The world's financial and global warming/energy crises are connected because credit and fossil fuels are forms of leverage: oil, coal and natural gas are multipliers of labor in much the same way that credit is a multiplier of wealth.
The principal source of man-made greenhouse gases has always been prosperity.
The recession makes that relationship easy to see: shuttered factories don't spew carbon dioxide; the unemployed don't buy new cars and drive fewer miles in their old cars; struggling corporations and families cut back on travel and entertainment events. Gasoline consumption in the U.S. fell almost six percent in 2008. That was not the result of a sudden greening of the American consciousness but of the rapid rise in the price of oil during the first half of the year, followed by the full impact of the current economic crisis.
The United States is a country unlike others in the world where government and industry work together to develop products that can be sold globally.
One significant question for the U.S. government policy makers and automobile manufactureres is how knowledgeable and motivated consumers would act as new eco-vehicles are mass produced and available for worldwide purchase? Would mainstream automotive buyers continue to desire large energy consuming vehicles rather than more fuel-efficient and kinder-to-the-environment eco-vehicles? If the price of gasoline remains below $2.50 per gallon, will large gas-guzzling SUVs continue to be hot sellers while eco-vehicles sit on the sales lot?
The hope is that people across the globe will recognize that global warming is a life and death issue for future generations and that we must take necessary steps to change our automotive purchasing and usage behaviors to conserve the Earth's natural resources. To make this hope a reality will require a huge change in the way 'we see our world.'
The environment benefits of economic decline are fragile because they are vulnerable to intervention by governments; that want to put people back to work and get them buying non-necessities again. These government programs, intended to revive consumer spending and public investment projects (like new roads and airports), result in big carbon footprints.
Our best intentions regarding conservation and carbon reduction inevitably run up against the realities of foreclosure and bankruptcy and unemployment. The current energy crisis situation reminds me of the public debates in Sweden during the early 1980s when the country was developing a future energy policy based either on solar or nuclear energy creation. Everyone knew that the sun doesn't shine that much throughout the year in Sweden which makes solar energy impractical but it took a number of years for the public to reach a decision to develop countrywide nuclear power generation. In Sweden, at that time, most people in populated areas took mass transportation to work during the week and mainly drove their automobiles for pleasure on weekends and holidays.
American dependence on fossil fuels isn't going to end any time soon: solar panels and wind turbines provided only about a half percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2007, and they don't work when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Replacing oil is going to require more than determination.
The key question: How do we persuade people to drive less---an environmental necessity---while also encouraging them to revive our staggering economy by buying new cars (hopefully, while building mass transit infrastructures in metropolitan areas through federal government funding)?
Source: THE NEW YORKER, March 30, 2009