In the last year I have bought three green shopping bags totalling $6 and reduced the number of useless plastic shopping bags I collect by more than a hundred. I admit they cost fuck all so at the moment I may be even here but the green ones were a one off investment. They will probably last for three or four years while my net contribution to the plastic bag industry will drop to zero.
In economic terms that is a drastic reduction in consumer spending. Are we prepared for this? How will this affect our economy? And more importantly, will the government let this happen? It shits me that the easiest and most effective way for us to reduce our impact on the environment is also pure cancer for the economic system we live under, which means it simply will not be tolerated by the powers that be.
I just can’t see a government allowing this to happen, and the only way I can see them preventing it is to somehow find a way to trick the consumer into subsiding corporate losses due to the reduced use of consumerables by false increases in prices or extra pseudo-taxes. So the government will spend $100 million to help a plastics factory increase its efficiency by 20% while the company slaps a green sticker on its disposable cup holders and we can all continue the way we were.
So basically I’m calling conspiracy theory here. The guvmt will not push the reduce message because of the danger it poses to the economy and we will end up paying ridiculous monies and huge environmental costs in order to keep the machines running. It's a sad state of affairs because we are sitting here crying over the destruction of our planet when the answer is staring us right in the face. It's just that the answer goes against the consumer culture status quo and many, many people have a vested interest in keeping those machines running. If you think I am speaking the obvious here then so be it, but never let it be said that, when we realised the dangers, we did everything we could to save the planet.
This message brought to you by Jimmy’s Conspiracies.
If we want to reduce the CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations by 25% then we could either work out a way to retrofit a thirty year old power station and make it produce the same power with less emissions, or we could all just use 25% less power. To me it seems simple. Turn off your appliances at the wall, turn your fridge up a few degrees and make a conscious effort to only turn on the lights that you are currently using. I have no doubt that most Aussies could easily cut their power usage by a quarter if they just stopped and thought about where and when they are using it.
The same goes for most products. It’s not a new idea. It’s right there on any greenie poster you care to look at. Reduce, reuse and recycle. But there is a side effect of this action that is not getting the attention it deserves in my opinion, the downturn in business.
What is the profit margin of most companies? I have no idea, but what percentage of sales could the average company afford to lose before it became unprofitable and shut down? 20%, 30%? These are exactly the kinds of figures that we are looking at reducing our usage by. Our entire capitalist economy is centred around one thing, us the consumer. We buy and buy and buy and if we ever stopped buying, our economy would collapse.
What I’m saying is that we are simply not prepared for reducing our usage. If everyone installed solar hot water heaters and dropped their power usage by 30% then Energex would immediately and permanently lose 30% in sales. That’s massive. They would have to do well just to survive that.
It’s the same thing with transport. If the government provides good bike paths, safe walking paths and cheap and reliable public transport then car usage could conceivably drop by 40%. That’s 40% less fuel usage, 40% less need for fuel maintenance workers, 40% less tires being purchased, 40% less brake pads being manufactured, and 40% less car parking profits.
What I’m trying to say here is that this slack has to be picked up somewhere, and the pipe dream of it being picked up in newly created green industries is simply not going to happen. In the last year I have bought three green shopping bags totalling $6 and reduced the number of useless plastic shopping bags I collect by more than a hundred. I admit they cost fuck all so at the moment I may be even here but the green ones were a one off investment. They will probably last for three or four years while my net contribution to the plastic bag industry will drop to zero.
In economic terms that is a drastic reduction in consumer spending. Are we prepared for this? How will this affect our economy? And more importantly, will the government let this happen? It shits me that the easiest and most effective way for us to reduce our impact on the environment is also pure cancer for the economic system we live under, which means it simply will not be tolerated by the powers that be.
I just can’t see a government allowing this to happen, and the only way I can see them preventing it is to somehow find a way to trick the consumer into subsiding corporate losses due to the reduced use of consumerables by false increases in prices or extra pseudo-taxes. So the government will spend $100 million to help a plastics factory increase its efficiency by 20% while the company slaps a green sticker on its disposable cup holders and we can all continue the way we were.
So basically I’m calling conspiracy theory here. The guvmt will not push the reduce message because of the danger it poses to the economy and we will end up paying ridiculous monies and huge environmental costs in order to keep the machines running. It's a sad state of affairs because we are sitting here crying over the destruction of our planet when the answer is staring us right in the face. It's just that the answer goes against the consumer culture status quo and many, many people have a vested interest in keeping those machines running. If you think I am speaking the obvious here then so be it, but never let it be said that, when we realised the dangers, we did everything we could to save the planet.
This message brought to you by Jimmy’s Conspiracies.
9 Comments:
I was born the son of a plastic bag salesman, and I'll die the son a plastic bag salesman.
What will he do now? I'm suggesting he has a late career move in to whaling.
