I totally agree that in those places where we can make use of existing organic waste to lessen our fossil fuel use, we should do so. And with haste. And though I know this can make me seem very negative (even though I'm quite a nice person to be around... I think... errr... back me up on that someone), I do make a point of countering the "cornucopian" view presented by a lot of the media.
I've seen too many news items about the latest hydrogen car that'll get us 200 miles between fill-ups and emit nothing but water vapour (cue: clip of mercedes CEO drinking water condensed from the tailpipe of the prototype car). "It's cleaner than tapwater" he announces truthfully.
But this 3 minute piece of industry propaganda masquerading as "business news" paints a future where we need do no more than ensure we can afford a new hydrogen-car when they go on sale. It says "Business As Usual (just a bit more space age)" in big neon letters. (You need your "They Live!"-shades on to see it.)
And that's a dangerous lie.
Of course i'm not talking about you or I discussing the possibilities here; wondering "what if...?" I'm talking about the hundreds of millions spent marketing this lie in order to keep consumers consuming. *That's* the big dangerous lie.
And though I didn't see the Clarkson thing, I bet it heavily implied the 'business as usual' message throughout the whole segment (or am I doing Jezza an injustice?) In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it ended with a shot of Clarkson talking to camera. "So it may not outperform petrol, but at least there'll always be plenty around..." (camera pulls back to reveal he's in a field next to a cow) "... so long as Daisy keeps producing her brown gold." (dubbed-in squelchy "cow-shitting" noise to punctuate).
Sorry. The scene was so vivid in my mind, I had to share it. I'm sure the segment wasn't really so crass.
My point (I did have one) is that something like biodiesel could be a great, even necessary, tool in bringing about a "soft landing" (as opposed to a crash). It may allow, e.g., some agricultural tasks to remain mechanised (at the expense of an increased input of human labour in the fuel production process).
Where appropriate, wind/solar power could be used to run efficient communal refrigeration centres where people could store their food (for a percentage of the produce stored... for those maintaining the centres). The absence of large distribution systems will mean far more people growing smaller quantities of food than currently. But the energy wasted having an inefficient fridge in each house is unsustainable.
Anyways, there's a million specific applications appropriate for different alternative energies. But people need to grasp that the wealth of energy offered to us in the form of fossil fuels is vast. Completely without precedent. It's what allows us to live this opulent lifestyle. And when it starts running out, we're not going to be able to replace *most* of what it currently provides. If planned right, that doesn't have to be a terrible thing. If we just stumble into it, though, I can't imagine it being anything other than a terrible thing.
What we squandered in our quest for a planetful of plastic shite, was one of the most powerful tools we've ever had access to. Spent wisely it may have taken us to the stars. It could have solved world poverty in a snap. All it needed was the will, and the organisation. The resources we had.
Now though, we desperately need that will and organisation just to prevent a catastrophe.
Because we've done other stuff with our wealth. Blew it on a very loud, intoxicating party (formerly the emphasis was on party, latterly it's mostly been toxic). And while far from the end of humanity (unless some idiot in a lab somewhere fucks up), we have to accept that modern civilisation (for want of a better word) is coming to an end in its current form. Clarkson's enthusiasm for cowshit notwithstanding.
|
