Being Green Is More Complicated Than It Appears

Just watching the news in any given day would give an alien who was just introduced to this planet an immediate understanding that environmentalism is becoming a hot issue. Most of the buzz revolves around global warming and the manmade emissions that are causing it. Unless you are in denial or willing to take risks with the only habitable planet we have, it’s obvious that something must be done. Individuals, corporations, and governments all have to do their part. Knowing what we should do is the difficult part. By virtue of being Americans, we already use much more energy per capita than probably 98% of people on the planet. And much of what we use is from driving.

Fuel economy is an important consideration even though light vehicles are responsible for less than the majority of the emissions that the U.S. emits. I’ve noticed that most vehicles are driven and occupied by only one person. Perhaps that means we should all drive one-seater vehicles such as scooters or motorcycles to work. But then these wouldn’t be safe. Where does one draw the line on environmentalism versus personal safety? Then there are people who might buy a Ford Excursion because they say they “need” it for their 4 kids. And the driver is getting 60 people-miles per gallon instead of 30 people-miles per gallon with an economy car. Well, perhaps having 4 kids is environmentally irresponsible. To be really green, you shouldn’t produce so many polluting beings. Regardless of family size, it’s not so simple. A person driving a Prius 25,000 miles a year pollutes the planet more than a person who drives a full-sized pick-up truck 5,000 miles a year. What many people don’t consider is the fact that the way you drive can have a huge impact on your fuel economy. We’re talking +/- 20%. Proper maintenance, including keeping air filters clean and tire pressures at appropriate levels, can account for 5% or so. Knowing all this makes it hard to understand who’s really doing their part. It is obvious that walking or using a bicycle is the greenest thing to do to get around.

Another seemingly insane but purely logical thing we could do is adjust our driving to help more inefficient vehicles maintain their speed so that they waste less fuel and pollute less. A more efficient vehicle having to accelerate or decelerate has less impact on the environment. By the same logic, pedestrians should consider letting vehicles go ahead of them. People don’t emit nearly as much pollution as vehicles do. What’s ironic about the whole concept of helping the user of the less environmentally sound vehicle for the greater good is that it rewards irresponsibility.

Yet, those people who buy seemingly environmentally conscious green vehicles such as a Prius or Civic hybrid are responsible for creating pollution to obtain products that reduce pollution. I have yet to see a thorough analysis on the energy it takes to develop, manufacture, and transport a new vehicle relative to the emissions reduction that occurs over the life of the vehicle relative to an older, more polluting vehicle. Of course there are limits. Cars from the 60’s pollute hundreds of times more than ones from the 90’s. And if nobody bought new cars, then there would be no efficient used cars to purchase. Automobile manufacturers would in turn have no incentive to innovate and improve efficiency. Government fuel economy standards help here, but they are inherently flawed. (That’s the topic of another blogpost on T.I.N..)

And now, with the advent of ethanol produced by corn, a new environmental dilemma has arisen. Do we sacrifice food crops so that we can convert them to fuel? Would this food ever get to the people who are hungry and need it anyway? And much of that land is inefficiently used to feed cattle who become beef. Besides, mining of coal or other petroleum sources sacrifices land that could be used for farming. I’ve seen conflicting studies on the impact of ethanol production on food crop production, but this is a totally new consideration. Add to that the argument that ethanol production may be “dirtier” than oil production?

Also, as our world has become increasingly global, we can buy almost anything from other parts of the world. Mangos are available in Canada, and most of the things we buy for cheap are shipped all the way over from China. Perhaps buying local would be more responsible, but that variety of international stuff we can buy would be hard to give up.

Being green is not simple or easy.

+ Atul

 

Comments

[Dan Boyd]

I am a conservationist and care a great deal about the environment but I respectfully disagree about global warming being caused by humans. Yeah I know there have been Hollywood movies about it and Nobel peace prizes based upon it but the research is at best inconclusive. Many scientists still disagree with the basic premise that human manufactured CO2 is the cause of global warming. In fact when you look at temperature data versus CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature always rises years before the CO2 levels do. This tells us that CO2 increases as a result of higher temperatures not the other way around. Temperatures have always fluctuated from decade to decade and we are now at the end of a high temperature phase so I am much more concerned with global cooling than warming. Heck if the temp in Florida and Texas rises a few more degrees maybe some of those people who relocated down there will move back and help Michigan's economy rebound.
That's my two cents anyway. Have a safe trip back.
Dan

[Atul]

Dan,

Thanks for the comment and sorry for the delay. I'm finally getting time to catch up on things. I respect your view on global warming that we're not causing it, but even if we're not, less pollution is a good thing. And using less energy and resources is a good thing. We don't have an extra Earth to experiment with to prove either one of us right or wrong. If global warming is happening naturally, our CO2 emissions are only making it worse.

An increase of a couple of degrees in Michigan might be good for us but it will cause massive land submersion and will force millions to move to higher ground. Then we'll have to help them. That would cause more human and economic hardship than creating environmental regulations. These may actually drive commerce from new technology development. I don't doubt that our economy can recover from such disturbances, but our earth may be getting to a tipping point because less ice reflects less heat and melts more ice.

[OfficialDebate.com]

Did you see that new Aspen Hybrid at the Industry Preview? I really liked it - not only was it a great SUV, it was fuel efficient, luxurious, and environmentally friendly. Do you think that the auto makers are now taken note? Do you think they are making greater strides in technology to combat these issues?

[Atul]

OD,

Sorry it took me a while to respond. For some reason, your comments didn't lead to an email notice.

As for the Aspen, I think most SUV's are wasteful and less safe because they tend to be heavier and taller without much appreciable utility. For people that need to carry 7 or 8 people and tow a boat or snowmobiles, then they make sense, but otherwise, stationwagons are better options. (You know I'm biased).

That being said, if this SUV uses less fuel than other ones, then it's a better alternative. The auto industry has painted themselves into a corner because they have gotten many of us addicted to SUV's but now they have very strict fuel economy targets they'll have to meet.