With all due respect to Al ...

With all due respect to Al Gore, and his plan to stimulate the economy via putting the nation to work with the new "green" technologies:

I like Al. I’m glad he’s alerted us to the problem of global climate change. I thoroughly enjoyed his book, Earth in the Balance. But now that we know about the problem, and the causes of the problem, it seems to me that it would make more sense just to do what needs to be done to solve the problem. Government and technology can’t solve the problem for us; the problem is that we consume too much.

Knowing what I do of Al’s research, I’m sure that he has the best of intentions. I don’t really think that he has any ulterior motives. I just think that he’s been "bred" to believe a little too much in the power of public policy. Otherwise he’d stop consuming so much.

I wonder if he’s stopped to think about just how much environmental damage will be done in the process of implementing all those clean energy programs. And a new national electric grid, even a so-called smart grid (one that encourages us to use less energy during peak-usage hours), sounds a lot like tearing down a perfectly good old system (one that has limits), to replace it with one that will enable us to consume even more energy across the board. The problem isn’t that there’s something wrong with the old grid; the problem is that we’re plugging more and more increasingly unnecessary devices into it. As we continue down this road, always trying to get more for less, we should be aware that regardless of what government does, sooner or later, we’re going to hit a dead end. Al’s a very bright guy. I’m surprised that he doesn’t see this.

The recent economic downturn has done more good for the environment than the efforts of all us "environmentalists" combined. We should go with the flow and encourage those who are concerned with a failing economy to get used to it.

Economic growth and environmental sustainability are not compatible, pure and simple. Add more people, and we’re going to have to learn to live on less. The world is round and has physical limitations in which the ingenuity of humans cannot escape. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we disconnected from localized environmental constraints which kept our populations in check and confined our material wealth to realistic measures. What’s happening now is that our surpassing of localized natural checks and balances has propelled us to the outer rim of the system’s boundary limits. Now, we have nowhere left to go but back to the basics, one way or another.

I agree that Al’s one of the “good guys,” insofar as he is doing his part to do what he is good at in the best interest of the environment. I merely use his personal consumption habits as a means to keeping things in their proper perspective, and as a means for suggesting how we may best use the information he brings us.

In other words, the new “green” initiatives which the new congress is touting will make no more or less of a difference in terms of environmental sustainability, unless we also return to a simpler, more frugal lifestyle. Contrary to popular belief, public policy doesn’t lead the way on the most critical issues; it follows.

The advantage we have in having Al speak of environmental concerns is that he is in an excellent political position to communicate the message that we have a problem. The disadvantage is that he hasn’t actually come forward with the solution. Most of us know instinctively what needs to be done. I suspect even Al is haunted by the possibility that our technologies may not outpace the looming catastrophe. But as a politician, the same as any other politician, he will not speak of his doubts, because that would be bad for the economy. (The economy, of course, is much more important than fresh air, food or water.) And we all know what happens to politicians who do not promise more of everything for everybody; it is the same for anyone of stature who does not deliver a positive message. Chances are we would never hear from him again. He would become irrelevant … like you and me.

So, the message is, and always will be, “here’s how we can get more, for less.” And the lunacy continues.