Just a few minutes ago there was a documentary on Dutch television about the problems that our need for energy is causing.
Many things were covered, including pros and cons of almost every source of energy. But one thing irritated me to no end... again. Because it seems to be forgotten so often!
In almost all these discussions there is the unspoken assumption that the amount of energy that we use is untouchable. It is a rigid thing, a given, and so the only way towards solutions is to find more energy. Look at the greedy eyes waiting for the Arctic to open up so that all that oil that lay locked underneath the ice can finally be used. But also all the quests for renewable and sustainable sources of energy (sometimes even including nuclear energy) all seem to assume that more is not enough. Only more energy will solve our problems!
But naturally the amount of energy we use right now is not rigid. Oh well, you DO know that of course, because it is very easy to see that it has no trouble whatsoever to leap higher and higher. But contrary to what we are led to believe, it IS possible to climb down again as well. Not just by becoming more efficient and doing all we do now with less energy, but also just by doing less that requires energy!
For now I would just like to throw this in and see what you make of it and what your opinions are.
You are right Arthur!
But we nature photographers are not a good example as our equipment is very polluting to make (and use?) and we travel to wild places... which often means flying or driving long-distances.
Even living in the countryside is not a solution as this requires the use of a lot more energy to heat the house and drive around than living in in a city.
Hence, the question is :
Who (among us) is ready to use the same camera for >30 years, stop traveling, and live in a 15m2 apartment?
Since 95% of my photography stays on my computer screen and most of my prints are no larger than 8x10, I doubt my personal expenditure of energy and carbon emissions related to photography amounts to much. The vast majority of energy emissions of environmental concern come from heating/cooling of buildings, industrial processes, and cars/trucks.
When it comes to digital photography, I can imagine solar battery rechargers for cameras and laptop batteries would solve 100% of my hobby-related emissions (unless you count the snacks I eat while editing photos against me). I don't count travelling since we're doing a lot less of that lately, and I don't travel for the sole purpose of photography; I take my camera with me almost everywhere.
Better energy solutions will come, but it is without question sooner or later we will have to give some things up. You can give up photography, but I'd choose to let the AC run two or three degrees higher in the summertime, eat smarter, and drive a whole lot less.
Eventually people are just going to have to accept living less luxuriously than we currently do. Even most lower income folks have it pretty good in today's society compared to years past. Right now I'm just going to enjoy life and worry about it later.
Yes we need more energy - like solar, wind, tide, etc.
I'll take a beating on this, but I say leave the oil in the ground and let oil prices continue to climb. Then perhaps everyone will feel more inclined to conserve and maybe even invest in alternative energy sources. See my post in this thread.
Energy sources are unlimited at least until the next ice age. The problem to solve is how to tap them without irritating the conservationists. France gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear, so could other countries. Solar cell advances are very promising. How about hydrogen? Oh and drilling on the north slope will not decimate the procupine reindeer herd. There are solutions in the offing no need for gnashing of teeth or only taking picture of nature as far as one can walk with 40lbs. of gear.
It's a predictable argument that energy needs will only continue to rise. The act of every one using less will undoubtedly make for the less consumption, or will it? Do we really know how the energy we use is actually used. It goes way beyond the fuel we put in our cars and trucks, and electricity we use to heat and cool our homes and run our computers, tv's radio's, telephones, cell phones, fridg/freezers, washers dryers, ... ok enough I know.
Look around you at this very moment where you are sitting. Is there anything made of plastic? You dang blasted right there is. Products made of petroleum and takes petroleum to use. Hmm. How convenient. Hey I am certainly no better than anyone. I try to conserve when I can, most of the time.
Your first sentence Aurthur states this show was debating the "problems that our energy need is causing". Problems, come on.
Ok, now my turn to tick someone off. The only problem that our need is causing is to ourselves, right in the wallet. So why don't we just get our energy somewhere else? Cause there isn't somewhere else Today. We are at the mercy of the people holding the oily key. And I don't believe they are like you and I. Or to say it another way, I don't believe they like you and I. They want whats best for them! Money and Power. Did I mention Money? We could have more energy than we know what to do with, right now today. And why don't we? That is the problem.
All engines should be run on brewery waste water. A brewery should be required on every street corner, and free beer must be served every weekend. I will single-handedly solve our nations energy needs.
