Green Illusions summary

In contrast to the conventional energy sources discussed in the previous blink, sustainable energy sources are thought to be capable of fulfilling our present energy needs without depleting a resource that future generations will need to generate energy.

Alternative energy-generating technologies, such as solar, wind, water, hydrogen and biofuels, aim to reduce emissions of CO2, thereby lessening global warming. Another goal is decreasing humanity’s use of and dependence on fossil fuels to negate their ill effects.

As mentioned in the previous blink, the other group of alternative energy sources is called renewables, or sources that are near infinite, such as solar and water power, which we’ll examine now in more detail.

Solar energy is also problematic because it’s generated by solar cells, and the manufacturing of solar cells produces a great deal of highly potent greenhouse gases.

Perhaps the main trap in alternative energy sources is that, although they may be renewable or regrowable, the equipment and processes required to actually generate power from them are not. Let’s take two examples:

The hydrogen-powered car seems like the perfect green mode of transportation, as it’s powered by a hydrogen fuel cell that emit nothing but pure water.

Considering all these negative side effects, the hype surrounding alternative energy sources seems excessive to say the least. So why do people tend to ignore all the negative side effects of alternative energy sources?

The answer lies in our inner motivations.

Have you ever felt that alternative energy sources are advertised as the solution to all our problems by almost every politician, media source and company?

If so, you’d be right on: green marketing is omnipresent in public discourse. But why is that?

In addition to all the negative side effects mentioned in the previous blinks, alternative energy sources have one more crucial flaw: they don’t address the real core of the energy crisis, i.e., our high demand for energy. Instead, they just offer technological solutions or ways of producing more energy or increasing energy efficiency. In other words, they’re aimed at treating the symptoms, not the disease itself.

And even something as seemingly benign as improving energy efficiency has negative side effects, as it can ironically lead to a higher, not lower, demand for energy.

By now it’s become clear that the energy crisis doesn’t stem from a lack of energy, but from our high level of energy consumption. This means everyone can help solve the crisis by deciding to consume less.

But how can we transition from our current productivist-consumerist oriented way of life to something more modest?

In addition to convincing people to change their consumer behavior, there are other steps the US government can take to save energy on the level of the entire economy. For them to be effective, these measures should be aimed at decreasing energy consumption while increasing well-being, and not be too expensive.

First of all, taxation should shift away from income and focus more on consumption. Up until now, the prices of goods haven’t really reflected the negative side effects of the energy required to produce them, and this needs to change.

One of the most obvious influences on global energy needs is the size of the population: more people require more energy.

Many environmentalists are thus in favor of implementing policies to reduce birth rates. But as women’s rights advocates state, this approach effectively treats women as nothing but wombs, without respecting their right to control their own reproductive behavior.

When one thinks of an environmentally friendly lifestyle, the cliché of a house somewhere in the countryside or suburbs often springs to mind. But this is only true in the case of an autarkic lifestyle, i.e., one independent of transportation.

Usually, living in the suburbs has one major environmental disadvantage: having to drive long distances by car to get anywhere. As America has become increasingly suburbanized, the amount of time that average Americans spend in their cars has doubled over the past 30 years to 45 hours per month.

The key message in this book:

If we want to save the planet and resolve the energy crisis, we can’t sit around hoping that technological solutions will be invented to allow us to keep up our excessive energy consumption. Instead, we must encourage decreased consumption.