by Ethan Johnson
October 9, 2008
Disclosure: I am really, really, really not a fan of Thomas "Six more months" Friedman.
Regardless of my personal opinion about Mr Friedman, he has ventured into "Power Plus" terrain with his latest book. To his credit, he foretold of its core message about a year ago, as per a column he wrote for the New York Times. Since pundits need a hook, Friedman offers his thusly:
It is so much more important to change your leaders than change your light bulbs.
I'll be super nice and let him flesh out that thought a little.
Why? Because leaders write the rules, set the standards and offer the tax incentives that drive market behavior across a whole city, state or country. Whatever any of us does individually matters a tiny bit. But when leaders change the rules, you get scale change across the whole marketplace. And the energy-climate challenge we face today is a huge scale problem. Without scale, all you have is a green hobby.
I'd like to introduce Mr Friedman to an ages-old rallying cry: If not us, who? If not now, when?
I appreciate that Friedman wants "macro" change for the better. I dig it, really. I think the financial current events give a good sense of what "macro" actions can do that "micro" cannot. But one is foolish to underestimate, or dismiss entirely "micro" efforts.
Case in point: Our electric bill.
Over the last 24 months or so, I have been striving to make our house more energy efficient. There is much more work to be done, but since I don't have House Resolution -987654.098 on the docket, which gives me billions of dollars to get all cutting-edge over here, we have to make do with what money and resources we do have. Enter solar screens on half of our windows (the sunniest half), turbine fans on the roof, and yes indeed, compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs.
I'm aware of the skepticism about these bulbs, and how much of a savings they really provide. CFL bulbs have advanced to the point - today - where not only is the wattage slashed, but the light output is increased over "standard" bulbs. I kept a "green" journal, keepin' it real, and here's what happened when I went on a bulb-changing rampage:
- Starting wattage (of replaced bulbs only): 2380w (2.38 Kw)
- Ending wattage: 488w (.48 Kw)
- Savings: 1892w (1.89kw)
A 75% wattage reduction just in the bulbs that were replaced. Our kitchen had 4 100w bulbs that came with the house. They have been replaced with 4 23w CFL bulbs. Again, that's a 75% wattage reduction, BUT, the lumens increased. Mar complains that they take too long to warm up, but 30 seconds later, there's light overload. (Which, perversely, gives us an incentive to leave the overhead lights turned off as often as possible.)
I completed the bulk of the light bulb replacement initiative on September 1. We received our September bill (for August - traditionally our costliest month) shortly thereafter, and the facts were these:
- Sept 2007: 3201Kw/h, $459.09
- Sept 2008: 1670Kw/h, $230.67
- Variance: -1531Kw/h, -$228.42
But wait, it gets better. The October bill was just announced, which covers September (another hot month, traditionally). Survey says:
- Oct 2007: 1758Kw/h, $255.77
- Oct 2008: 1245Kw/h, $183.50
- Variance: -513Kw/h, -$72.27
In two months, we saved $300 on our electric bills with a diverse approach to energy savings, including solar screens, attic fans, CFL bulbs, and setting the A/C for 78F.
Let that sink in: $300 saved in 2 months.
Now, for Mr Macro (Friedman), the government can indeed make grand changes that we, the people, cannot.
But let's think about what some of those grand gestures either historically have been, or potentially might be. One grand gesture involves yet another "stimulus" payment to be sent out to boost the economy. Where is this money coming from? What are the long-term considerations for this short-term act? How much will each person be paid? (Last one was $600 per person, right?)
This is $300 that didn't involve congress, the president, partisanship, deficits, or anything else. I got a good price on CFL bulbs, made the investment (far less than $300, I assure you), and reaped immediate rewards.
Can the same be said for the US Government? What about local governments? Will they provide benefits quickly without long-term ill effects for short-term gain? Will lobbyists be involved? What industries might stand to gain or lose? How might they respond?
Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that governments large and small can do things that I myself cannot, or cannot do simply. I like having maintained roads and sewers. I like having running water. And yes, accomplishments like space travel or massive infrastructure overhauls require "help from above". No argument here.
But I cannot and will not agree that the individual has no significant role to play in the advancement and proliferation of "change". $300 is a lot of money, for us. That's $300 less we had to scrape together during lean times. That's $300 that paid other bills, or bought groceries, or filled up the gas tank. Without dodgy "stimulus" schemes, without lobbyists, without lawyering, without speechifying.
In this US presidential election season, we're hearing a lot about change, and what forms this change might take.
While you're waiting for election day, I strongly suggest you change your light bulbs. The leaders will follow. <EM>
(More articles like this one may be found here.)
