While browsing the internets, I came across a series of pictures. These come from the Facebook picture album of a friend of a friend. They come from a project called "Fingerpainting for Sustainability." I googled it, but nothing came up. Given that I found these pictures on Facebook, I am led to assume that a college educated person made these posters. Let's start with this one:
I'm not entirely sure how shorter showers are more sustainable. As far as I know, the water in my shower goes back into a pipe and goes back to a processing facility. So, I haven't really destroyed or used up any water. I think the assumption must be, more water in my shower less water in the lake. I guess that's true. In any case, I'd recommend another poster though:
Don't Subsidize Biofuels to Save Water.
So this sounds reasonable; buying in bulk reduces packaging which reduces the need for landfills. I'm going to turn to a well-informed professor of mine,
Dr Dan Benjamin, on this one. He's written a piece for
PERC, on the
Myths of Recyling. He notes that extensive packaging actually reduces waste by reducing breakage. This isn't exactly what this poster is getting at, but buying in bulk may increase waste. If I get food in bulk I frequently can't eat it all before it goes bad, so I would have to toss the waste food. My caption would be: Buy in bulk if it makes sense to.
This one has to be my favorite. Clearly the answer to our problems to is to stop building factories. Let's forget for the moment that the paint and the paper in this poster were both made at a factory. Factories aren't the problem. Almost everything we consume comes from a factory. Factories are good and we should build more of them. Pollution on the other hand is bad, and that's what we want less of. Instead of building fewer factories, we should be building cleaner factories. There are a number of ways to get factories to be cleaner, but the most efficient (by which I mean best for the environment and people's consumption) is to price the pollution. If firms (and ultimately consumers) have to pay more for goods that damage the environment we would either consume less or switch to greener technology. My alternative caption:
Make them pay to pollute.
I'm not entirely sure how shorter showers are more sustainable. As far as I know, the water in my shower goes back into a pipe and goes back to a processing facility. So, I haven't really destroyed or used up any water. I think the assumption must be, more water in my shower less water in the lake. I guess that's true. In any case, I'd recommend another poster though: Don't Subsidize Biofuels to Save Water.
So this sounds reasonable; buying in bulk reduces packaging which reduces the need for landfills. I'm going to turn to a well-informed professor of mine, Dr Dan Benjamin, on this one. He's written a piece for PERC, on the Myths of Recyling. He notes that extensive packaging actually reduces waste by reducing breakage. This isn't exactly what this poster is getting at, but buying in bulk may increase waste. If I get food in bulk I frequently can't eat it all before it goes bad, so I would have to toss the waste food. My caption would be: Buy in bulk if it makes sense to.
This one has to be my favorite. Clearly the answer to our problems to is to stop building factories. Let's forget for the moment that the paint and the paper in this poster were both made at a factory. Factories aren't the problem. Almost everything we consume comes from a factory. Factories are good and we should build more of them. Pollution on the other hand is bad, and that's what we want less of. Instead of building fewer factories, we should be building cleaner factories. There are a number of ways to get factories to be cleaner, but the most efficient (by which I mean best for the environment and people's consumption) is to price the pollution. If firms (and ultimately consumers) have to pay more for goods that damage the environment we would either consume less or switch to greener technology. My alternative caption: Make them pay to pollute.
I've thought about the water question before. I think when you conserve water, you're not actually saving water, you're saving the energy it took to get the water to your faucet - chemicals to treat it, trucks to drive it to the water tower, energy to pump it into the tower, etc.
ReplyDeleteOn the packaging thing - yes, preventing breakage is important, but some packaging is downright wasteful. For example, this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/hp_packaging/ tells of a company which received 17 licenses (2 sheets of 8x11 paper), individually wrapped in foam, placed in individual boxes, which were then place in two more larger boxes.
The factories thing is just ridiculous, and your points are dead on. Well said.
True about the water, but the flipside is that I did pay for it. So the energy I used heating and pumping my water didn't get used on making a cup of coffee. In the end I'd say it probably comes out as energy neutral.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny about HP. I wonder what sort of convoluted internal bureaucracy they've built up to create that sort of thing.
I find it strange that environmentalists have this prejudice against production and consumption. It is so opposite of what I think.
Maybe you would use the energy for something else, but a lot of people wouldn't - and for them it would not be energy neutral. You don't pay for the water until you use it, evidenced by your bill at the end of the month. That's the great thing about conservation - it helps the environment AND saves you money!
ReplyDeleteI think it's true that environmentalists sometimes (as in this case) overestimate the evils of production and consumption - but I think economists and libertarians sometimes underestimate the evils of the destruction of our environment as well :)
Ha ha. Perhaps we do underestimate the harms or at least are skeptical. Our weirder belief is that there is an efficient amount of pollution. As technology improves the efficient amount of pollution will fall, but some pollution is better than the alternative of no pollution if it means no production.
ReplyDelete