In search of structural solutions
By: Timon Dubbeling
Since the emergence of the environmental movements during the 1970s and their initial results the decade after, ‘green thinking’ has started to establish itself especially in the mindset of developed, western societies. Today, however, as the climate debate is becoming more complex and as the ‘business-as-usual’ practices of international politics do not seem to be sufficiently restrained by the ‘green’ approach, it is about time to change the current way of thinking. Ironically, the way ahead will be to bypass the ecological movements.
First the good news: the rise of ‘green’ movements has in the course of the last decades altered the awareness of people vis-à-vis the environment; many individuals have already adapted their way of life. Green initiatives are emerging, ranging from the usage of FSC-paper to the preservation of natural heritages that would otherwise have vanished. Not only have green parties established themselves in the highest spheres of decision-making, those actors lacking a history of ‘greenness’ are now also directly or indirectly forced to increasingly engage in this new way of thinking. The most profound achievement of the last decades is perhaps the international acknowledgement of the emergency of climate change.
Unfortunately, society has reached a state where the green mentality alone does not suffice to combat the dangers that are facing it in the coming decades. Call it pragmatism, call it pessimism, but the demand for energy, along with the corollary consumption of fossil fuels, will continue to rise. The emission of CO2 is anything but descending and in the aftermath of the disappointing Copenhagen summit, prospects for improvement are low.
So where does one go from here? Most importantly, one needs to define the problem. Over the course of the last decades, and in an intensified manner during the last years, the already complex problem of climate change has been made even more complex. However, issues such as the melting of the polar caps or coal-fired power plants built in China are only marginally related to the core issue we have to solve. The real matter one stands to embark upon can be summarized in merely two words – energy consumption. By focusing on reducing the energy intensity of one’s life in a profound, structural and widely applicable manner, one can define a comprehensible, effective, and most importantly, a logical solution.
It is crucial that one understands why the current ecological approach does not pertain to the problem one should be aiming to solve. There are multiple deficiencies in the impact of ecological thinking, but let’s focus on its fundamental flaw: the moral appeal of green thinking purports the message that in order to make a difference, one should strive for limitative and restrictive actions. For example, one is told not to take the car, to turn of the lights when leaving, to put on a sweater rather than turning on the heater, etcetera. These are all viable, praiseworthy appeals and crucial measures to be taken in the aim of reducing energy consumption. However, it subliminally still feels restrictive.
Although many individuals have responded to this moral appeal over the last decades, recent polls indicate that in many western European countries, the willingness to reduce one’s energy intensity is declining – let alone how the average Chinese citizen thinks about limiting his recent enjoyment of middle-class life.
So what is the solution? It all comes down to the very conception of energy that we have. If we conceptualize energy itself in a different manner, we inherently reconsider its consumption. The gas in our heating, the electricity needed for the light bulbs and television to work: the energy we consume on a daily basis is still an invisible but nonetheless necessary mean for us to live our lives. Energy needs to become visible. Our attitude towards energy needs to adapt itself to the givens of today.
Our generation has learned to behave and communicate in an environment that is interactive and supranational in nature. Information has become a means of exchange on an unprecedented scale and with an unbelievable speed and effectiveness. We buy books on Amazon, sell our bike on EBay and share photos in an interactive, decentralized environment. Energy should be such a means of exchange. If energy is no longer something we simply buy from our energy companies but rather like the photos we upload and distribute, we can redefine energy in the most profound manner.
To understand how this vital transition would work, it is important to investigate the energy infrastructure itself. Since the introduction of large-scale electricity networks in the early 1900s, the consumers have grown accustomed to the idea that they buy the energy they need from the energy company. In this ‘centralized’ conception there is no link between two individual consumers i.e. the usage of energy of one person has no effect on that of the other. However, if one transform this system in such a way that it becomes possible to sell back energy to the grid or to sell locally produced energy to the company or to others, the very comprehension of energy will change.
Such a decentralization of the energy system has significant consequences and an enormous potential. Firstly, it would resemble the interactivity we are already accustomed to in our daily lives. If, in this interactive grid, one decides to build solar panels on top of one’s roof, it is possible to sell the energy that is produced to the grid, or more directly, to one of the surrounding consumers. This makes it interesting to generate energy locally. But it gets more interesting once the mechanism of energy becomes responsive. For in this type of network, the grid would allow a swift transport of energy from a place where there is a lot of supply to a place where there is a high demand.
