Greenwashing

Last night, not unlike any other night, an advertisement came on TV for how driving a particular brand of car would "save the world." The message is, succinctly, that if everyone just went out and bought "our brand of green" car, our environment would be saved, the climate wouldn't change, and we'd be independent from foreign oil.

These advertisements are only perpetuating the myth that we can become energy independent while remaining car dependent. In my opinion, this is a myth, and like the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause (sic), and Jesus, we like to believe in myths because they make us feel better about the realities we live in. But children get cavities from Easter candy. The second coming hasn't come. And the U.S. will never become energy independent from foreign oil. No matter how much we might wish, these are our realities.

Perpetuating the myth that we can continue our energy intensive lifestyles with low density resources is dangerous. I will stop short on the whole Jesus/Santa Claus thing -- my monologues are about energy and about how the way we are socially organized impacts that use. Yet myths are myths. The idea that if only we drove Priori we'd save the world is really nearsighted. It fails to recognize the idea that renewable energy is truly scarce and isn't concentrated. Renewable energy, so far, does not come to us packaged neatly inside a beer can or briefcase. It comes through acres of wind farms and solar panels and reservoirs, is difficult to store, and when stored it doesn't come with the same intensity as non-renewables. And most critically, the notion that renewables includes turkey gut and dairy digesters, corn ethanol plants, landfill methane plants and algae diesel fails to see these in the context that an oil/natural gas platform is required to sustain these. It also comes at a much greater cost. The idea that we can/will continue to run low density suburban sprawl on batteries powered by wind isn't an idea at all, it's a wish. Renewables, as currently understood, will not support such energy intensive endeavors as living 28 miles from work and getting our food 1,400 miles away on a normalized basis.

Elk Grove is the poster child of an unsustainable energy intensive living arrangement. It has no indigenous energy resources, no jobs, and no agriculture to speak of now that we paved over all arable land. That its population might drive 109,000 Priori in lieu of SUVs and by doing so is considered "green" is ludicrous. Remember -- the implementation of energy efficiency practices has only ever led to increased energy consumption, not less. What Elk Grovians and the rest of the U.S. must consider doing is consuming less energy overall if they truly intend on calling themselves green.

But that would require socially unacceptable social changes. And we won't. I accept this, and I'm smart enough to realize that while I might make a personal choice to consume less, I know that it only allows everyone else the opportunity to consume more. This is the way it's going to be, with or without all the greenwashing we do. In that context I consume less only to reduce my exposure based on my future belief that energy will become more expensive.

SMUD actively promotes greenwashing, too, with the not so subtle message that if you consume electricity between 4:00 and 7:00 you're little girl will live in an uninhabitable world:

Come on -- while SMUD will have to build capacity to deliver peak power, thereby increasing costs, the bottom line is that if we don't reduce overall consumption this is all really pointless. Shifting demand does not do that.