It is February 16th and Bend just emerged from a long-overdue snowstorm that felled powerlines and dumped 6-10 inches of wet, heavy snow on the city. With the road up to campus being what it is, a steep climb up Awbrey Butte, campus was closed for the day and all classes were cancelled. I took the opportunity to spend the day with my family, unplugged as it were, and enjoy the forced serenity. As avid backpackers in our pre-child lives my wife and I are quite accustomed to providing for ourselves, so we ran down a primitive checklist to adjust for our loss of power.
Woodstove--check
Oil lamps, candles and headlamps--check
Alternative refrigeration (snow)--check
Water (faucet and or snow)--check
We thoroughly enjoyed our day together. Snowball fights and sledding in the morning, in for a lunch break with soup warmed on the woodstove, back out for some ski touring in the afternoon. When we returned home to find the power still off we gathered our various light sources and got to the business of cleaning up after a day of play (sponge baths using water heated on the woodstove) and preparing dinner. We enjoyed a meal by candle light, after which my son and I checked on all the neighbors to ensure they would be warm enough for the cold night ahead. Then it was back to the house where we snuggled up next to the stove for bedtime stories illuminated by the soft glow of the oil lamp.
After tucking our son into bed I took a quick walk around the block to see how folks were fairing. As I walked through darkened streets I was struck by the tranquility, the peace of the situation. Freshly fallen snow, houses darkened to one or two rooms warmly lit by candles, and no spastic radiance of images exploding from television screens. Families and housemates huddled together telling stories, playing games, and reading; experiencing each other and existing firmly in the moment. I've never seen my neighborhood more beautiful.
At some point in the night I awoke to an orange glow in the hallway and jumped out of bed thinking I had overstuffed the woodstove and inadvertently set the living room on fire. Instead I found that electricity had been restored to several lamps we'd turned on the previous morning. With wits fully gathered I had the strange sensation that the lights were harshly invading my previously idyllic evening.
The most poignant moment came the next morning as we arose for breakfast. The custom in our house is for my son to climb into our bed for a brief snuggle before dragging me out to get breakfast started. We trudge down the hallway together, check the woodstove for live coals and flip on the kitchen lights. When the light came on my son looked shocked, and he was visibly upset that we weren't using the candles and lanterns from the night before. Rather than get into a senseless debate with him I lit some candles and doused the lights.
His protest marked an important distinction. We don't often turn on the lights because we need the harsh electric light they provide, we turn them on because they are a more convenient alternative to other sources of light. That convenience comes at a price, however, for the simplicity, warmth and kinship other choices allow. These same issues apply to many of the choices we make as a modern society, where we often equate convenience to progress. In my view this is a poor calculation.
Beyond the obvious (and oft cited) natural resource and economic tradeoffs, we make significant human concessions in our obsession with convenience and speed. I was more in touch with my fellow neighbors during this experience precisely because some things we take for granted were no longer available. We shared smiles and laughter about our predicament, excitement about the prospects and a common bond through offers of assistance. We all emerged from it nonetheworse for wear, and I'll bet many of my neighbors felt the same mix of relief and disappointment I did when power was restored.
All of this is to say that moving forward to a sustainable future will most likely involve slowing down, and may involve looking backward to a time when simplicity and function were more important than expediency and convenience. Doing so may provide us with extraordinary opportunities to reconnect with ourselves, our loved ones and our communities; to build a sense of common purpose and unity of spirit. Our society lacks these characteristics today, and whether or not we achieve them will largely depend on our ability to learn from fleeting moments of perceived crisis and seeing the world with the same innocence, creativity and exhuberance as our children do.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Friday, November 19, 2010
Musings on Energy, Technology and Policy
A colleague of mine recently forwarded an article from The Atlantic that focused on resolving the climate crisis via technological advancements in energy production and emissions control (the article can be found here http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/tech-will-solve-the-climate-crisis-faster-than-laws/66696/). Like so many of our contemporary discussions the author frames the energy/climate debate as a simple dichotomy, wherein we must adopt one of two positions:
1. support for availability and adoption of technology as a more expedient and effective way to address the issue.
2. support for heavy-handed top-down legislation that prescribes acceptable pollution levels and the appropriate means to achieve them.
