Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: (TED Talk) Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy [View all]hunter
(40,523 posts)I can't listen to him.
We've met, decades ago...An ex-girlfriend of mine adored him and she went into a similar business, selling some of my work too. She's made a lot of money off military contracts. She and her family fly around even more than Lovins' does. At this point they certainly have a bigger carbon footprint than Lovins. I'm pretty sure they can burn more oil on a single vacation than my family does in a year.
My opinions are not unbiased. Oh hell, maybe I'm just wondering how things might have been had I followed another path. But I couldn't sell what I didn't believe in.
I do believe GliderGuider has it right. Improving the energy efficiency of institutions like the U.S. military or Wal-Mart does not make the world a better place. It goes beyond Jevon's paradox.
Rather than make the military more energy efficient, I think we could simply eliminate 95% of our military. We could make it impossible for exploitive employers like Wal-Mart to exist. Institutions that no longer exist don't use any energy. Simple. A ship or vehicle that's not replaced stops using fuel when it's melted down and turned into urban housing. A military base that's closed and restored as wilderness stops using energy.
Efficiencies of the sort Lovin's support only prolong the agonies of political and economic systems that are unsustainable and destructive.