Even more, what happens if the price fluctuates based on these very simple economic interactions? That would imply that energy is more valuable at times of high demand, say, for instance, around dinnertime. If one decides to sell one’s energy to the grid during this time of strong demand, a higher price will be paid for it. Similarly, if one decides to buy the same amount of energy of the grid to do the laundry late at night, the costs of doing so will decrease as the overall demand for energy is at a lower level.
The very root of the idea is that in a decentralized energy system, energy becomes a means of making money – an asset – rather than a necessary expenditure. And this definition of energy fits into the economic logic that has, in the course of time, engraved itself in our way of thinking. This ‘natural’ logic alters our behavior in a much more profound way than the moral appeals of the current ecological discourse would ever be able to. Obviously, even in the current settings the reduction of energy usage is recommendable for reasons of saving money. But rather than it being a limitative measure, the reduction of our energy usage now becomes similar to a reflex. Why leave the lights on, if by turning them off, one makes money by selling the energy to someone else?
On a larger scale, this new concept of energy achieves results that the ecological movements are so ardently striving for. First of all, in a decentralized energy network, local energy generation is stimulated –whether it is on a household basis, with the entire street or even the entire village. As such initiatives arise on a large scale, a bottom-up movement towards a new, ‘green’ era is born. Since local energy generation through e.g. wind, solar or geothermal power increases, the overall share of renewable energy within our energy mix increases. This indirectly combats climate change as one reduces the carbon intensity of one’s energy usage.
This transition also implies a strong democratization. Not only are people much more likely to reduce their energy usage but they do this in ways that give them a sense of strong individual liberty. The energy arena loses its hierarchical structure in similar ways as the expansion of Internet has. Like Internet, this new definition of energy is not restricted by physical borders. This means that, in contrast to the moral pleads of the ecological movement, this logic appeals as much to a farmer in Ivory Coast as it does to a New York businessman.
Ecological movements have achieved important results in the course of the last decades. Their actions are and will remain of high importance in underlining the need to act against the challenges we are faced with. Nonetheless, the limit of their effectiveness seems to have been reached. Their successes will undoubtedly continue but the moral and limitative appeals will not suffice to formulate structural solutions to the core issue – the reduction of energy consumption. Even here in The Netherlands, the willingness to comply seems to have reached its zenith some time ago. By altering the definition of energy in such a way that one manages to insert it into a logic that is more inherent – or at least feels that way- one can profoundly alter the status quo by empowering the individual. If energy becomes like last night’s photograph that spread rapidly in an interactive and non-hierarchical structure, and an economic means of exchange rather than an invisible necessity, we can at last formulate a coherent response to the vast problem that society faces.
This article was first published in Scope Magazine, the semi-scientific journal of University College Utrecht (UCU), on the 10th of December 2010.
The author Timon Dubbeling is studying political sciences, international relations and history at UCU and is currently on exchange at Sciences Po in Paris. Furthermore, Timon is in between presidentships of the Independent Student Energy Platform (ISEP), a student organization pursuing an informed discussion on energy topics.
This article is the first of a series of guest posts with the objective of broadening the scope of this blog by providing inspiring stories by students and young-professionals engaged in the energy transition across the globe.
‘Today’s solutions are tomorrow’s problems’, with this spot on sentence my professor in environmental history concluded his rather dry lecture. A couple of days later I read: ‘The call for geo-engineering to tackle climate change is getting louder’. Geo-engineering involves purposely changing the composition of the earth’s surface or atmosphere. Two examples: Geo-engineers propose to dump a gigantic amount of iron into the oceans. The oceans are already our biggest CO2 sink and iron, apparently, helps the oceans to store even more CO2. Inserting iron in the oceans would therefore solve our climate change problems. The second idea is to artificially simulate the effects of a volcano by emitting a large amount of dust particles into the upper layers of the atmosphere. Dust particles tend to block the sunlight and therefore have a cooling effect on the earth; voilà, global warming solved.