Here is the response I made to the author's blog:
While the author above makes several good points there are key pieces missing from the conversation. First, a substantial part of the problem, demand, is only tangentially related to technology. One of the key issues in the energy "debate" is how to meet current demand, but that question skips an important first step in any comprehensive energy analysis, which is how to reduce demand to the greatest extent possible at lowest cost. So far our society and its' leaders appear to be focused on asking how we can maintain the status quo, where the average American household consumes approximately 10,000 KwH annually. This figure represents a significant amount of wasted energy, which coincidentally can be said about energy generation, energy storage, and energy transport systems as well. We can't even begin to have a reasonable discussion about how to meet demand until we determine how much we actually NEED.
An example of this comes from LEED certified buildings which are certified at various levels to meet energy and environmental performance standards that go beyond (in some cases well beyond) state and federal code. Recent analyses conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab (and others) on actual performance of LEED certified buildings has clearly demonstrated that buildings often under-perform in comparison to their projected savings and installed technologies. One of the key reasons for this low performance has nothing to do with the technology installed but rather HOW PEOPLE USE IT. Individuals can use technologies designed to be more energy efficient in inefficient ways, based largely on societal norms, perceptions of energy abundance and ingrained behavior patterns.
I agree with the author's main premise here: that technology, and specifically technology that originates in the private sector, will likely result in faster change than top-down regulatory approaches. But while availability and adoption of new energy technologies is a necessary component of resolving the energy/climate crisis it is not sufficient for resolving those issues alone. In fact, it is likely that widespread adoption of new technologies in the absence of significant behavioral change will cause as many problems as it "resolves".
End response.
In my view the correct characterization of this debate is not "technology first" versus "technology only", but rather a logical stepwise progression involving:
1. An honest assessment of why energy demand is so high. Where is energy being used, and more importantly where (and how much) is energy being wasted?
2. Examination of the most cost-effective ways to reduce demand and accurate assessment of demand reduction potential.
3. Reduce demand to the greatest extent possible. In some cases this may involve adoption of energy-saving technologies, but that should be secondary to CHANGING A CULTURE OF OVERUSE.
4. Recalculate energy demand and determine which technologies are best for achieving a sustainable (economically, environmentally and socially) energy supply.
The question then becomes what role government should play in this process. Is it an appropriate role of government to develop programs designed to educate citizens about energy use and conservation? If not, who should spearhead this effort and in what ways?
It turns out that the current debate is simply a modern-day extension of an old debate that has gone unresolved (like so many in politics). Although there is disagreement about the exact date of this address, approximately 100 years ago Theodore Roosevelt had this to say to the Deep Waterway Convention ( Memphis, TN, October 4, 1907):
"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental
problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us
little to solve all others."
Roosevelt's mind was on issues other than energy when he gave this address, but the message has bearing on the topic of energy today. Specifically, until we learn to use resources more wisely we will simply compound our problems by focusing on other solutions. The national discourse on energy would be greatly improved if we could get all Americans, citizens and leaders alike, on the same page when it comes to energy supply and energy demand. If we could somehow develop an American awareness today of what Roosevelt knew a century ago, namely that our resources are not inexhaustable, we could begin a more informed discussion of what to do about it.
1. support for availability and adoption of technology as a more expedient and effective way to address the issue.
2. support for heavy-handed top-down legislation that prescribes acceptable pollution levels and the appropriate means to achieve them.
Here is the response I made to the author's blog:
While the author above makes several good points there are key pieces missing from the conversation. First, a substantial part of the problem, demand, is only tangentially related to technology. One of the key issues in the energy "debate" is how to meet current demand, but that question skips an important first step in any comprehensive energy analysis, which is how to reduce demand to the greatest extent possible at lowest cost. So far our society and its' leaders appear to be focused on asking how we can maintain the status quo, where the average American household consumes approximately 10,000 KwH annually. This figure represents a significant amount of wasted energy, which coincidentally can be said about energy generation, energy storage, and energy transport systems as well. We can't even begin to have a reasonable discussion about how to meet demand until we determine how much we actually NEED.
An example of this comes from LEED certified buildings which are certified at various levels to meet energy and environmental performance standards that go beyond (in some cases well beyond) state and federal code. Recent analyses conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab (and others) on actual performance of LEED certified buildings has clearly demonstrated that buildings often under-perform in comparison to their projected savings and installed technologies. One of the key reasons for this low performance has nothing to do with the technology installed but rather HOW PEOPLE USE IT. Individuals can use technologies designed to be more energy efficient in inefficient ways, based largely on societal norms, perceptions of energy abundance and ingrained behavior patterns.
