Dear Editor:
Earth Day has come and gone and now we can get back to business as usual. A person can drive a Prius and live in a LEED building, but without meaningful systemic incentives the effects on the environment will be insignificant. These things may make the individual feel righteous, but only a few people can afford them, and unless the rest of the population can reduce their hydrocarbon usage there will be no future for our children. The same amount of money that it takes to make a building LEED compliant would be better spent retrofitting the existing housing stock with energy saving updates like efficient windows and insulation. Cutting the amount of fuel you burn is more significant than what kind of fuel. If a building owner can afford to invest in new windows it’s possible that their fuel usage could be cut significantly. Even so it takes a number of years to recoup the investment, especially when the price of fuel is low. They would probably make more money investing in the stock market. On top of this they would be penalized by having their property tax increased. For those who don’t have the capital, which is the majority, there’s no chance of making these investments to begin with. Society and the future of all human life would benefit by upgrading the efficiency of the overall housing stock, and it is in everyone’s interest to make this possible. The private sector can contribute by creating better quality products at lower cost, but it requires government policy to make it happen.
The most logical way to bring this about would be to tax hydrocarbons and use the money for tax incentives, low interest loans and grants for energy saving upgrades. Individual actions alone can’t solve the problems. Separating recyclables won’t matter if there’s no recycling system. Individual responsibility means taking the trouble to agitate politically for these policies. It means taxing destructive behavior and incentivizing things that benefit society, whether it’s insulation, public transportation, trash disposal or whatever. It means finding a way to keep these costs from falling heavily on people who can’t afford them. It also means finding a way to get it done without clear cutting the Amazon or building products by underpaid workers in coal fired plants.
Greg Ribot