HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Jun 15, 2005 - Printable Version
- Pin the Tail on Dick Cheney
by Robin Buckallew
This column is addressed to all those who live in blue states, or all those who are blue in red states. I am giving you a mission. It is a very important mission, and one that will take all of us to accomplish, so I am counting on you to help me (if you're in, say Amen). This mission will be possible, it will be important, and most of all it will be fun. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make Dick Cheney look like a horse's ass. You can do this right from the privacy of your own home, special surveillance equipment and night goggles will be issued to those that need them, and giggling while you go about it is permitted, provided it doesn't give us away and spoil our entire mission. Let the following serve as your guidebook on how to pin the tail on Dick Cheney. First of all, to explain, I must activate the Faulking Time Machine, and whisk us back to the distant past, back to the year 2001. The time? June of 2001. The place? Iowa. I had been called to Iowa to help deal with a family emergency. By some special twist of fate, George W. Bush was in Iowa the same week that I was. What was Dubya doing in Iowa, you ask? Oh, the usual - mangling the English language, seizing every available photo-op, and angling for voter support. A mere six months into his presidency, his approval rating was at a historic low, and he needed some boostering. Iowa, you might recall, is one of those states that presidential candidates actually visit - that mysterious, eerie phenomenon known as a "SWING STATE". It also holds the first presidential primary of the election season. And in 2000, Iowa went for Al Gore. So, Dubya was in Iowa kicking off campaign 2004. Of course, that's not what he said he was doing there - but when have we ever been able to take a politician at their word as to their motives?
So, there I was in Iowa, with every television station blaring the Dubya smirk every time you happened to catch sight of it, every newspaper proclaiming his presence, and every citizen waiting with bated breath, just to see if they could persuade him to go back home and leave them alone. Oh, but Iowans are nice people, so they welcomed him as if they wanted him there. Anyway, I digress. This story is actually about Dick Cheney. Well, it was during this visit that I heard the jaw-dropper of a lifetime. Dick Cheney, backing up the president, helping explain what Dubya was having trouble articulating (hard to imagine though that might be). Dick Cheney, on the nightly news, informing us that his energy policy didn't really deal too much with conservation, because we had tried conservation and found that it didn't work. HUH? I turned to my husband, a man with a masters' degree in history, and asked him to remind me about when we had given this big try to conservation. And this man, this history buff who can name all the presidents of the United States in order, who knows the dates of all the major battles of the French Revolution, who can pinpoint in time nearly any important event that occurred in the 20th century, was at a loss. He was unable to give me the historical data on when exactly this massive conservation experiment had been attempted, and when it had failed. We are still searching for that data. (Dick, you are allowed input here - after all, I wouldn't want it to be said I'm not fair and balanced. If you have the historical documentation on this conservation experiment, I'll be more than happy to print a correction in the pages of the Faulking Truth. The mission of the newsletter would permit nothing less).
For those of you oldtimers who are still able to remember 2001, another important event occurred that you might have heard about, read about or even suffered through. I'm referring to the infamous rolling blackouts that turned the State of California into the state of chaos for much of 2001. Blackouts that forced deregulation down the throats of the California public, that made Enron a household name even before they were indicted for everything from fraud to failing to keep their dogs on a leash. Blackouts that challenged our national complacency that when we flip the switch on the wall, the electricity will always come on. For the first time in a long time, Americans began thinking long and hard about electricity - where it comes from, how it gets to us, and who delivers it. Energy prices in California went sky high, and politicians wailed and put on a dog and pony show for the voters as California voters became more frustrated and angrier with every passing day. As if that weren't enough, the energy projections that had been drawn up for California showed that the situation was only bound to get worse, as energy demand increased with expected population increases and technological advances leading to still more things plugged in. Disaster lurked around every corner. Our politicians and corporations behaved with their typical restraint and responsibility. They blamed everyone else. No matter who was at fault, though, one thing remained steadfast: it was Californians who paid the bill.
