Reading The Writing On The Wal

Interesting comment on the Writing on the Wal blog about Wal-Mart's energy conservation plans:

"Unfortunately the big problems have to do with our dependence on transportation (liquid fuels), the continual increase in electric power use and the rapid rise in the standard of living in China and India...

The plans being discussed to deal with the liquid fuel shortage include ethanol from corn (uses more energy to make than it yieds) and diesel from coal (creates three times the carbon dioxide that a similar amount of oil does).

What is not being discussed in scaling back consumption to a sustainable level. Driving a Prius only means that people can drive farther for the same cost as before. This is exactly what happened after the fuel shocks of the 1970’s, efficiency went up, but the number of miles driven and cars went up as well. The net effect was no savings in fuel usage."

It seems logical to me that reducing our usage is the best way to
A) save on energy costs
B) ease the burden on the environment and our infrastructure
C) stick it to the oil barons getting rich off of $3/gallon gasoline

Championing increased efficiency over reduced usage is like saying "Ooh, yay, this ice cream has 1/2 the calories (or fat, or carbs, or whatever you're trying to kick) than it used to. I can eat twice as much!!" We all know that's not the way to diet - and we definitely need to cut down on our carb(on)s.

The Writing On The Wal » Blog Archive » Coincidentally, I just let my Newsweek subscription expire