I agree with the author's main premise here: that technology, and specifically technology that originates in the private sector, will likely result in faster change than top-down regulatory approaches. But while availability and adoption of new energy technologies is a necessary component of resolving the energy/climate crisis it is not sufficient for resolving those issues alone. In fact, it is likely that widespread adoption of new technologies in the absence of significant behavioral change will cause as many problems as it "resolves".
End response.
In my view the correct characterization of this debate is not "technology first" versus "technology only", but rather a logical stepwise progression involving:
1. An honest assessment of why energy demand is so high. Where is energy being used, and more importantly where (and how much) is energy being wasted?
2. Examination of the most cost-effective ways to reduce demand and accurate assessment of demand reduction potential.
3. Reduce demand to the greatest extent possible. In some cases this may involve adoption of energy-saving technologies, but that should be secondary to CHANGING A CULTURE OF OVERUSE.
4. Recalculate energy demand and determine which technologies are best for achieving a sustainable (economically, environmentally and socially) energy supply.
The question then becomes what role government should play in this process. Is it an appropriate role of government to develop programs designed to educate citizens about energy use and conservation? If not, who should spearhead this effort and in what ways?
It turns out that the current debate is simply a modern-day extension of an old debate that has gone unresolved (like so many in politics). Although there is disagreement about the exact date of this address, approximately 100 years ago Theodore Roosevelt had this to say to the Deep Waterway Convention ( Memphis, TN, October 4, 1907):
"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental
problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us
little to solve all others."
Roosevelt's mind was on issues other than energy when he gave this address, but the message has bearing on the topic of energy today. Specifically, until we learn to use resources more wisely we will simply compound our problems by focusing on other solutions. The national discourse on energy would be greatly improved if we could get all Americans, citizens and leaders alike, on the same page when it comes to energy supply and energy demand. If we could somehow develop an American awareness today of what Roosevelt knew a century ago, namely that our resources are not inexhaustable, we could begin a more informed discussion of what to do about it.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Transportation Solutions
The following is an excerpt from an article I recently submitted to Central Oregon and Southern Oregon Magazines (for the full article you'll have to purchase the June issue of those magazines). The article focused on "green" transportation options and provided an overview of what is currently available. We can use this excerpt, which is not an exhaustive list, to jump-start a discussion of the various transportation options we have for reducing oil dependence. Most importantly, I'd like to here from you what approaches you support and which you are most likely to implement on your own.
Beginning of Excerpt
Hybrids
Hybrid Strengths:
• Excellent fuel economy and emissions
• Good drivetrain performance from most models
• Self-charging
• Excellent for trips longer than 15 minutes
• Mainstream styling
• Excellent reliability
• Tax incentives
Hybrid Weaknesses:
• Some models with narrow tires may suffer from above average “sway” when cornering or in high winds. This has not affected vehicle safety, but it may be an issue for driver performance preferences. Test drive a few different models to get an accurate feel for handling.
• Hybrid system charge-up time. Plug-in versions will address this issue, as will “series” hybrids like the Chevy Volt.
• Limited tow capacity for mid-sized SUVs compared to non-hybrid models.
• Cost-premium.
Best Bets
Sedans: Toyota Prius
Honda Insight
Ford Fusion
Small SUV: Ford Escape Hybrid
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Large SUV: Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid
Pickup: Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra Hybrid
Upcoming: Chevy Volt (late 2010/2011)
Electric Cars
Advantages of Electric Vehicles
• Increasingly available in mainstream designs
• Quick, agile and fun to drive
• Zero emissions and zero fuel
• Quiet
• Low maintenance cost
Disadvantages
• Require charging stations which are not widely available (yet)
• Reduced driving range
• Requires electricity (can be addressed by renewable energy generation or credit programs)
Best Bets:
Most of the really appealing electric car models won’t be available until late 2010 (if not longer). There are a few small production models available if you simply have to have an electric car now, but most if not all of them will be special order. For an excellent review of current and anticipated models visit http://www.hybridcars.com/electric-car.
Currently available:
ZAP Zebra-3-wheel two seater
Zenn
Miles ZX40S
Wheego Whip
Meyers Motors NMG-3 wheel single passenger
Tesla Roadster
Coming soon:
Nissan Leaf (available by reservation)
Ford Focus EV (2011)
Coda (2010)
Tesla Model S (2011)
Clean Diesel
Many diesel-powered vehicles available today come close to the fuel economy of hybrids without the uber-complicated technology. The bulk of these vehicles use advanced diesel emissions technology, a far cry from the smelly, dirty diesel engines of old. In fact, emissions from Mercedes Bluetec engines are cleaner than some gasoline engines.
