The other shoe begins to drop on "Green"

As I have noted previously, the move toward sustainability and living "Green" is a great idea that I enthusiastically support. However, I have been concerned that much of the early technology that is coming available does not really live up to its promises. In many things, the only "green" is the color of the money people will be spending on it.

This article in the Washington Post is the most pointed I have seen to date, casting doubt on the effectiveness of some of the most widely accepted and eagerly anticipated technologies, like wind power and electric cars.

Good, affordable options for sustainable practice exist and should be utilized. Some technology is not as good as it will be one day, but continued support of some products and techniques will help bring better things to market. Think of your personal computer and how it has developed over the past 25 or so years. The early ones could do nothing like the current ones, but we had to buy the early ones to encourage development of today's machines. How many times in the past have you heard someone say they were hesitant to get a new computer because as soon as they got it, it would be out of date? You can't wait forever, so at some point you have to upgrade. It's like that with the technology of sustainability. We know some things, like electric cars, will be much better one day, but we won't get there if we don't embrace the technology available today.

And some supposedly "Green" technology is just in the way. Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL's), for instance. I railed against them before so I won't repeat myself much here, but they are an old technology that leads us nowhere but to compromised environmental quality. They have excellent marketing, however.

What we take from this is the validation of taking a thoughtful approach to sustainability. Not everything should be taken at face value.

Comments

[installing irrigation systems]

Yeah, everyone talks about "green power" and so fourth, however, and like commented above, little is done due to the oil madness. And that's really too bad for us. There are so many things we as people and our governments can do to establish a green (or at least greenER) economy, society, community and earth, but we just choose not to. Money always wins. In any case, interesting blog, love the picture. :)

[Jeff Siegel]

Norm, that bit in the Post about wind power was silly, plan and simple. Yes, wind requires transmission lines. What electrical source doesn't? No, wind doesn't blow all the time, and that is acknolwedged as a problem and solutions are being developed. Is wind perfecxt? No, but look at the alternatives. We can build nuclear and keep the waste around forever and chance another Chernobyl. Or we can build wind, and the worst thing that will happen is that the wind won't blow.

When you and I were kids, solar was said to be just around the corner. In fact, solar technology has advanced very little in the past 30 years, because we've been obsessed with oil. Why bother to spend time and money developing solar when our tax structure, government and culture is based around drilling for oil?