Less bad ain’t good (19-October-2009)
Some recent positive economic news is being met with some skepticism, especially along the lines that mere decreases in revenue loss or job loss do not constitute bona-fide gains. Seems obvious, but somehow the same thinking does not seem to be occurring with respect to sustainability, where new products, transitions to solar and wind power, and decreased automotive emissions are perceived as “earth friendly” or “good for the environment.” Nonsense. Less bad may be better, but it ain’t good. Recycling just means less waste, not zero waste. Solar power still requires someone to manufacture the panels. Hybrids still burn gas, and they still wear tires, and “earth friendly” products still require manufacturing facilities, transportation, packaging. No way is the entire lifecycle of every one of those dependencies earth friendly. Not even close.
Granted, from a total impact standpoint, most forms of alternative energy are overall better than fossil fuels, and the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that completely eliminating “waste” is impossible. Still, it’d be nice to see fewer people dislocating their shoulders in self-congratulation over how green this guilt-free facade on consumerism is.