Advantages of Diesel
• Superior torque compared to gasoline engines
• Excellent fuel economy
• Advanced emissions control available
• Lower price premium than hybrids
• Durable engine technology
• Flexible fuel choices (biodiesel)
Disadvantages
• Engine noise
• Fuel odor
• More expensive than gas
Best Bets
Sedans:
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
Audi A3 TDI
Mercedes E320 Bluetec
SUVs:
Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD
Volkswagen Toureg TDI
Mercedes ML 320 Bluetec
PZEVs and other Fuels
Consumers hoping to get into the green vehicle market don’t necessarily have to shell out extra shekels for a hybrid or clean diesel. Following on the heels of hybrids many car companies began applying superior emissions control technology to standard models. These vehicles produce zero evaporative emissions from the fuel system and meet Super Low Emissions Vehicle standards. The one exception to this group is the Honda Civic GX, which is powered by compressed natural gas (CNG).
Advantages of PZEVs
• Lower cost premium than hybrids with similar emissions benefits
• Wide availability
• Comfortable technology
Disadvantages
• Has no positive impact on fuel economy
• Still rely on gasoline
Best Bets:
There are over 60 PZEV vehicles currently offered in the United States with representation from every major manufacturer. We suggest you check with your local dealer about PZEV models in stock.
Electric Motorcycles:
Zero Motorcycles-Street, dirt and dual-sport models available.
Brammo Enertia Cycle-Street version.
Electric Motorsport-street and dual-sport models.
Scooters:
X-treme electric mopeds (various models)
eGO Vehicles
Powered bicycles:
EZEE bikes
Schwinn electric
Ultramotor
Ecobikes
End of Excerpt
There are certainly other options available, particularly in the arena of alternative fuels, so let's use this as a launching point for a broader discussion. I cut much of the text out of this excerpt, so if you have questions about any of the options listed above I'm happy to answer them here.
For my own part, I will be researching conversion of my current vehicle to compressed natural gas (CNG) and will report the results here. I'd like to begin a discussion about the relative merits of our transportation options, and specifically what actions you are most likely to take.
Beginning of Excerpt
Hybrids
Hybrid Strengths:
• Excellent fuel economy and emissions
• Good drivetrain performance from most models
• Self-charging
• Excellent for trips longer than 15 minutes
• Mainstream styling
• Excellent reliability
• Tax incentives
Hybrid Weaknesses:
• Some models with narrow tires may suffer from above average “sway” when cornering or in high winds. This has not affected vehicle safety, but it may be an issue for driver performance preferences. Test drive a few different models to get an accurate feel for handling.
• Hybrid system charge-up time. Plug-in versions will address this issue, as will “series” hybrids like the Chevy Volt.
• Limited tow capacity for mid-sized SUVs compared to non-hybrid models.
• Cost-premium.
Best Bets
Sedans: Toyota Prius
Honda Insight
Ford Fusion
Small SUV: Ford Escape Hybrid
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Large SUV: Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid
Pickup: Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra Hybrid
Upcoming: Chevy Volt (late 2010/2011)
Electric Cars
Advantages of Electric Vehicles
• Increasingly available in mainstream designs
• Quick, agile and fun to drive
• Zero emissions and zero fuel
• Quiet
• Low maintenance cost
Disadvantages
• Require charging stations which are not widely available (yet)
• Reduced driving range
• Requires electricity (can be addressed by renewable energy generation or credit programs)
Best Bets:
Most of the really appealing electric car models won’t be available until late 2010 (if not longer). There are a few small production models available if you simply have to have an electric car now, but most if not all of them will be special order. For an excellent review of current and anticipated models visit http://www.hybridcars.com/electric-car.
Currently available:
ZAP Zebra-3-wheel two seater
Zenn
Miles ZX40S
Wheego Whip
Meyers Motors NMG-3 wheel single passenger
Tesla Roadster
Coming soon:
Nissan Leaf (available by reservation)
Ford Focus EV (2011)
Coda (2010)
Tesla Model S (2011)
Clean Diesel
Many diesel-powered vehicles available today come close to the fuel economy of hybrids without the uber-complicated technology. The bulk of these vehicles use advanced diesel emissions technology, a far cry from the smelly, dirty diesel engines of old. In fact, emissions from Mercedes Bluetec engines are cleaner than some gasoline engines.