I want to share what I consider to be a failure/success story even though I know that doesn't make any sense. Here in Juneau, we've been fortunate to have hydroelectric power (one of the cleanest forms of generating energy) for longer than I've been around, but in recent years, consumption was so high, that diesel generators (one of the most expensive dirtiest forms of generating energy) had to be run intermittently to make up the production/consumption difference.
This winter (for the first time ever), the power lines connecting Juneau to it's hydroelectric source were wiped out in a avalanche, which forced the entire city onto 100% diesel power. It's such a huge crisis and financial burden for the consumer that energy use has been reduced by roughly 30%. In the school district I work for, some schools cut consumption by 50% when compared with the same month last year.
Nothing good is coming out of this except for to prove the fact that it's possible to turn around and march in the opposite direction of what has come to be accepted as progress. When typical electricity rates are restored, most of the energy use will probably revert to pre-crisis levels, but there's a chance that we've been inspired by what is possible and some change could be permanent.
Discussion
8 repliesMany things were covered, including pros and cons of almost every source of energy. But one thing irritated me to no end... again. Because it seems to be forgotten so often!
In almost all these discussions there is the unspoken assumption that the amount of energy that we use is untouchable. It is a rigid thing, a given, and so the only way towards solutions is to find more energy. Look at the greedy eyes waiting for the Arctic to open up so that all that oil that lay locked underneath the ice can finally be used. But also all the quests for renewable and sustainable sources of energy (sometimes even including nuclear energy) all seem to assume that more is not enough. Only more energy will solve our problems!
But naturally the amount of energy we use right now is not rigid. Oh well, you DO know that of course, because it is very easy to see that it has no trouble whatsoever to leap higher and higher. But contrary to what we are led to believe, it IS possible to climb down again as well. Not just by becoming more efficient and doing all we do now with less energy, but also just by doing less that requires energy!
For now I would just like to throw this in and see what you make of it and what your opinions are.
Cheers!
But we nature photographers are not a good example as our equipment is very polluting to make (and use?) and we travel to wild places... which often means flying or driving long-distances.
Even living in the countryside is not a solution as this requires the use of a lot more energy to heat the house and drive around than living in in a city.
Hence, the question is :
Who (among us) is ready to use the same camera for >30 years, stop traveling, and live in a 15m2 apartment?
This is going to be painful, but is necessary.
unless you have a better solution... ?
When it comes to digital photography, I can imagine solar battery rechargers for cameras and laptop batteries would solve 100% of my hobby-related emissions (unless you count the snacks I eat while editing photos against me). I don't count travelling since we're doing a lot less of that lately, and I don't travel for the sole purpose of photography; I take my camera with me almost everywhere.
Better energy solutions will come, but it is without question sooner or later we will have to give some things up. You can give up photography, but I'd choose to let the AC run two or three degrees higher in the summertime, eat smarter, and drive a whole lot less.
I'll take a beating on this, but I say leave the oil in the ground and let oil prices continue to climb. Then perhaps everyone will feel more inclined to conserve and maybe even invest in alternative energy sources. See my post in this thread.
Look around you at this very moment where you are sitting. Is there anything made of plastic? You dang blasted right there is. Products made of petroleum and takes petroleum to use. Hmm. How convenient. Hey I am certainly no better than anyone. I try to conserve when I can, most of the time.
Your first sentence Aurthur states this show was debating the "problems that our energy need is causing". Problems, come on.
Ok, now my turn to tick someone off. The only problem that our need is causing is to ourselves, right in the wallet. So why don't we just get our energy somewhere else? Cause there isn't somewhere else Today. We are at the mercy of the people holding the oily key. And I don't believe they are like you and I. Or to say it another way, I don't believe they like you and I. They want whats best for them! Money and Power. Did I mention Money? We could have more energy than we know what to do with, right now today. And why don't we? That is the problem.
This winter (for the first time ever), the power lines connecting Juneau to it's hydroelectric source were wiped out in a avalanche, which forced the entire city onto 100% diesel power. It's such a huge crisis and financial burden for the consumer that energy use has been reduced by roughly 30%. In the school district I work for, some schools cut consumption by 50% when compared with the same month last year.
Nothing good is coming out of this except for to prove the fact that it's possible to turn around and march in the opposite direction of what has come to be accepted as progress. When typical electricity rates are restored, most of the energy use will probably revert to pre-crisis levels, but there's a chance that we've been inspired by what is possible and some change could be permanent.