Seriously thoughtful Contemplating the Onuissance

[Steve Jordan]

The United States is (again) at a crossroads: We must alter our debt management systems, our personal living systems, our civic systems, our transportation systems, our power systems, and our work systems, and we need to do them all now, before we as a nation plunge over the abyss. Americans are directly responsible for many of the problems we face... like someone who recklessly runs up the limit on their credit card, we have used up our credit, and now the bill is due.

But Americans are also notorious for their fervent aversion to admitting they have done anything wrong, and therefore anything that must be changed. And Americans as individuals are notorious for talking the talk, but not walking the walk, and "letting everyone else take action." It seems every American has an excuse for why they can not recycle, or take a bus, or drive a smaller car, or use CFL lightbulbs, or turn down their thermostat, even while their neighbors ably manage to do those things. Americans have become the ultimate isolationists: Once their front door is closed, they are on sovereign territory, and no one can tell them what to do.

But if we as a nation do not do these things, we face complete collapse... and may take the rest of the world with us.

So: How do we convince Americans that we all need to take action, even when we do not want to, for the good of a planet? How do we invoke the "S" word--sacrifice--without being labeled "communist" and run out of town on a rail? How do we get a nation of people together, who do not seem to want to have anything to do with each other?

[HarryT]

Call it a "war against <something>"? That seems to be an ever-popular approach.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Call it a "war against <something>"? That seems to be an ever-popular approach.

It's a popular approach that doesn't work anymore. In America, unless someone you know personally is dying in that war-on-whatever, it means nothing to you. We never got everyone on-board with the "War On Terr."

[Over]

For a moment I though you would be finally announcing a reformatation of The Onuissance Cells...

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Over

For a moment I though you would be finally announcing a reformatation of The Onuissance Cells...

I'd much rather be able to announce the initiation of the era... but no, not yet, anyway. No, I'm seeking ways of getting the movement started nationwide, seriously, en masse. And to do that, the American people all have to be on-board. How can we do that?

[vivaldirules]

Mass objectivity and rational thinking - is there a prescription for that short of imminent disaster thrust right in your face? I'm not aware of one. Which would suggest that we'll wait until disaster is imminent. That's a pretty pessimistic view but it might be a rational one. I would certainly love to hear that there's an alternative.

[Elsi]

One problem is that people can still *choose* to do the things that are bad for their health, the environment, etc.

CFL lightbulbs use less electricity -- but each bulb costs more and the stores are *full* of cheap traditional lightbulbs. If we as a society decide that the environment is important, we should impose taxes or penalties on the non-environmental products so that people can see "what's in it for me". When it's cheaper or at least a break-even to make a good choice, you'll see more people doing it.

Recycling prevents materials winding up in landfills, but many communities or businesses have abandoned their recycling programs because there's no one out there to take the recyclable material at a cost less than just plowing it into the landfill. (Let's just overlook the fact that one can't *give* away recyclables, much less sell them.)

I don't know how to promote a willingness to do something that's good for *everyone* if you can't show how it benefits the individual.

Speaking of thermostats -- I resent having to carry a sweater in my car in the summer time just so I don't freeze to death in a restaurant. Seems like the staff turns the temp down because they're bustling around and in and out of the kitchen. Us customers just wind up chilled. Public places should adopt reasonable temperature ranges!

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elsi

Speaking of thermostats -- I resent having to carry a sweater in my car in the summer time just so I don't freeze to death in a restaurant. Seems like the staff turns the temp down because they're bustling around and in and out of the kitchen. Us customers just wind up chilled. Public places should adopt reasonable temperature ranges!

"Resent" is a pretty tough word... but I know what you mean, my wife frequently brings jackets or sweaters when we go out to eat, just in case the place is too cold. Like so many places that use central HVAC, they may have very little control over the temps in isolated pockets of a building, so finding a workable median temp means some people go cold, while others get cooked.

Personally, I'd just as soon bring a jacket, and not have to stifle the smell of sweaty waiters running around my food, but that's me.

Back to the subject: I admit (only slightly reluctantly) that I think it will be the job of government to impose taxes to discourage buying some items, while subsidizing others... and in some cases, legislate some products right off the shelves (as some countries are already doing with incandescent bulbs). I wish that were not the case, but when people continue to buy bad things because they are cheap... and they really need to stop... I can't see any alternative.

