Environmentalists Should Give Economics a Chance

Prison movies make me squirm. It's the horror of the lone individual against the all-powerful authority, the voiceless protests, the irresistible commands.

I feel much the same way when I'm surrounded by ardent environmentalists. I'm sure they're well-meaning, and they are most likely correct much of the time. But I fear the universal acceptance of their cause could lead to the oppression of us carbon-spewers, and I caught a glimpse of that future at a recent forum held jointly by the Week and the Conference Board.

The gathering hosted three business leaders and the air and energy program director at the National Resources Defense Council, Ashok Gupta. The editor at large of the Week, Sir Harold Evans, encouraged the panelists — including the president of Shell Oil Company — to conclude that the government has to regulate carbon emissions more aggressively, as it is likely that free market forces are not up to the task.

In response, Mr. Gupta suggested that in five or 10 years "we will have to look at consumer lifestyles. … The next five to 10 years we will use current technologies ... but then we will look at where people live, the density, how people live down the road."

My reading of that comment was that at some point you may not be allowed to have a large house, or two houses, heaven forbid, or fly a private plane, or drive more than one automobile. Though in a follow-up conversation Mr. Gupta backed off such a tyrannical position, it is clear that environmental hard-liners would like to impose a sort of lifestyle cap that will make the Democrats' efforts at income redistribution look like child's play.

I may be overreacting, but the growing force of the environmental movement makes me wary. Which is why I happily endorse the kinds of measures that make sense, including some involving the government. My view: Give economics a chance. We could start by publicizing more broadly the kinds of things that people can do to cut emissions, and also, by the way, lower their energy bills. For instance, the CEO of Philips North America, Paul Zeven, reported at the forum that lighting accounts for 20% of all energy usage worldwide, an astonishing figure. Philips and others are ramping up production of compact fluorescent light bulbs, which, according to the packaging of one 75-watt bulb, last for seven years and can save $55 in electricity over one bulb's lifetime. The CFL uses 20 watts of energy compared to 75 for a regular incandescent light bulb, and it lasts 10 times longer.

The group at the break fast agreed that incandescent technology was all but dead — and that as the cost of making the CFLs comes down, and as consumers are better educated about the cost savings, the old-fashioned product will disappear. So there's one big dent in the 20% of the world's energy usage right there.

The president of Olympus America, Mark Gumz, described his company's new headquarters building, which uses technology that significantly reduces energy consumption. As with the CFL, building green requires some incremental investment up front, but this cost will be paid back over time in lower energy charges. It is almost inconceivable that builders are not given incentives to employ such devices.

The panelists agreed that America is lagging behind Europe in adopting a greener stance. Abundant supplies of relatively cheap

energy (and powerful oil and automobile lobbies) historically have created habits that have persisted even in the face of rising oil prices. Increasingly, Americans are looking across the pond for guidance. Indeed, a recent trip to Britain confirmed not only that London really is one of the most expensive places in the world to eat — just ranked no. 2 on that front behind Moscow, of all places, by Zagat — but also that the citizenry of that city is way ahead of their New York counterparts in going green.

One of the more visible signs of green behavior is the growing number of Londoners riding bicycles to work these days. It is not just the oddball executive in his suit amid the droves of messengers, as in New York; all kinds of people are cycling through central London these days. In fact, automobile drivers there at rush hour concede an entire lane to bicyclists, creating in effect a safety zone.

Not only do all these cyclists help out in conserving energy, they are of course also boosting their own health. Within Mayor Bloomberg's proposal of a congestion pricing scheme modeled after that in London, there is also the prospect of a major effort to build bike lanes. Soon enough, New Yorkers, too, will have the opportunity to bike to work.

There is some irony in the fact that these capitals of the developed world are adapting practices that the citizens of Beijing and Saigon, for instance, are desperately trying to shed. No self-respecting Chinese who can afford to drive a car would willingly hop on a bicycle. You could argue that we in the developed world have come so far forward that now we have to go backward.

It turns out that development, or progress, comes with a price — damage to the environment and damage to our health — weight gain, lung disease, and other problems associated with too much good living.

How soon this raised consciousness will bring about slower rates of energy consumption is anyone's guess, though I would bet that the impact is sooner and greater than is generally expected. Why? Because most corporations are able to produce enormous energy savings today, if only the consumers demand it. The efforts by companies like Wal-Mart to take a lead in this arena by shrinking packaging and recycling cooking oil is typical of the measures that can be taken, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. And this iceberg, I imagine, is in no danger of melting any time soon.

peek10021@aol.com