Advantages of Diesel
• Superior torque compared to gasoline engines
• Excellent fuel economy
• Advanced emissions control available
• Lower price premium than hybrids
• Durable engine technology
• Flexible fuel choices (biodiesel)
Disadvantages
• Engine noise
• Fuel odor
• More expensive than gas
Best Bets
Sedans:
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
Audi A3 TDI
Mercedes E320 Bluetec
SUVs:
Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD
Volkswagen Toureg TDI
Mercedes ML 320 Bluetec
PZEVs and other Fuels
Consumers hoping to get into the green vehicle market don’t necessarily have to shell out extra shekels for a hybrid or clean diesel. Following on the heels of hybrids many car companies began applying superior emissions control technology to standard models. These vehicles produce zero evaporative emissions from the fuel system and meet Super Low Emissions Vehicle standards. The one exception to this group is the Honda Civic GX, which is powered by compressed natural gas (CNG).
Advantages of PZEVs
• Lower cost premium than hybrids with similar emissions benefits
• Wide availability
• Comfortable technology
Disadvantages
• Has no positive impact on fuel economy
• Still rely on gasoline
Best Bets:
There are over 60 PZEV vehicles currently offered in the United States with representation from every major manufacturer. We suggest you check with your local dealer about PZEV models in stock.
Electric Motorcycles:
Zero Motorcycles-Street, dirt and dual-sport models available.
Brammo Enertia Cycle-Street version.
Electric Motorsport-street and dual-sport models.
Scooters:
X-treme electric mopeds (various models)
eGO Vehicles
Powered bicycles:
EZEE bikes
Schwinn electric
Ultramotor
Ecobikes
End of Excerpt
There are certainly other options available, particularly in the arena of alternative fuels, so let's use this as a launching point for a broader discussion. I cut much of the text out of this excerpt, so if you have questions about any of the options listed above I'm happy to answer them here.
For my own part, I will be researching conversion of my current vehicle to compressed natural gas (CNG) and will report the results here. I'd like to begin a discussion about the relative merits of our transportation options, and specifically what actions you are most likely to take.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Thrills of Spills
This is going to be a good ole fashioned preacher-style rant, so read at your own risk.
Headline: Multi-National Oil Company Dodges Blame for Record Oil Spill: Taxpayers Foot the Bill--Again.
So...we have another situation where taxes will be used to bail out a large corporation for mistakes made by that corporation (or their partners). Much like the recent financial crisis the dialogue has focused on assigning blame to selected groups (while shielding top executives) with no connection to the role ordinary citizens might have played. In this case it's a no brainer. We use too much oil. Each and every one of us.
Dependence on foriegn oil has become (and has always been) a national security issue, with economic, political and safety implications. In an effort to reduce that dependence our government advocates for more domestic drilling, including off-shore drilling, as the most effective short-term solution. We have yet to hear about the long-term solution. To quell voter anxiety proponents of domestic drilling tout advancements in environmental protection and safety, even though the record regarding spills quite clearly demonstrates that oil exploration, transportation, refinement and combustion is anything but environmentally-friendly. At the bottom of this chain is one simple thing: consumer demand.
As much as I hate to admit it, I too am a part of this problem. We all are, but we refuse to have an honest discussion about it. The real problem behind BP's unbelievable spill is not government regulation, corporate greed or negligence, but consumer demand. We use too much oil, either in our personal driving habits or demand for products that have to be shipped (particularly by truck) from parts distant. It starts with us, not with companies or governments.
To be sure, government policies could have a significant influence on oil (and energy) consumption. We could adopt more stringent standards for fuel economy, building performance and smarter energy grids. We could install permanent taxes on oil to finance more research and development of alternatives. We could incentivize wide-scale adoption of natural gas as vehicle fuel (a la the Pickens Plan). All of these things would have significant short-term impacts, but sooner or later we run into the same problems: demand exceeds supply and widespread usage creates unintended consequences.
To make matters worse, governments are reluctant to take any substantive steps towards energy independence because they fear the reaction by a fickle voting public: losing votes because they strayed too far from the comfort zone. Here again, the finger in the mirror points right back at you and I. We say we want bold and inspiring leadership, but not if it rocks the boat. In other words, we want changes that enable us to keep doing what we've always done, only better and in greater quantities.
