“Sustainability” Isn’t Sustainable
Not even in your dreams.
A number of college and universities have introduced “Sustainability Studies.” Of course, “sustainability” is just another term for environmentalism, but it exposes the mentality of the environmental movement very well. The idea is that unless we are forced use fewer resources, we will not be able to sustain our life on earth and humanity will disappear or at best face massive disaster.
So we have to introduce a number of things into our daily lives that will help us to “live green.” It all sounds good at the various rallies and “living green” meetings that are held regularly not only at our campus, but also at campuses all over the country. Students and others are told that they have to stop “wasting energy” and lower their “impact” by eating foods that pass political muster, and purchase goods that have the “sustainability” seal of approval.
What sounds good, however, often is not, and “sustainability” has become yet another scam – yes, scam – the statists have foisted on people in the name of saving humanity and planet earth. I will go even further: What is called “sustainability” is not even sustainable, not by a long shot. The irony is that the very implementation of “sustainable” policies will needlessly make life more difficult for everyone.
We are not even speaking about future events. The “food for fuel” mandates that are coming from governments around the world in the name of “sustainability” have helped drive up food prices and have worked real hardships on poor people. Moreover, food-based fuels, such as ethanol made from corn, are heavily subsidized and are imposed by government mandate.
Government is forcing individuals to do what they never would want to do on their own: pour a version of whiskey into their cars instead of drinking it.
Political Support
Not surprisingly, food-based fuels have a large constituency (although that constituency does not happen to include consumers of those fuels), and associated groups make political contributions and welcome rhetoric from politicians. For example, Newt Gingrich, who sounds like he’s running for the next year’s Republican presidential nomination, recently called for the government to mandate that all cars built in the United States be “flex-fuel,” enabling them to use ethanol.
Forcing consumers to purchase cars that they refuse to buy now only furthers our understanding of the intellectual bankruptcy and economic illiteracy that people like Gingrich promote. (Gingrich claimed that such a mandate would allow the ethanol industry to “stand on its own,” as though forcing Americans to use costly, inferior fuel would revitalize the U.S. economy, as he and others claim.)
The other darling of the sustainability movement is the building of thousands of electricity-generating windmills. Ironically, many environmentalists oppose these supposed “clean-energy” contraptions because they kill birds and change the landscape. Of course these projects also are heavily subsidized by government. But as electricity producers, they hardly are panaceas.
In 2009 President Barack Obama told Congress he would use “clean energy” to help “rebuild the economy.” Given that all the clean-energy pet projects seem to be subsidized, Obama was claiming that his government could bring about a recovery by giving huge subsidies to politically favored industries.
Economically, that is impossible. What Obama was saying was that he could rebuild a moribund economy by cannibalizing those still-healthy industries and transferring resources to those portions of the economy that never could stand on their own without government coercion.
Not only is that idea delusional, it also puts the government on an economic path that is unsustainable. Government can no more save the economy by destroying than the U.S. armed forces could save Vietnam by bombing it into the Stone Age.
While “sustainability” is little more than rhetoric, it is harmful rhetoric, as it carries the appeal to outright government coercion. Economically speaking, sustainability cannot sustain itself. Instead, it promotes a parasitic state that drains an economy – and its people – of energy and vitality.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 13 April 2011:
“What Obama was saying was that he could rebuild a moribund economy by cannibalizing those still-healthy industries and transferring resources to those portions of the economy that never could stand on their own without government coercion.”
This is a very important point and I’m glad it was made, something that I’ve let stew in my head for a while now. Here’s another point to consider:
Look, when government rhetoric tries to justify taxing the petroleum industry to subsidize the windmill industry in the name of ‘economic stimulus’ or ‘sustainability’, it’s just blowing hot air. Not only is it not a stimulus, it’s not sustainable and its not even intelligent given that market forces would naturally move to correct the potential sustainability problems in the future.
Here’s the basic idea: ‘Environmentally-friendly’ methods of energy production are just not economical. That means that the costs of creating the infrastructure and then maintaining it is not comparable to other, more efficient methods like burning petroleum. People are simply not willing to heat their homes solely on windmills unless the government forces them to by taking their money and building the windmills.
Let’s consider wind turbines. They’re essentially at their peak level of efficiency where design and engineering is concerned. They’re large and costly, and require a significant area of land in which to operate. The chances of them becoming more efficient than oil per dollar spent are slim to none at this point in our lifetimes. This is why very few companies are willing to try to invest in potential advancements in wind turbine technology.
Part of the reason why oil is cheaper than wind turbines is because its relatively plentiful, has well-established infrastructure ready to harvest it, and is easily transported due to its portability and efficiency. Now, its true that oil will not last forever, and there’s a possibility that in the future we might run out. This will dramatically raise the price of oil to the point where it will become less efficient per dollar than, say, wind turbines.
Before this happens, you can bet you’ll see a whole bunch of companies jump on the energy bandwagon. They might not invest much in wind turbines, but you can be sure to see a lot of research and infrastructure investments in solar panels and nuclear power if, in ten years, its expected that they’ll be more efficient.
