One of the most important debates these days is climate change that extends from the papal controversy to the goal of reducing gas emissions that may offer good chances for environmental improvements in the future.
Last year, president Obama announced the goal of reducing carbon emissions by as much as 18% from 2005 levels by 2025, only 10 years for now. The previsions are optimistic but they don’t actually fit with the facts. The efforts to reduce gas emissions need constant and considerable investment and the results would not be as optimistic as expected.
Energy efficiency is a very popular topic on the debate halls of politicians all over the world, part of their endeavor to combat climate change without hurting economies. Everything is part of a strategy to reduce fossil fuel consumption and save consumers money.
But how can that be done when our lives are dominated by the use of fossil fuel consumptions, starting with cars and appliances in our homes, to factories that survive by polluting the environment, among other things?
Instead of going to the main roots of pollution, state policies encourage members of the community to insulate their homes or buy a more efficient appliance, but done at a large scale even, it wouldn’t provide much protection for the environment. The more so, green energy costs a lot and most societies cannot afford to adapt themselves to a new way of considering and using recyclable or green products.
Consequently, a new study of households that received federal subsidies to optimize their homes revealed that the efficiency investments cost far more than they can manage to save. Consumers are entitled to ignore the state encouragement for such investments, as they don’t pay off.
Energy efficiency is extremely expensive. The weatherization improvements cost more than twice compared to the households’ energy savings. Even if we include the social benefits from less pollution, the deal stays unprofitable.
Environmental experts react by saying that this part of the climate change strategy is a waste of money and time on all ends.
Climate change calls for efficient measures, not speculations on the potential effects of optimizing houses with green energy.
Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, argued in a letter to the White House that allowing the burning of biomass to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, as previously proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, would violate the Clean Air Act. This is another failed initiative coming from politicians who lack in management skills over climate change.
Image Source: abc.net.au