Cheney's paradox

Nicholas Kristof:

Dick Cheney once scoffed that energy conservation can be a “personal virtue” but is no basis for an energy policy. [...]

Mr. Cheney’s image seems to be of a dour stoic shivering in a cardigan in a frigid home, squinting under a dim light bulb, showering under a tiny trickle of (barely) solar-heated water, and then bicycling to work in the rain. If that’s the alternative, then many of us might be willing to see the oceans rise, whatever happens to Florida.

But new research has shown that improvements in energy efficiency often pay for themselves, actually leaving us better off.

Those who make themselves out to be 'serious' commentators might point us to Jevon's Paradox here and state that energy efficiency improvements are actually counterproductive since money freed up from our electric bill will go directly into purchasing consumer goods made using more electricity. Moreover, while some are getting filthy rich from the sheeple's faith in the first church of our savior Al Gore, the common man is forced to die in small cars.

Cheney's comments were meant to suggest that individual actions count for little since real progress towards efficiency can only be achieved on a societal level. Probably not something Kristof would disagree with since he takes it to the next logical conclusion:

McKinsey Global Institute put out a 290-page book in May detailing the steps necessary. These include better insulation and high-efficiency heating in new homes; low-energy light bulbs; high-efficiency appliances; and higher fuel economy standards for vehicles. To drive a mile in the U.S. typically takes 37 percent more gas than in Europe.

“The sheer waste of it all, when other countries have shown another path, is incredible,” notes Diana Farrell of McKinsey Global Institute. “The opportunities here are tremendous.”

The best way to encourage such steps would be to impose a carbon tax, although a cap-and-trade system is a reasonable backup. But we also need mandates. An air-conditioner that is 35 percent more energy efficient than the present standard costs 260 percent more — so few people buy it. But mandate that standard, and economies of scale immediately send the price plummeting.

The government also should encourage commercialization of plug-in hybrid vehicles, which could be plugged into a power outlet to charge the battery. Such vehicles don’t use any gas on short trips and might average 100 miles per gallon.

And here's where the difference between a wanker and a wonk comes in:

I can’t help feeling that we in the news media are part of the reason that steps to battle climate change aren’t on top of the national agenda. We’re good at covering things that happen on any one day — like a tornado or hurricane — but weak at covering complex trends, like climate change. And we tend to cover disputes by having a dutiful quote from each side, without always explaining where the scientific consensus lies.

The wanker is unfazed by the fact that (s)he gets up each morning to regurgitate yesterday's arguments about how it's all far too difficult to change our ways, and that those who say otherwise actually have alterior motives, and why do we even need to do anything anyway if China, India Rwanda, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Mali aren't either. The wonk looks beyond the mudslinging and attempts to propose workable strategies.

Though some might suggest that the media is actually exaggerating the global warming / energy production issue, the fact is that after years of falling victim to the words of the wankers, slowly things are changeing for the better. We still have a long way to go, but the real "alarmists" these days are those who make dire precitions of what will happen should we ever enact public policy that might actually save us a few gallons of gas or a few brickets of coal here and there.