By
synthetic sandy, At
18 January 2008 09:28
As we have seen from Corey Delaney and others Generation Z is a bunch of wankers who don't appreciate what they're given and don't want to do anything productive. So I say fuck the environment, it's not like the kids are going to thank us for keeping it clean, so why bother. And it might just give their generation some direction in 30 years or so when something really needs to be done about it because they are all drowning and dieing of heat waves and cold snaps.
By
Michael, At
18 January 2008 09:30
LOL not content at trashing the neighbourhood of Narre Warren, now Corey and his mates are kiddie porn peddlers and The Cause of global warming too - oh gold LOL
man i wish i was 16 again!
my favourite global warming initiative includes adding 'GreenBook' and 'Carbon Converter' applications to Facebook to save carbon... uhh wouldn't it be better to turn your fucking monitor off? Spend less time on line, running that computer and more time planting trees or making your own tofu or sumpin. I can see the bumper sticker now 'Save the Planet, Pixel by Pixel: Quit wasting your time on Facepoof'
Gotta go crank my air con BRB
By
Glancey, At
18 January 2008 10:16
I fear we will all meet the apocalypse (the real Ben Eton Stark one, not the religious one) with a bunch of carbon credits and ‘green’ power bills.
“I used the same power as a 1200 person African village last year but I offset the usage dude! It was you guys who fucked it all up”
By
Sam Cox, At
19 January 2008 02:08
When the apocalypse comes I shall be constructing a house from green bags and living inside it. You have really left me devoid of all hope, Sam. Bastard.
By
Tom CD Zimmerman, At
20 January 2008 08:37
We're up against human nature: given a clear and present danger--something that we can see, feel, experience directly--we will act. For anything else, such as the "long emergency" which is global warming, we are not going to change our individual actions in any way that will be meaningful.
This is where our civilisation has to act at the leadership level, and apply whatever legislative instruments it has to curb our collective behaviour. Of course, most of that leadership in the Western world is made up of representative democracies, with constituents who will vehemently object to their elected officials making things harder for them to get on with their comfortable lives.
My prediction on how this will play out: it'll be all talk, with no substantive action taken. CO2 will go up, it'll get warmer, and all the modelled outcomes will occur (drought and sea-level rise being the most damaging). Marginal countries will collapse into anarchy, with wars over resources becoming commonplace. Richer countries will go the fortress route, defending their borders and wringing their hands about how much they'd like to help, but...
Looking at it this way, investing in an extremely strong defence force is probably about all a government can effectively do. Maybe the yanks aren't so far wrong.
By
jason, At
20 January 2008 12:03
Aha!
The trick it would seem is for businesses to restructure. There is a book called "What are you optimistic about" containing the thoughts of such thinkers as stephen pinker.
It points to the examples where good business policy is in line with sound environmental policy as well - look at Walmart and their decision to only stock farmed seafood, because they realised that continuing the way they were there would be no industry left from which to make money from....
Im no fan of Walmart, but its the principle that matters here. By appealing to the bottom line and succession planning in big business could we have more effect than banging on about the environment?
2c
By
Cam, At
25 January 2008 09:53
Yeh, we're fucked.
Even if we all do what you say and reduce our consumption (yeah right), if we continue to have more babies, then we are doomed.
Look at the numbers: 6 billion people projected to increase to 8 or 9 billion in another 40 to 50 years, means 50 percent more people. If we need to have a net reduction in usage per capita, then this means we really need to start seriously doing stuff now.
Look around, do you see drastic change occurring?
Governments will never be proactive on this, because they can only see as far as the next election and are extremely reluctant to spend their money in a way which may help their opposition in the future, when the money can be spent in the short term to gather votes. If government is bad, then business is worse, being totally driven by profit and growth, and generally not giving a fuck about people or the environment.
The media and big business are certainly make no efforts to inform the vast majority that we are approaching a crisis, because that would involve some short term profit reduction, or even losses, and may even demand a new type of non-growth related economic thinking, god forbid!
Until we have drastic and irreversible climate change which is obvious by direct observation, we, as a race are just too apathetic, notwithstanding the millions who do try, care and understand.
Unfortunately, we are outnumbered by the many human animals (not intended to be derogatory, just addressing the fact that we are so driven by our basic functions, that we find it hard to escape them) who are struggling just to survive, let alone worry about something they perceive is something "they should do something about".
By
Tex, At
15 February 2008 07:26
I agree with Tex. The third world, who are struggling to survive, are going to make up the majority of the environmental impact of the post 2020 world.
I say why not? We (as the West) have raped the planet for 200 years. The fact that we are using envoronmentalism as an excuse to slow our production is simply not going to cut it for the developing nations.
Caring for the environment is a luxury that we can now afford, after years of planet destruction. It is our responsibility to subsidise the 3rd world's attempts to move into the 1st world. But that is idealism, not rationalism. It simply will not happen.
It's another debate, but we simply cannot afford a 1st world world.
By
Sam Cox, At
29 March 2008 17:43
Post a Comment
<< Home