A couple of days ago I was flipping through tv channels when I came across this show that was just beginning; the show was about biofuel, and the presenter listing the different points of the show went on about how they would talk about how cost-effective biofuel is and whether the outcome justifies the cost.
This is an approach that I’ve been seeing in a number of places by a number of people, and I’m totally against it, because we don’t really have an option anymore; this is not a business issue where you evaluate what you’re going to get out of doing something, compare it to what you’re putting in and then decide what to do; this is a totally different ball game, whatever the cost, we have to act!
Through years of ignoring nature and scientific facts we’ve driven our planet to the brink of chaos and disaster, and if we don’t act fast to come up with and use alternative sources of energy, it won’t be long before we lose the most precious thing we can leave for our children and future generations: a habitable planet to live on.
So instead of asking whether the price is justified, we should ask how we can make it affordable and accessible for more people, because the justification is stronger than any there could ever be, and there is no need to even think of discussing it.
This is a fantastic post Subzero and reflects a true and genuine awareness. We have to act and the technologies are being developed and it will be a matter of time since it becomes economically feasible. The main point is that Arab countries, especially the rich gulf should be able to invest in cleaner technologies before time runs out and all new technologies will be owned by Europeans. Most of the Gulf states (except UAE) are still ignorant. Countries like Tunisia, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt have progressed in technologies but still lack proper funding.
Economics are a good guideline to allocate resources. So, when we think of biofuel, we think of agriculture. Growing fuel yielding plants will either displace food crops, or clearing of natural vegetation cover (like in the Amazon rain forest). Displacing food growing will increase prices and thus increase hunger around the world. Clearing rain forests is a disaster on many levels, reducing biodiversity and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
The point is that I agree that we should change. The only feasible approach to sustainable life on this planet is to use less. Economic tools will need to be used to achieve this.
Good post!
Khalaf,
Displacing food growing will increase prices and thus increase hunger around the world.
I don’t agree. The US has been subsidizing farming for over 20 years. That means that the US government pays farmers to grow crops, because farming generally isn’t economically viable, without the subsidies. The US government also buys vast quantities of produce, which it then ship overseas in the form of food aid. A way to make farming more profitable would be an immensely good thing. And farm crops also produce oxygen, and consume CO2. So there’s even a plus in that regard. I don’t really see the downside. It may reduce the amount of food that the US can export (we are the largest exporter of food in the world) but it’s about damn time some other regions of the world learn how to at least produce enough food to feed their own populations. Wouldn’t you say?
The only feasible approach to sustainable life on this planet is to use less.
People have been saying that for 30 years. I don’t think it’s going to happen. Particularly as India and China become more and more industrialized. I don’t know about India, but China has been grossly negligent with basic health issues on many of their exports… I don’t really see China as becoming great environmentalists, any time soon.