I prefaced this rant with the topic of oil, but we could just as easily be talking about the future of our economy (or any other of our myriad issues). In each case there are still far too many citizens who believe that governments will make good decisions on their behalf, that governments CAN actually resolve these issues without significant citizen participation and initiative. This is a belief of convenience because it requires nothing of the citizen and creates a ready scapegoat for when things inevitably go awry.
Political talking heads view this as an opportunity to advocate for their own twisted version of government, when it is quite clear that no one model or approach is a panacea. Every government in the world has problems, problems which appear to be increasing in complexity and scope as the governed population grows. It is also increasingly clear that no government, large or small, can effectively lead an apathetic, blame-driven citizenry.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am outraged at the lack of dialogue at every level in our society (from citizens to the Oval Office). This isn't about Tea Parties or other typical anti-government responses, but rather about citizens holding themselves accountable for the problems we create, and pro-actively developing solutions. I am no longer willing to idly sit by while the consequences of my actions reduce opportunities and quality of life for future generations. I desperately want to be a part of this dialogue, to force it to happen, and am ready to be part of the solution.
Perhaps you are too.
Headline: Multi-National Oil Company Dodges Blame for Record Oil Spill: Taxpayers Foot the Bill--Again.
So...we have another situation where taxes will be used to bail out a large corporation for mistakes made by that corporation (or their partners). Much like the recent financial crisis the dialogue has focused on assigning blame to selected groups (while shielding top executives) with no connection to the role ordinary citizens might have played. In this case it's a no brainer. We use too much oil. Each and every one of us.
Dependence on foriegn oil has become (and has always been) a national security issue, with economic, political and safety implications. In an effort to reduce that dependence our government advocates for more domestic drilling, including off-shore drilling, as the most effective short-term solution. We have yet to hear about the long-term solution. To quell voter anxiety proponents of domestic drilling tout advancements in environmental protection and safety, even though the record regarding spills quite clearly demonstrates that oil exploration, transportation, refinement and combustion is anything but environmentally-friendly. At the bottom of this chain is one simple thing: consumer demand.
As much as I hate to admit it, I too am a part of this problem. We all are, but we refuse to have an honest discussion about it. The real problem behind BP's unbelievable spill is not government regulation, corporate greed or negligence, but consumer demand. We use too much oil, either in our personal driving habits or demand for products that have to be shipped (particularly by truck) from parts distant. It starts with us, not with companies or governments.
To be sure, government policies could have a significant influence on oil (and energy) consumption. We could adopt more stringent standards for fuel economy, building performance and smarter energy grids. We could install permanent taxes on oil to finance more research and development of alternatives. We could incentivize wide-scale adoption of natural gas as vehicle fuel (a la the Pickens Plan). All of these things would have significant short-term impacts, but sooner or later we run into the same problems: demand exceeds supply and widespread usage creates unintended consequences.
To make matters worse, governments are reluctant to take any substantive steps towards energy independence because they fear the reaction by a fickle voting public: losing votes because they strayed too far from the comfort zone. Here again, the finger in the mirror points right back at you and I. We say we want bold and inspiring leadership, but not if it rocks the boat. In other words, we want changes that enable us to keep doing what we've always done, only better and in greater quantities.
I prefaced this rant with the topic of oil, but we could just as easily be talking about the future of our economy (or any other of our myriad issues). In each case there are still far too many citizens who believe that governments will make good decisions on their behalf, that governments CAN actually resolve these issues without significant citizen participation and initiative. This is a belief of convenience because it requires nothing of the citizen and creates a ready scapegoat for when things inevitably go awry.
Political talking heads view this as an opportunity to advocate for their own twisted version of government, when it is quite clear that no one model or approach is a panacea. Every government in the world has problems, problems which appear to be increasing in complexity and scope as the governed population grows. It is also increasingly clear that no government, large or small, can effectively lead an apathetic, blame-driven citizenry.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am outraged at the lack of dialogue at every level in our society (from citizens to the Oval Office). This isn't about Tea Parties or other typical anti-government responses, but rather about citizens holding themselves accountable for the problems we create, and pro-actively developing solutions. I am no longer willing to idly sit by while the consequences of my actions reduce opportunities and quality of life for future generations. I desperately want to be a part of this dialogue, to force it to happen, and am ready to be part of the solution.
Perhaps you are too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
