DECONSTRUCTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT

“If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wastefull. A far better way would be to avail ourselves of the sun’s rays.”
—Nikola Tesla

I wrote the other day, in this blog:

There seems no doubt that we have to continually find ways to retrofit and reshape what we have already, with sustainable practices, technologies, actions and creative genius. What could be more destructive than smashing it to rubble, or building everything new—which takes remarkable amounts of energy? I don’t know if it’s true, but I’ve read that it’s more sustainable to get full life (if we can call it that) out of your present car, then simply abandoning it and buying a hybrid—ie getting a new one built.

I still don’t know the facts with cars, but here’s a blog—the greenest building is the one already built—about the most sustainable homes (in general, of course) being homes that don’t get torn down for a long time. Tearing down and rebuilding homes evidently takes tons (or better put, decades) of energy.

It’s so difficult trying to figure out energy consumption when money (paying bills) covers our tracks—and our eyes. In other words, if we used X amount of energy, and then there was no, say, hot water left, we’d really get it. North America, if you have a little money, has this seemingly endless trough of energy, never stopping, never ending. This, of course, is false. But this is one of the reasons, among many, that the carbon tax idea is so dangerous, at least to my thinking. There is no real sacrifice involved. Just like fines for corporate polluting that are far lower than the resulting profits, it all becomes, simply, a trade off, and ultimately a hidden “tax” paid by the consumer, for as long as the consumer money is there. Clearly, Mother Earth has finite resources, although surely the sun offers us sustainable brilliance…

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait ’til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison

Instead of paying for our waste, better question might be: must we create so much non-renewable waste to create a given product? Again, surely there is some sort of in-out ratio maximum and minimum that could be described as sustainable or piggy…

And here’s another site, called The Original Green. People are putting in a lot of work to figure these things out.

Sending you lots of sustainable thoughts. Love is the most sustainable thing going. And good, low-on-the-food-chain food, helps keep it flowing.

Pete xo

Share

One Response to “DECONSTRUCTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT”

  1. Conspiracy2Riot says:

    There simply ARE too many of us on the planet to achieve sustainability in any meaningful way.

    Until we bring our numbers down by about 4-5 billion AND cease using fossil fuels/dismantle industrial civilization, you’re analysis is correct. Nothing will be solved or change.

    But no worries. Mother Nature will purge us in one way or another and since we won’t make any changes voluntarily they’ll simply be made for us. I think your best point in this article is the question of what the landscape will look like during and after the transition. People will consume whatever is available when they go into survival mode. So yeah, it’ll get worse before it gets better but it’s going to get worse no matter what.

    To take our time at this juncture is nothing but a guaranteed slow suicide. We actually need a mass die off of humans to preserve the planet. I don’t like saying it or thinking it but we are the invasive species and a bunch of us gotta go to make life for the remaining few possible.

Leave a Reply