[LINK] seventh most popular NYTimes article today

[Craig Sanders]

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 12:37:38PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> > i also expect to see lots of political advertisements encouraging
> > residential users to install compact-fluoro light globes....which isn't
> > a bad thing in itself, the problem is that (like the residential water
> > savings propaganda) it is a deliberate distraction from the real source
> > of the problem (coal power and pointless industries like aluminium
> > smelting in the case of climate change, and industrial and especially
> > agricultural wastage in the case of water).
> 
> I think things like the flouro and water-saving "propaganda" have a
> beneficial effect, in that they help sensitise people to the issues. If
> someone is making a real effort, they are that much less likely to find
> things like coal power acceptable - and they vote.

it hasn't worked for water. people just accept that they have to reduce
their water usage (residential water usage is about 9% of the total) -
and don't question the amount of water being used by agriculture (just
under 80%) or industry (the remainder, about 12%).

and sure, it's a Good Thing that residential users are conscious of
water usage, and install water saving shower heads and can't leave the
hose running while they wash their cars in their driveways any more.

the water savings, however, are fairly trivial...we should be going
after the low-hanging fruit first. and for water, that is agricultural
use. if farmers were forced to be 10% more water efficient than they are
now, that would *entirely* make up for all residential usage.  and that's not
hard for them to do - South Australian farmers are typically 20% more water
efficient that those in other states, because they have to be.  they've got
less water to start with, and there are much better water usage regulations. 

similarly, if we stopped growing (and worse, subsidising)
water-intensive crops like cotton and rice in desert areas, there
wouldn't BE a water shortage. (rice! in the desert!  FFS!)



> The other thing that sensitised people are prepared to do is learn (so
> they can tell real green from pseudo-green) and pay more for real green
> stuff - and that provides a financial incentive for people to compete
> against the non-green industries.

unfunded facts don't compete well against well-funded propaganda campaigns.

in any case, most people aren't willing to either learn OR pay more.
they're short-sighted and selfish and think primarily in the short term
- because they mostly live from pay-packet to pay-packet, and don't have
the time, energy, or finances to think in the medium term, let alone the
long term.


> 
> It's important not to let "perfect" get in the way of "good", and any
> start is a good start.

true.  however, the propaganda campaigns aren't  a "start", they're the
distraction and the excuse for not doing anything REAL.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)