Sustainable?

What does it mean to be sustainable? Does it mean that we are able to support and maintain ourselves environmentally? Does it mean that we can support and maintain ourselves economically?

I would argue that it means both.

We can not charge ahead with environmental changes that we can not support in the long run economically.

This is illustrated in a recent study conducted at Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada. He points out that as we push towards “greener” sources of power the economy suffers. This is because governments typically subsidize green projects.

In fact they subsidize them extremely heavily. The end result is that organizations are being paid up to 11 times the going rate for comparable services and products if they make use of green products and energy sources.

Now the need to move towards environmentally friendly solutions seems to justify such aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, as in all aspects of life, there are consequences from such actions.

Every dollar that the government overspends on “green” solutions is a dollar that can not be applied to other projects – even green projects. In fact, Calzada calculates that every time a “green” job is created, 2-1/2 conventional jobs are lost because of the extra funding required.

This is simply not sustainable. When people lose their jobs they will be unable to pay to heat their homes. Do you think that they are thinking about what damage to the environment will occur if they light a fire or take some more drastic action?

As more money gets channeled towards “green” solutions, less people will be employed. As less people are employed, there will be less of a tax base to fund green projects. There will also be less money circulating in the economy.

Now Calzada is not arguing against green solutions – he’s arguing against the economic model currently used to achieve a “green” goal. That is, we have to achieve our goals at any cost.

Let’s take a look at such a goal.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order that a third of the California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2020.

Such a goal sounds worthy of pursuit – In fact it’s the kind of announcement that makes headlines and wins elections. But what damage will it do? Is it achievable? Is it sustainable?

Here’s an alternative approach to what Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to achieve.

What if Governor Schwarzenegger announced that the state would consume 1/3 less power by the year 2020?

Rather than spending money to build green power generating capacity on top of the current dirty generating capacity, why not work on reducing the amount of dirty power used. Would that not help the environment more? Would that not be more economically sound?

Energy conservation technology is constantly progressing – and it’s a lot more mature in its lifecycle than wind turbines and solar farms.

California could direct the fund planned for alternative energy and instead direct it towards conservation programs.

What kind of programs? Well to start the could plan on making subsidies, grants, and other forms of assistance available to organizations and individuals that:
• Get energy consumption audits done and act on the recommendations – improvements could include weather stripping, insulation, cleaning furnaces and ductwork, etc
• Purchase low power consuming appliances, computers, and other devices
• Use energy efficient or public transportation
• Employ energy reducing strategies such as telecommuting
• Build energy efficient buildings for homes and business
• The list could go on with so many places that we can conserve energy – it could be as simple as turning a thermostat down (or up in hot weather). All we need to do is give people the right incentives to reduce their power consumption.

As power consumption slowly drops over time there will be a need to replace old generating stations. At this point California could look at renewable resources. This will also give the technology time to mature and prices to drop.

The point is that we don’t need to ruin the economy to save the environment – in fact we can’t afford to. Any environmentally friendly plans that we set in place must also be economically sustainable. If they are, not only will economy thank us, but so will the environment.