The Sustainability "Debate"

Wikipedia has a "Sustainability Debate Guide". This is one of the questions:

What is the connection between global warming and sustainability? Is global warming a moral or engineering problem?

One answer they post:

“The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.” (Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, Wednesday, July 5, 2006 p. A13)

I think that that approach reflects the sort of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. It's the idea of elevating technology and industry over valuing life and even common sense.

There could certainly be some engineering answers that would be helpful, like alternative, non-fossil fuel (including non-nuclear) energy sources, as well as super-efficient homes, cars, and other products. But some of that exists now and people don't use them when they are available - some don't know about them.

The moral question is a matter of values. Of sustainability being a priority. Of people being willing to sacrifice some measure of comfort for the well-being of the whole. Part of that solution is a matter of more individual action - but also a matter of public policy that is almost completely at odds to what we have now. That public policy needs to reflect a new morality. Public policy - ie. laws and incentives should reward those people and companies that are creating and using solutions and punish those who are not—who continue to pollute needlessly. You might think that that is being done now - but it isn't.

Energy companies are being rewarded for doing the same things they have always done. And there is no expectation that they improve their methods.

Pollution at the levels that are currently being allowed should not be tolerated. The EPA had laws that would have reduced pollution from coal plants by 90%. The Bush administration rolled back the enforcement of those laws another 15 or so years. The technology exists NOW to reduce the pollution - including the mercury pollution of coal plants - through the existing engineering solution of "scrubbers" (this solution has been around for 25+ years). It takes government policy and it's enforcement to make the use of the engineering solutions happen.

The majority of citizens are in favor of having pollution reduction solutions implemented. The polluters are not in favor. The polluters are paying off the politicians so that the policy is not implemented. The politicians and polluters who are responsible should all be held accountable. That would be a demonstration of values and morality.

Thomas Linzey made the argument that our laws and government was set up with the intention of favoring the rich. It was essentially set up so that the rich get richer and the poor get pollution. Of course pollution affects everybody - and global warming will also affect everyone. Some people want to put a rosy face on it and say that it will improve the climate in some places. And that may be so in limited cases. But in the meantime - many species will go extinct from not being able to adapt - plus the food supply and water supply - besides the the health of the planet and therefore, ourselves will increasingly be adversely affected.

The time to create solutions and implement actions is not 20 years down the road when the state of the planet is much worse -but right now (25 years ago when people were talking about these same things would have been a better time).

It's like health care. New solutions are created to solve problems all the time - but the ones that exist are not even necessarily being used by the majority of people - they are out of the reach of affordability. If engineers create solutions that are not going to be used - because their use is not supported by the government - because the gov't continues to subsidize unhealthy and irresponsible practices - they are of no use at all. If anything should be subsidized - it is the solutions - not the problems. We need a way to make the solutions affordable.

The mentality of those in power to believe that the wonderful inventions of the age are for THEIR benefit - for THEIR glorification and power-enhancement does not work with the sustainable morality mentality. That mentality requires that solutions be implemented across the globe - across all economic levels - and that people give up their illusions of granduer based on having more and better stuff than other people.

I think rationing would be a good idea. Everyone would get so many energy units to heat or cool/cook with/etc. and people will have to buy/build houses that can be heated/cooled with their allotted units. Instead of building horribly inefficient and monstrous houses. It may come to pass that single-familiy houses now that are big enough for 10 families will come to house 10 families who could pool their heating rations.

We need a morality based on simplicity and health - for ourselves and the planet. It is the opposite of the consumerist more-is-better mentality that is peddled in the USA.
____________________________