So, where does all this tie into our mission? I'm getting there, if the time machine just weren't so balky. Fast forward now a couple years, after the fall of Enron, the deregulation of the California energy industry. Dubya Bush is now riding on a wave of public approval, and fearlessly protecting us from tigers that have no teeth (while, of course, ignoring those that might actually bite). In California, a minor miracle has occurred. It seems the energy demand hasn't risen nearly as rapidly as predicted. In fact, it hasn't risen at all. In fact, it has dropped. The State of California (formerly known as the state of chaos) has decreased their energy usage by 40%. That's right, I said 40%. Contrary to all expectations, California managed to curb their energy appetite, and go on a power diet. Now lean and mean, California was setting precedents, and showing us the way. All we have to do is follow the path they have blazed for us. Through conservation, we can all cut our power usage significantly, and show that Dick Cheney was simply braying when he said that conservation was noble, but would not lead to any significant benefit. The best news about this is the answer isn't difficult. You don't have to give up everything you cherish. You don't have to live in a cave with only a bear to keep you warm in the winter. They do it in Europe all the time. Oh, I know the answer - well, this isn't Europe, things are different here. I agree, we're not Europe, and things are indeed different. But there is one thing that is the same in Europe and in North America - the laws of physics. The laws of physics were not established by Congress, by Parliament, or by the European Union. They have been in place for much longer than those esteemed legislative bodies. They exist independent of geopolitical boundaries, economic systems, or even religions. They are part of nature itself. And the laws of physics would tell us that the less energy we use, the less energy that is consumed (forgive me for stating a tautology - sometimes it is necessary to actually articulate that which is self-evident).
Now the time machine has arrived back at today, we are home, it is time to disembark and get ready for our mission-planning meeting. I am going to explain to you how California did it, how we can do it, and how you can save money to boot (then you can put all the money you save on your energy bill into the noble cause of defeating those who would turn our country and our world into one giant oil slick). When it is all over, we will hear sobbing from Blair House. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the nation's capitol, as we show those who lack vision or imagination what the power of our vision and determination can accomplish while they were sitting paralyzed in the face of one energy crisis after another.
The very first answer is probably the single most simple, so simple it should be obvious - TURN OFF THE LIGHTS. All too many people leave lights on all over their house, though they are only in one room. This is one of the things Californians began to do, and to their surprise, it had a big impact. If you aren't using a light, there is absolutely no need for it to be on. And during the day, many of our activities can be accomplished without any artificial lighting at all. The sunlight will often suffice to light our way, as it has for millennia. If you are only in one room, you should only need light in one room. Nothing could be simpler. And this won't lead to any decrease in your standard of living, as you will not be in any way bothered by a lack of light where you aren't. And in conjunction with this, there are often other things we can turn off. If you are in the habit of leaving the television on in one room when you do things in another, and that other room also has a television on, I ask you - what are you thinking here? Are you entertaining the dust bunnies? Because I assure you, dust bunnies don't really like television all that much. Especially since most commercials that deal with dust bunnies present them in an unpleasant stereotype, and advocate their total extermination. This would bother and distress any self-respecting dust bunny. We could also add radios, computers, any other piece of electronic equipment that you might thoughtlessly leave on when it isn't needed. This, my friends, is the ordinary, everyday face of conservation.
Second, think about your appliance use. If you are getting ready to replace any old, worn out appliance, then think about your replacement purchase with great care. Research the various alternatives, and compare their energy requirements (this is especially important for refrigerators, which are one of the single biggest users of electricity you own). Don't just run out to the local Maytag shop and buy the cheapest, or the most awesome-looking model - make sure that the energy usage meets your conservation requirements. Sometimes, this might require paying a little more for the model initially, but in the long term, it will pay for itself. Especially as rates for electricity continue to climb, as they're predicted to do. In addition, don't run your dishwasher half full, if you must run your dishwasher at all. If possible, try washing at least some of your dishes by hand from time to time to save the electricity. Don't run your washer half full, either. And hanging clothes outside to dry can be a very enjoyable experience. We all need to get outside more. The sun is good for us, it helps us make needed vitamins, and hanging clothes on the line shouldn't take long enough to worry about excess UV radiation. In addition, your clothes will smell much fresher and cleaner. And you will have the warm glow of doing the right thing. Other possible ways to conserve are simple, and things we often don't think about. Do you use an electric toothbrush? The old-fashioned, simple manual way of brushing your teeth is just as effective. Do you use an electric can-opener? There are many models of manual can-openers on the market that are easy, efficient, and open the can just as rapidly as the electric. Do you use an electric knife? Unless you are cutting something that requires the added power, try using an old-fashioned, manual knife.
