We seem to be getting really comfortable with change lately.
Millions hooted and hollered for change in our government. The economic crisis has quickly changed our buying and spending. And, in fact, too many of us have become used to the biggest change of all: climate change.
So if we are OK with change – if we’ve shown in the past few months that we can cut back and we can do with less — then why can’t we stick with change?
I’ve tried to change. I have a Prius. I spent four hours on a videoconference from my home office today. I’ve taught my three-year-old to say “you’re wasting” if we ever leave a room with the light on.
But I’ve got to admit — like my colleague Barry Rice – that I too have sinned.
I couldn’t resist buying my kids blueberries from Chile as a change from local winter fruit. I drove three hours to ski last weekend (does anyone else find driving to ski oxymoronic?). And right now, I can see the light on in the hall from where I sit.
So why can’t we REALLY change? What will it take for us to live the change, become the change?
What do you think? Post a comment with your thoughts.
(Image: Incandescent and compact fluorescent light bulbs. Source: Mark Godfrey/TNC)
Tags: change, Chrissy Schwinn, Climate Change, eco-sin, Prius
Make a comment
I have discussed the issue of what it would take to change
with my friends and coworkers. It all comes down to a monetary incentive. If the cost of things go higher they would be more apt to change. As long as things are relatively inexpensive they will not. So cost in a nut shell is what will drive change.
I made the change many years ago and am glad I did.
You’re right Chrissy, but how else to you get to ski slopes unless you live in the snow? Consider this, though. We live about ten miles out of Eugene Oregon. Bikers drive out here so that they can ride in the country. That ten miles IS a waste, compared to how far you have to drive.
Okay, and about those blueberries. Aren’t we supposed to be helping less developed countries? Consider Europe, where fruit and vegetables, even flowers, are flown up from Africa.
I think international trade, globalization, has to be reduced if we are going to make any headway against global warming. Why not encourage trade within Africa, and within South America? Or am I being naive?
It is true that we are all sinners on the carbon dioxide emissions front, but could offsetting be part of living the change? Could we ratchet up the regulations on carbon offsets to ensure that they are sufficiently additional? Reducing emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) seems like the cheapest way to prevent carbon emissions. Couldn’t we try to reduce our contribution to carbon emissions that way rather than trying to sit in a dark, cold, house all day worrying about how much oil we’re burning to heat our home? This problem is much larger than just the emissions we see- we need to address all the emissions in heavy industry and agriculture that is emitted in producing the food we eat and other items we buy– this can be as much as half of all the emissions were responsible for, if not more than half.
To offset 25 tons of CO2 (the average per-capita emissions for each US citizen per year), it costs $125 from e-Blue Horizons. e-Blue Horizons is one of a few offset companies ranked relatively high as far as voluntary offsets are concerned (http://www.carbonconcierge.com/learn/copy_of_offset-provider-evaluation). If we wanted to start making up for past emissions, we could purchase some multiple of our current emissions today– if we offset seven times our current emissions, we could take responsibility for the last seventy years over the next ten.
Here are a few references relating to REDD and its possible effectiveness in protecting carbon sinks:
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/unfccc_cop14_redd_pp_18_11_08_final.pdf)
(http://realcarbon.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/redd-white-and-blue-how-avoided-deforestation-offsets-can-make-climate-legislation-work-in-an-ailing-economy/)
when we run out of fuel and mel gibson starts riding around in a black muscle car, we will change. you know who has a small carbon footprint? homeless people. no matter what people think is important for everyone ELSE to do, you cant get people to care about the environment when they are hungry and dont have health or a home. so that makes the environment 4th on the list of things that matter to the other 90% of the world.
The key to change is to make it part of life so its not really a choice. People are so busy with the demands of modern life that more choices for the to make gets overwhelming and they fall back on old habits. Therefore, building regulations that require energy efficiency, car standards that require increased mpg, energy efficiencies for appliances, zoning requirements that require mixed use and alternative transit. Each of these require some cost, but most people are fine with it as long as it doesn’t require a conscious choice, for example, we all drive with unleaded gas now despite increased cost initially, cars are alot lighter than 50 years ago with more gadgets and increased cost but we still buy them. We just saw housing prices decline 30% in some markets. If housing standards would require energy effeciency in construction, it might raise the cost of a new home, but that price would still be less than what people were willing to pay for a house just 2 or 3 years ago. If no conscious choice needs to be made, people will just suck up the cost (kind of like increasing tolls on bridges, it’s now $9 on the Verezzano Bridge, and there are still traffic jams most of the day). If we can make improvements a necessary cost of housing, transport, food, etc, people make the adjustments and deal with it, but if given a choice, people will gofor the familiar or the cheapest.
I agree with Ray that people won’t change if they have a choice. Most people will simply opt for the cheapest option especially in the current economic climate.
As far fetched as it may be, or not, the time is now for an infrastructure change. Cities need to be designed so that they take advantage of mass transit, bikes, walking, and other non or less polluting ways of commuting.
Currently, if I want to go the the local grocery store I NEED to take my car. I could walk, however it is not very inviting. There is nothing to see, very few people around and very boring in general, not to mention I would have to carry all of my groceries home. If I chose to take the bus, it would easily add at least an hour to my commute, which is simply ridiculous.
Basically we need our cities designed so that there is no need for a car to get to work or go to the store. Cars should be a weekend thing when the family goes camping or skiing.
Now is the time for this kind of change, especially since there are going to be huge investments from the government. Investments in the billions, which is what is needed for this kind of infrastructure change.