Why “green” energy makes sense no matter what your view on climate change!
When it comes to green energy I’m something of oddity. I believe that energy efficiency is massively important but not for the much pushed issue of climate change in fact I think the constant push of the climate change argument is one of the greatest hindrances to adoption and change. Essentially if your argument for the change in energy consumption is based on this premise then if you fail to convince people of it then you will fail to get them to change their behaviour.
Everyone especially businesses and government understand the economic imperative, reduced costs equals greater profit from the same output. Green technologies should be adopted because they are more economically viable in the long term. This is the message that needs to be sent to the public and businesses.
Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute explains better why we should let the free market decide the future of energy consumption far better than I could.
Update: To clarify I am not saying that climate change isn’t real only that it’s difficult to convince people that it is attributable to human endeavours.
Bio for Amory B. Lovins
Cofounder and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory B. Lovins is a consultant experimental physicist educated at Harvard and Oxford. He has received an Oxford MA (by virtue of being a don), nine honorary doctorates, a MacArthur Fellowship, the Heinz, Lindbergh, Right Livelihood (”Alternative Nobel”), World Technology, and TIME Hero for the Planet awards, the Happold Medal, and the Nissan, Shingo, Mitchell, and Onassis Prizes. His work focuses on transforming the hydrocarbon, automobile, real estate, electricity, water, semiconductor, and several other sectors toward advanced resource productivity. He has briefed eighteen heads of state, held several visiting academic chairs, authored or co-authored twenty-nine books and hundreds of papers, and consulted for scores of industries and governments worldwide. Newsweek has praised him as “one of the Western world’s most influential energy thinkers”; and Car magazine ranked him the twenty-second most powerful person in the global automotive industry.
Campbell Scott | January 16th, 2009 at 8:12 am #
Anton,
Surprised by your scepticism, considering scientists are convinced – climate change is fact. Loads of great reading on the subject, and the drastic changes that are needed – but Hot, Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Freidman gives a great assessment and proposes a way to tackle the problem. http://soupireland.com/wordpress/?p=134
I take some of the arguments from the video, but the flaw to me is that energy companies need huge capital to burn coal and gas. To justify this, they promote demand for energy and price it cheap. They don’t invest in efficiency or pay for the clean up.
Campbell Scott | January 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am #
I didn’t think I’d be agreeing with Conservative policy.
Anton | January 16th, 2009 at 9:40 am #
@campbell
My argument isn’t that climate change isn’t real because it is and in fact it always has been. The unwinnable argument is that this is attributable to human factors. This cannot really be proved either way so therefore if it is used as the justification of your argument for adoption of green technologies and energy production, failure to convince people of this will end all possibility of adoption.
The problem you speak of is that they are “selling it cheap” because they have a reduced cost base because they are effectively or explicitly subsidised by the various governments. The REAL cost of this energy is far higher but we pay the cost in other ways (read tax). Obviously this isn’t the case with transport costs which we largely pay directly which is why we see more innovation in this area than any other.
As pointed out by Mr. Lovins the free market must decide this and the economic argument is a far more powerful one. Current fuel dynamics are changing because of economic forces not because of the “green” lobby.
Personally I think the most compelling argument (especially in the current environment) that will convince the largest number of people that this is a good idea is that it will save everybody loads of money and make them independant of other countries (and in some cases anyone at all) for energy resources.
Anton | January 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am #
Well if you take the argument that the Tories like free trade and private ownership then it actually makes sense that they would support these kind of initiatives.
It’s only because this has been the reserve of what people call “lefty tree hugger types” that there is any surprise at all. They have very different reasons for thinking this is a good idea though IMHO.
In the end I don’t think it makes any difference why people support these initiatives. The more people support these initiatives the more likely they are to happen.
Keith Shirley | January 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm #
I’m a fan of green energy but probably for many wrong reasons. I don’t care so much about climate change or the ozone layer or the next global disaster. I do think that wasting energy and waste in general is just stupid and we all need to play our own part. I do my best to conserve energy and do pay attention to food miles etc.
My attitude to global warming is quite clear – I don’t care if it’s true – it’s just wrong to keep pumping so much crap into the air.
I’m in the process of building a house and whenever I start asking questions about the economic viability of green technologies I get funny looks. I’m given the impression that a good world citizen would install solar panels – even if they don’t provide a return on my house. My answer – no. I’ll be installing plenty of insulation and try and hold in the energy in the first place. It’ll be an oil boiler for now and maybe Geo Thermal etc later when I can get clear answers and figures.
Anton | January 16th, 2009 at 5:22 pm #
@Keith
I don’t see why that’s a wrong reason. It’s just a different reason which is perfectly reasonable.