The disaster in Japan has prompted governments world wide to revisit their safety policies for nuclear energy. Yet as I sit back in the comfort of my home and watch the drama unfold, I can't help but wonder what we really think we're going to do to prevent a disaster like this again. No, I don't blame the Japanese at all. Rather, I wonder at the collective fault of mankind. Now, I'm no scientist. If you spend much time with me at all, you'll know that science is not my strength so I don't pretend that I can speak effectively to that angle. Rather, I'm looking at our great need for "energy".
Without waxing too political, when President Obama took office, his energy platform was off-shore drilling. Whoops. After the BP disaster in the gulf, it became clear a new platform was needed. So, it seemed that the President then began to embrace nuclear energy. Whoops. And now the new platform seems to be bio-fuels. That in itself is fraught with risk, but I'll leave that for a later topic. I have stated my political observation without animosity to the President. In his position, I'm not sure there were other choices. He did not make a radical statement when he took those energy platforms. He did what most analysts expected. He took the safe road...which turned out not to be so safe.
Yet in all of that posturing and planning, who was standing up and asking the obvious question? Where was the free thinker who saw that we have only approached this issue from one angle? Which person with a voice in government looked at the other angle and said, "Is there a way we can cut back on energy?"
Silence in the room.
It's not like those thoughts aren't out there. They certainly are. But it's not really popular. Less energy means....drum roll please....less money. So which politician, which political action committee, which CEO will stand and proclaim that they are for...less income. It seems that such a statement would tend toward a shorter career. Yet for all our talk of "green", clean energy, environmental awareness, and global climate change (formerly known as global warming) why do we continue to find fuel sources through avenues that destroy the very environment we supposedly want to help?
The answer, I believe, is simple. Greed. And I'm not just talking about the money.
The truth is that energy has brought to us a lifestyle that is, well, easier. Think of the electric washing machine. That wasn't invented by a health nut. It was an invention that made the drudgery of washing a bit easier. And what about the microwave? Energy embodied, it cooks food in a fraction of the time required by more conventional methods. Then there is everybody's favorite..the television. 'Nuff said. These inventions were revolutionary in their day and they freed up our time and personal energy. But it wasn't enough. Our washing machines need to do more things faster. The microwave just wasn't fast enough. And the television just wasn't entertaining enough. Now we stream video across a variety of platforms instantaneously.
And it's still not enough.
So we have a government that subsidizes the sale of corn for bio-fuel and we applaud our "greeness" all the while demanding more energy sources. We recycle our computer components and praise our environmental awareness while some person in China strips out the hazardous materials with their bare hands. When will it end?
It won't end. Greed is a worldwide epidemic brought on by the fall of man. But as I look at our already over-bearing government, I ask why it's so wrong to begin to subsidize things that really are beneficial to the environment. Why not offer incentives to corporations who allow workers to work from home? Why not subsidize the income of a family, or groups of people, who live sustainably? Why not give grants to those who grow their own food sources. And for heavens sake, why not give a tax break to people who reduce their electricity usage to a bare minimum.
For all out talk about living in the land of plenty, I hope we see that we are bringing needless tragedy upon ourselves. I encourage you, my friends, to implement these things in your lives, as much as possible. We cannot expect the government to step in and intervene. The government wants to stay as is and so it will continue to cater to the energy greed of its constituents. We, however, have a choice. I know that there is so much more I could do. Yet as I reflect on the great tragedy that has occurred, and is occurring, in Japan it spurs me on to think a little differently about how I use energy. It causes me to think a little more simply.
