RickInOz

Someone kindly pointed out the flagrant hypocrisy in posting about wanting meaningful action on climate change not long after posting about buying a car that emits 243g of CO₂ per kilometre (just for context, that’s in the second highest UK tax band – L).

In so doing, they had a fair point, but I do try to do my bit for Gaia. Our house has all low-wattage bulbs, our white-goods are A-rated, we turn as many appliances off at the wall as possible, switch off lights/heating/cooling in rooms we aren’t in and our electricity supplier carbon-offsets our entire consumption. I also cycle to work, even when it’s raining, and use the bus to get into the city centre.

Now, I’m not claiming holier-than-thou status, nor even that I’m particularly “green”, but I do the best I can with what resources are available. If there had been an emission-free engine option for the Subaru that offered similar performance, then I would have chosen it without hesitation. But that wasn’t the case, and so it will have to burn petrol.

Many of the bigger car companies, even ones you might have suspected as being stalwarts for sticking to tradition like Chrysler, have started researching alternative power generation methods. Electricity is currently touted as a “green” alternative, but where do those watts come from to charge the battery? That’s right, the burning of fossil fuels, so no dice there. Hydrogen might be an alternative, but the only currently commercially viable production method involves electricity. So the problem goes round and round.

So, why am I continuing to rant about this. Well, my vitriol is still aimed at governments. With their vast budgets and ability to legislate, they are the only organisations who are capable of forcing change through. The good intentions of corporate giants can only achieve so much until they are hamstrung by the need to remain profitable. Currently the only real-world-usable all-electric and hydrogen cars are prohibitively expensive. Similarly, fuels that have lower emissions per litre than petrol. Once there used to be a government subsidy on diesel, but Greedy Gordon worked out that he was losing too much money when everyone started buying diesel cars, and so rapidly pulled it. In fact when we left the UK diesel was more expensive than petrol, so actually acting as a disincentive for buying a greener car. Great move, chump.

Until the collective might of the international political leaders becomes sufficiently motivated, I can’t see anything changing. Platitudes like the Copenhagen conference aren’t going to change a thing in the near future. Instead it will take significant catastrophe like:

1. Oil extraction becomes prohibitively expensive
2. Widespread famine decimates the human population
3. Rising sea levels flood major population centres
4. Extreme weather patterns threaten our survival
5. Fresh water becomes scarce

or wars over any of the above, to galvanise action.

But this is the major failing with governments. In democracy, they are all too scared to be bold for fear of failing re-election. In communism or totalitarianism, there is no means of quality control. Instead it will boil down to the usual motivator – death. No, I’m not being melodramatic. Think about any major public safety initiative over the past decade or two and then investigate the trigger event. Be it gun control, pedestrian crossing design, child-proof bottle caps, or whatever, someone died and good came of it.

So how many lives will it take for this issue to see some significant and consequential action?