I’m about to say something that which may label me as a pariah amongst the green community: I do not highly prioritize energy conservation.
There, I said it, it’s on the internet now and there’s no taking it back. But let me backtrack a bit and say that of course I don’t advocate wasting energy. I’m not saying we should all be leaving heat lamps on in uninhabited rooms, or firing up Christmas displays at high noon in August, or throwing “Let’s see how much we can rev our engines” parties on my street at two in the morning while I’m trying to sleep. (Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you, you punks!) All I’m saying is that I think that there are more important energy goals: specifically, the development of renewable energy sources.
Of course, not everyone agrees with me. For example, Dawn Stover at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists cites ample evidence that it would be utterly unfeasible to continue our current rate of energy growth indefinitely, even given fantastic amounts of resources. As a result, conservation, rather than alternative energy development, should be a greater priority. The problem with these calculations is that they are limited entirely to the constraints of current technology, with speculations only that current technology will increase in efficiency. Given that the photovoltaic cell itself was, as a practical technology rather than just a novelty, developed within the last sixty years, and electromagnetism itself only functionally discovered within the last two hundred, I see no reason to suspect that another equally important paradigm shift in energy technology will not occur within the next few centuries of human evolution. For all we know, the very concept of electrical power will be as hilariously obsolete by 2100 as the concept of gaslight is today.
But all of this puts the cart before the horse. The present reality is that we are running out of oil. We’ll eventually be forced to switch to another primary power source once we run out of fossil fuels, so while conservation may prolong the time we have to make that switch, it will only postpone the inevitable. It may bring some short-term peace, but it will only be Peace For Our Time.
Unfortunately, the cruel reality is that Peace For Our Time is the only peace there can ever be. There’s no Happily Ever After for the human race, only the endless march– or at least a steady power-walk– into the future. So long as physical existence is a reality, the human species, and all species, will continue to face environmental pressures, and they will continue to react to those pressures. There has not been a day in the history of life that this has not been true, and there will not be a day in its future when it will cease to be true. We do not have to invent the technology that will serve us forever; we only need to invent the technology to serve us until the next paradigm shift. Let’s all do what we can, then, to make this coming shift into an age of ecological cooperation and sustainable adaptation, rather than one of fear and technological regression. Let’s not forget the last time that happened.
You have a valid argument as to why you don’t prioritize energy conservation, but do you not think that conserving what little is left in hopes of finding an alternate solution quicker than the dissipation of the current solution is a good idea? I suppose, either way humans will be forced into an alternative way of living, whether the solution for an energy change comes in time or not, but I happen to like the energy we have enough to want it around for a bit longer, so I’m willing to do my part to cut corners in my usage to ensure that happens. My individual actions don’t affect the masses though, and as I was arguing earlier today there needs to be a collectivist attitude behind my changes (and potentially the changes of others) for us to make a real shift. With an attitude that takes more than just our own personal needs into consideration, then we have a true option for change. Otherwise, the status quo will certainly continue.
In a strange way, your optimism makes me wish we would reach “peak” oil levels now and be done with it; lets be forced to move to a different form of energy source rather than trying to conserve it… Yet there is also an underlying problem with a culture that is voraciously hungry for more and more energy, and, how certain countries seem to have a monopoly over energy sources. Do you envision that the new system will also be more equitable? Can there be a danger of over using wind and solar power? Or are these going to be on endless supply and open to all? Perhaps you are on to something here; in that there is a fallacy in valuing conservation, it is making us dependent on a certain power structure that other energy sources will challenge…
For me it’s as simple as the fact that Americans are 5% of the world population yet use 24% of the world’s resources. There’s certainly an opportunity for us all to cut corners and conserve, wherever possible.
I agree, and I hold in the highest esteem those willing to do so. There is talk of this age being the age of sacrifice. What is each person willing to sacrifice? What small comfort, that may only be privee to developed countries in the first place, will be sacrificed? Let me count the ways….
You ask a great question with “Can there be a danger of over using wind and solar power?” Like anything I think that comes back to it depends. I am imagining a planet covered in wind turbines and their affect on migratory birds. We can not hope to know all the repercussions of any alternative energy we design but we can try to have as little impact as possible. I am reminded of the old saying “everything in moderation”. Too much of anything is always bad in the end. We need more than one silver bullet. We need multiple new ways to address our needs, as well as talking about our values around what we claim to be needs versus wants.
I definitely agree, Kim and Lance, that there are many reasons to conserve energy. As much as I would like to hope that a new widely-feasible energy source would appear as soon as there was enough pressure, I’m reluctant to gamble on it. In the meantime, we do need to figure out ways of conserving energy, but I don’t think we need to frame it in terms of austerity and sacrifice. There are ways to conserve energy and other resources while simultaneously improving one’s life; it would certainly help if more people knew how much benefit can be found in connecting with nature.