A slightly harder part to the mission now. This one will not resonate well with many people, but I think most of those who try it will find it to be much less punitive and much less unpleasant than they imagine. Look at your thermostat. Heating and air conditioning account for a significant portion of electrical usage in this country, and most of us are setting our thermostats at unrealistic settings, given the current state of energy consumption. Turn your heat down two degrees. Turn your air up two degrees. You'll find that it won't make you that uncomfortable. As a point of fact, many people turn their air on long before there is any need to at all. When it is 75 degrees outside, the air conditioners will be on, the windows will be closed, and everyone will be setting their thermostats at 72. For many of these same people, a comparable temperature in the winter will lead them to turn their heating unit on. Whatever you are accustomed to setting your heating at in the winter (80? 85?), don't turn your air conditioning on until the temperature outside reaches this temperature - if you can stand it in the winter, you can certainly stand it in the summer. And then, don't turn it any lower than 75. Do the same sort of calculation for the winter. You'll be surprised at the difference this will make on your energy usage, without any significant level of discomfort on your part. Then, in time, perhaps you'll find yourself adjusting the thermostat even more. The savings will look good. You will be able to set something aside. And don't worry about the pollution aspects of opening your windows - I guarantee you, the indoor air pollution you are breathing in your enclosed house is at least as bad for you, probably worse (more on that in the future).
Now comes the hardest part. This is something not all of us will be able to do, as it involves added expense and a great deal of time and effort on our part. If you are able, can afford it, and have the time to have it done, retrofit your house. Add solar panels. Change the windows to maximize the natural climate of your area. If you live in a hot area, plant trees to provide shade. If you live in a cool area, make sure your windows are thick, and help hold in the heat in winter. Add a heat pump that pumps water from below the ground (these are, of course, fairly expensive, and as I indicated, this is only an answer for those who have at least some amount of liquid assets available, or a very good line of credit). Research the laws in your state. You might discover that your state is one that subsidizes addition of solar panels. Perhaps your state has got one of the laws that require the energy companies to buy back any unused energy your solar panels produce. This energy then goes into the grid, so others in your area can benefit from the solar-generated energy, and you get an even bigger break on your energy bill. The best part is, we won't use up the sun by using it. The wind won't go away if we harness its power.
Over time, after you embark on this mission, you will begin to find other ways to save power. You will discover ways in which you are wasting energy that you never thought about. You may decide to share those methods with us, and we will be more than delighted to hear about them. A big portion of conservation simply comes from thinking about our actions, and maximizing our energy use to those areas where we need it most. What I am asking you to cut out is waste. Over time, if all of blue America were to take up this mission, the conservation would be enormous. And as our red neighbors begin to see the monetary savings we are accumulating, they will join us. We can prove Dick Cheney wrong - conservation can make a difference, if we actually do it. Listen! Is that sobbing I hear coming from Blair House?
Addendum:
"Make That "Vast, Energy-Sucking Wasteland"
Electricity-hungry widescreen TVs spike home energy use
Jonesing for one of those technolicious, 61-inch, flat-screen, hi-def, make-your-morning-coffee televisions? It's gonna cost you -- right in the utility bill. The Natural Resources Defense Council predicts that if current design standards hold, TVs and related accoutrements (DVD players, etc.) will account for about 10 percent of home electricity use by 2009. TVs alone will suck up about 50 percent more juice by then, for a grand total of 70 billion kilowatt-hours per year in the U.S. That will mean a lot more carbon pumped into the atmosphere just so you can get a good close look at Teri Hatcher's, um, pores. The U.S. EPA, utility company Pacific Gas & Electric, the California Energy Commission, and NRDC will be strategizing later this month about how best to measure a TV's energy use and get manufacturers to create more energy-efficient models. "People keep a TV five to 15 years, so we really need to get started making them as efficient as they can be," said NRDC's Noah Horowitz."
Source: Grist Magazine
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).