But why not start now, you ask? Surely if it’s important in this potential future situation, it’s important now, right? Well consider the impact of the present inefficiency inherent in so-called ‘sustainable’ methods. For every dollar taken out of the economy and spent on questionably useful energy projects, that’s one dollar less that could be used on far more important things. It’s less money available to develop every other potentially valuable technological advancement, and the result is an economy that is smaller and less capable of handling a potential future energy crisis. We will lower our standard of living now and in the future in exchange for the relatively needless investment into ‘sustainable’ alternatives.
On the other hand, if we put off investment until it’s actually economical, we’ll have a larger, more technologically advanced economy in which to meet this future problem. That might mean that we find a solution faster, easier, and with less money invested, and maybe even one that is more efficient than we could have otherwise found. It’s guaranteed that we’ll have a better economy, with higher living standards on average, but we might also potentially have a far more environmentally-friendly and sustainable solution as well thanks to the former.
Now, it’s fair to question the use of fuel from an environmentally-friendly standpoint (that is, burning fuel may lead to problems within the environment), but it is not fair to claim that it is more ‘sustainable’ or ‘a boost to our economy’. It is less efficient in the long run and thus less ‘sustainable’ to go off chasing every promised solution to fossil fuels when our current methods work just fine.
Comment by D. Saul Weiner on 13 April 2011:
I am mostly in agreement with this article, but I believe that there are some reasonable concerns that would fall under the banner of sustainability. For example, one need not be a radical environmentalist to be worried about topsoil depletion and declining fish populations. Though, to be sure, I would never favor employing the types of statist measures that sustainability advocates prefer, for the genuine issues that exist.
Comment by Joker on 13 April 2011:
I’ve tried to explain this argument to several people in the past two years.
For example, running the “green” electric cars is actually pretty cool and all, but look at where the electricity is coming from. The absolute most powerful solar panels in existence are able to convert, what… 15, maybe 18ish percent of the sun’s radiation that hits them into energy. We’re able to easily push a massive 40+% out of coal at the moment for electrical energy. If solar panels and wind turbines could reach the point of pushing 40%, then they’d easily be big competition for the coal miners, and we’d see just as many solar and wind companies as coal plants.
An industry that can’t sustain (pun used on purpose) itself on its own, also cannot do it with government “subsidies.” The money taken by the government to support these industries, makes all, repeat ALL, people poorer, which makes it harder for any one to afford the “cheap” electrical energy.
Comment by Curious George on 13 April 2011:
I greatly appreciate this feedback. I must admit that I blindly hopped on the illusion of sustainability up until I read this post
.
Comment by AllThingsMe on 14 April 2011:
According to the LA Times, the Los Angeles Community Colleges scrapped a plan to spend nearly a billion dollars to become sustainable energy producers. The annual electric bill for all the campuses? 8 million dollars. I swear I’m not making this up. Fact check it.
Comment by Dave on 14 April 2011:
Lots of opinion and little facts. We all know as a species we’re going to screw it up.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 15 April 2011:
“According to the LA Times, the Los Angeles Community Colleges scrapped a plan to spend nearly a billion dollars to become sustainable energy producers. The annual electric bill for all the campuses? 8 million dollars. I swear I’m not making this up. Fact check it.”
Actually, from what I read, an independent estimate by an engineering consultant put the cost at $1.9 billion.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-build6-20110306,0,4909175.story?page=2
It would take 237.5 years for that kind of investment to pay itself off (well, okay, that ignores inflation and the rising cost of energy prices but you get the point). But the more important point is this: if that college were to wait 50-100 years before doing what it tried to do, they’d probably get a much more efficient system at less cost.
Comment by Michael on 15 April 2011:
I am mostly in agreement with this article, but I believe that there are some reasonable concerns that would fall under the banner of sustainability. For example, one need not be a radical environmentalist to be worried about topsoil depletion and declining fish populations.
those two fall under the “tragedy of the commons” and private property. sustainability is a loaded term.
Comment by Gordon on 19 April 2011:
First the article states that sustainability is bad because it is not sustainable, but never attempts to define what sustainability is. Sustainability in the context the article talks about is a balancing act of economic, social and environmental concerns; ensuring that all of them are maximized (in equilibrium).
One example of how this works is on the Island of Japan which is a common example, because they are trying to have a closed loop society. No new resources in, and recycle everything they have. Currently they are at around 70%. Japan has to because they are an Island with most their resources mined.
But of course we are in the US and limited resources doesn’t really bother us. Except that is one aspect to one of the three legs of sustainability. By saying it is not economically feasible, then you truly have never sat in a class on sustainability. The most prevalent aspect is ensuring that everything is cost competitive with the market.
In rebuttal, you could say that as mentioned above, the industries Obama is destroying industries that are healthy by subsidizing new industries. Well the fact is many industries of old such as steal, oil and auto manufacture are all very inefficient if you consider being subsidized. Steal almost died from foreign competition not 5 years ago. The auto industry almost died because of the tariffs placed on foreign steal. And oil by one report would be near 8 dollars higher than if there were no subsidies given over the entire production of oil.
So, the subsidies going to the “green technologies” are first to give level the playing field. And second, to protect an infant industry.
Comment by Men's Health on 7 February 2012:
I like what you guys tend to be up too. Such clever work and coverage! Keep up the very good works guys I’ve you guys to my personal blogroll.