The one thing everyone in America does understand, after all, is a blow to the wallet...

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Maybe we Americans have gotten hardened to being 1.blamed for everything wrong in the world. and 2. Never being given credit for doing anything right.

We ship our jobs overseas, so they rest of the world can be employed, and we get no credit for helping (at our own direct cost) them.

We blamed for causing cultures to hate us, when (in many cases) they've hated every external culture to theirs for a 1000 years or more.

We act as the consumer of last resort, to keep all those overseas factories humming (and the jobs attached to them, as well), and get chastised by the very same people for being spendthrifts.

We're told to do without, for the good of the planet, but funny, nobody else has to...

The real answer out is better technology, but for the last 40 years it's been NIMBY to good fixes (like nuke plants) while waiting for better fixes, like cheaper solar and better battery technology. (In 1974, solar cost 1000 times generated power, now it 4 times. Any bets it won't drop another 10 fold in another 10 years?)

[Moe The Cat]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

We ship our jobs overseas, so they rest of the world can be employed ...

Really? I thought jobs were shipped overseas because it's cheaper and allows corporations to increase their profit margins. It's like Steve's incandescent light bulbs: people continue to use them because they're cheaper.

Using the new light bulbs costs more and paying someone locally to do the job costs more, so the cheaper choice wins.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Maybe we Americans have gotten hardened to being 1.blamed for everything wrong in the world. and 2. Never being given credit for doing anything right...

Ah-- the "Two wrongs make a right" argument... let the world go to Hell since they all hate us anyway... Maybe it's time for Americans to Lighten Up.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

We're told to do without, for the good of the planet, but funny, nobody else has to...

Actually, they are being told to do without, and many of them are already doing a better job at it than we are (those that had it at one time to do without, that is). And the US, as the country that would have to bite the bullet hardest by doing without, and would have the biggest impact (because we use so much more per person/per capita than any other country) are being looked to, to set the good example for others ("If we can do it, so can you!")... not to whine that "nobody likes us"...

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The real answer out is better technology...

That's not all of the answer... the rest is sensible use of the resources and technology we have, so we don't need the equivalent of a nuke plant on every block. That's what we've been avoiding for the past 50+ years, and what we can no longer afford to do.

Being intentionally selfish and petulant and wilfully damaging the environment because we don't feel "liked," is only making the US look even worse. We could instead show some stones by standing up and doing the right thing, not to be liked, but because it's the right thing to do. I don't want to believe "Get off my lawn!" has become the national motto.

[Xenophon]

But note that "legislating incandescent bulbs right off the shelves" isn't an optimum solution either. For example, the lightbulb in my unfinished attic hasn't been changed in more than 20 years -- it was there when we bought the house and has yet to burn out.

When it finally does burn out, it makes good economic sense to replace it with the bulb that has the cheapest up-front cost! It is used so rarely that the up-front cost absolutely dominates any possible energy savings from using a more efficient bulb. So why does it make sense to require me to replace it with a CFL at 5x the price (or more!)???

Xenophon

[Donnageddon]

Steve, I think we have already reached the point of no denial. While there will still be people who will never accept reality, I think most people are realizing that the ways of the last century are over. And those who deny that fact have little choice.

I don't see the age of irresponsibility having much of a chance for a robust comeback. We are hitting the wall, and now we have to find solutions that work to perform the triage.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain for some, but there is no choice. They are just gonna have to suck it up and rid themselves of their blinders.

The only other alternative is.... I don't want to contemplate the alternative. That is much more ugly.

[Donnageddon]

Xenophon, your example of the attic light bulb is an outlier. How many hours has that bulb been used? It may make sense economically to choose a cheap incandescent bulb only because it has little to no real overall effect.

But bulbs in the dinning room, bedroom, living room that are used much more frequently are prime candidates for CFL bulbs. Both economically in the long run, and in terms of energy savings on any time scale.

[Xenophon]

Of course it's an outlier. That was my point!

I would argue that educating people about the cost differences is likely to have more useful positive effect (and far smaller negative effect) than would legislating to hit the main case. Money talks loudly indeed. Tell people, and they listen.

Speaking of which, all frequently-used bulbs in my house have been fluorescent for a long long time now. But up-front costs still dominate for infrequently used bulbs. And will continue to do so for a fair while.

Xenophon