on climate change and politics.

i've been investing a lot of thought into the environment and our country's energy policy lately, due to the class i'm currently in. the class is called "energy and the environment."

i have read several books for my class titled "energy and the environment" to date. each book has made clear to me the urgency of finding a plausible renewable energy source that is not dependent on fossil fuels.

the interesting thing i'm realizing is that talking about the environment is exceedingly difficult because it is hard to distill the topic into easily digestible bits. there are so many aspects to discussing "the environment" in a general sense: the topic itself is often too large to convey successfully--and, more importantly--succinctly. there's drought in georgia, contaminated mine-water leaks in colorado, population control problems in rwanda, energy shortages in california, massive deforestation in haiti, 'mountaintop removal' in west virginia (they blow up a mountain to get to the coal underneath it, then dump the rocks into other valleys [they call them 'valley fills'] and destroy homes and water sources), and increased pollution in lake michigan. and that's just to name a few things that are going on.

most environmental problems that are man-made are a result of our industrial level energy consumption. and developed countries are the largest contributors. of those developed countries, america is the largest consumer of energy per capita (china and india, with their exploding economies, will close in on us soon). furthermore, the majority of our energy comes from fossil fuels. half of the electricity on the grid is generated by coal, and america consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day. the full cost of this rampant energy generation and usage is incalculable. and yet, our government pays lip service to pursuing climate change, but has pulled subsidies for some renewable energy sources, while continuing to subsidize oil and coal.

the scary thing is, for a lot of america, it's not a priority or even a reality. we don't realize the implication of leaving all the lights on. and still, despite the large body of scientific evidence in support of climate change, it's still controversial in the political arena. ask yourself: how often do you hear a presidential candidate speak about the environment? does that topic get much play, when you compare it to the war in iraq, immigration, or health care?

but all that's changing. a sea-change has occurred in public opinion, and there will likely be a change in public policy as well. it's expected that caps on carbon emissions will be coming down the legislation pipeline in the next few years.

i for one welcome the change. i see nothing but benefit from moving away from using fossil fuels. politically, we would be able to secure energy independence and no longer worry over OPEC production quotas. environmentally, we would no longer ravage our planet. economically, more jobs may be created and de-centralized, local energy sources could encourage economic competition in a free-market, unlike the regulated energy monopolies that are present in some parts of the country (electricity regulation varies state by state). yes, there may be a loss for fossil fuel companies and their employees. isn't that part of the whole "creative destruction" process of laissez-faire economies, though?

but for all that to happen, this stuff needs to be taken seriously. environmental issues need to be de-politicized. what's the harm in "going green?" is there any downside? the issue needs input and support from both sides of the aisle. and support from the ballot box. and support from your wallet. consumers have power, as do voters.

energy is ubiquitous. it's all around you. and despite the illusory effect of being surrounded at all times by energy, it does not come to you without a cost. the entire infrastructure has been designed to be hidden from view. but now is the time for us to invest in a new infrastructure, one that may continue to meet our considerable "needs" for energy, and that does not damage our environment.

i didn't consider all this until recently. because of all the books i've read so far, my opinion has changed. they all come highly recommended. perhaps you are like i was, blissfully unaware of the critical time and place we all live in. now though, i can understand the many people who have a sense of urgency about the environment. i do now as well, and every day am trying to incorporate ways of being conscientious about my environmental impact. after all, what's the hurt?