By: Jim Taylor

Suddenly, Kermit has company.
           As a Muppet, Kermit the Frog sang, "It's not easy being green." But this year, being green has become fashionable.
           After years of attacking the Kyoto Accord, George Bush finally admitted the reality of climate change.
           After floating a Clean Air Act that missed the point completely, Stephen Harper made global warming a priority.
           And here in B.C., Premier Gordon Campbell announced what Canadian Press called "the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction plan in Canada.aiming to reduce emissions by one-third by 2020."
           Unfortunately, all three leaders are lamentably short on how they plan to reverse the accumulation of heat-retaining gases in our atmosphere.
           I frankly don't see Canadians deserting their SUVs and pickup trucks en masse, motivated only by an altruistic desire to save the planet. Nor can I imagine Canadians living in houses as cool -- chilly might be a better description -- as homes in Scotland or Ireland.
           As residents of a cold and scattered country, Canadians rank high among the world's energy consumers. Each Canadian contributes five metric tonnes of greenhouse gases every year to the world oversupply. Canada as a whole produced about 780 megatonnes last year.
           Most Canadians doubt that individual efforts will make any significant difference, compared with the U.S., China, and India. Even if Canada cut carbon emissions to zero, the worldwide total would drop only fractionally.

SAME OLD, SAME OLD
           So far, most of the solutions I've heard sound like doing more of the same. Recycling, for example. Improving efficiency. Organizing carpools.
           Sure, these are all valuable. Recycling means that materials presently going into landfill can be re-used to create other products while saving energy. "Aluminum is the classic example," says Guy Dauncey, a sustainability expert in Victoria. Aluminum from recycled cans uses only five per cent of the energy required to smelt aluminum from bauxite ore.
           But if present practices haven't made much difference so far, I can't see them producing a massive turn-around tomorrow.
           If we're going to make headway, I suggest, we will have to start thinking outside the existing boxes.
           For a starter, how about banning air conditioning in homes and offices?
           We got along for thousands of years without air conditioning. Today, air conditioning causes peak energy demands every summer, especially across the southern states.
           If global warming makes summers uncomfortably hot, perhaps people will feel more motivated to do something about it. As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

VOLUME DISCOUNTS
           Second, let's quit subsidizing the biggest energy users. Volume discounts reward those who use more.
           Last year, B.C. Hydro billed me slightly over six cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). If I used more than 3000 kwh, the rate would go up to around ten cents.
           But industrial rates tell a different story. According to B.C. Hydro's published rate schedules, industrial rates drop from 9.48 cents/kwh to 3.90 as usage increases; their "General Service" rate plunges from 7.12 cents to 3.42 when usage exceeds 14,800 kwh per month.
           That doesn't feel like a deterrent.
           Similarly, Terasen charges residential users $8.50 per gigajoule for natural gas, but $7.63 for industrial users.
Kelowna does the same with its water rates. Residential rates rise from 25 cents per cubic metre to 50 cents as usage goes up. But commercial users get water for 15.2 cents per cubic meter.
           In fact, even theoretically "flat" payments encourage excessive use of resources.
           Think about your car insurance. You pay a flat fee, every year, based on your driving record. The more you drive, the less it costs you per kilometre.
           If you paid based on annual kilometres, you might drive a lot less.

USER-PAY PRINCIPLES
           Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. writes, "There is no technical or political obstacle to switching to pay-by-the-mile insurance. Insurers could continue to assess different rates based on drivers' accident history and other relevant factors. This is mainly a problem of inertia."
           Baker cites studies that pay-as-you-drive policies "would reduce driving by about 9 per cent." Immediately.
           By comparison, technological improvements phase in gradually, as newer cars replace older ones. Baker calculates that a even 50 per cent improvement in efficiency on new cars would take at least three years to achieve a comparable energy saving.
           Ironically, Baker gets support from SUV owners in California, who have organized to fight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's new green laws.
           A fact sheet from spokesperson Ron DeFore said: "There is no device, no converter or trap that can be bolted to a vehicle to capture carbon dioxide emissions. The only way to produce less carbon dioxide is to drive less or drive a smaller car."
Precisely. The amount of carbon released into the atmosphere corresponds directly to the amount of fuel burned. Efficiency may move you further on the same amount of gas, but it doesn't alter the equation -- carbon in equals carbon out.
           Therefore, anything that reduces the amount of fuel consumed should be welcomed. Even higher prices for gasoline.
           Why not? If I choose to flaunt my disregard for the health of the planet -- like deliberately blowing smoke in a non-smoker's face -- shouldn't I pay for that privilege?

RE-THINKING ASSUMPTIONS
           All these suggestions, you might note, require a radical re-adjustment of our thought patterns. We take for granted that we have a right to cheap gas, air conditioning, volume discounts.
           Ultimately, it demands recognition that we humans are not the only life form on this planet.
           Humans use oxygen, and produce carbon dioxide as a waste product. Plants use carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen as a waste product. If we lived in harmony, we'd have a finely balanced equilibrium.
           Instead, we produce more and more carbon-based waste, while we mindlessly annihilate the natural species that used to provide balance.
           The scales are tilting in the direction of disaster.

*****************************************
Copyright © 2007 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
*****************************************