Going through the peak oil report from Bloomington's Peak Oil Task Force, I was surprised to see the city put show much effort into this issue. The comprehensiveness of the study was impressive.
The task force considered all of the uses of oil, and was sure to include a thorough analysis of almost every use of energy. When others are focusing primarily on individual transportation, the task force looks at uses like transporting water and how the layout of our cities impact energy use.
It was also clear that the task force wasn't looking to justify easy solutions to the problem of peak oil. They offered recommendations that were creative and unique (like the LETS program to establish local currency). They also didn't fall into the trap of supporting alternatives that are potentially riddled with the same problems we have with relying on oil. This was made evident in their dismissal of using ethanol as a cure-all substitute. They recognized that the benefits of using biofuels do not necessarily make the community more resilient, but had heavy tradeoffs as well, and suggested other alternatives.
The report states that recommending alternative fuels isn't within the scope of the report, they focused primarily on mitigation efforts and would suggest incorporating greater amounts of alternative energies into the city's generation portfolio. I would, however, find their ideas on how to increase resilience in the supply of fuels (or other forms of energy generation) to be valuable. I hope that they would do a follow up piece that analyzes the kinds of energies should be considered due to the natural resources found locally. But again, I do appreciate that they did not make this the primary focus of the report, as it is easy to get caught up on maintaining the current system without appropriately addressing the core issues associated with relying so heavily on one fuel source and so much energy to maintain our communities.
You're right about the 'easy solutions.' I feel that most people are looking for 'easy' ways to solve problems. No one really wants to go through a radical change but, unfortunately, it may be necessary. Perhaps the reason people aren't openly accepting problems like peak oil and global change is that they know by accepting it, they are showing a willingness to go through a radical change.
ReplyDeleteI think that last part was particularly spot on. By recognizing an issue to which we contribute, we are then responsible for our behavior. And not only is this overwhelming, but confusing. I recently went on a tirade about abuses in the egg industry. My mom went to buy eggs that were "cage-free" but I had to explain that this might not be a good solution depending on their definition of the term. She literally through her hands up in the air and gave up. Because now the question was which local farmer treated their chickens the best.
ReplyDeleteThis also works with buying hybrids (electricity is made with coal and oil), using paper advertised as recycled (most are about 10% and those that aren't are coming from tree farms), buying water bottles (that take more energy than disposable ones that fill up landfills). Researching the tradeoffs becomes a job in its own and lends to the difficulty in willingness to accept responsibility - which is why I think radical change is probably the best answer. Just opt out, if you can. Maybe become Amish.
Oh wait, I thought this was attached to my footprint post. I suppose it's still relevant.
ReplyDelete