Collegiate Times

This month's issue of National Geographic magazine contains an article on the pros and cons of various biofuels.

The obvious advantages of all biofuels are that they emit less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels and can be produced on farmland rather than extracted from remote or war-torn regions of the earth.

There are some drawbacks, of course. The amount of energy required to produce ethanol from corn is nearly the same as the energy you get from burning it. Ethanol can also be produced from sugar cane, as is done in Brazil. The drawback to that is manifest in deforestation in the Amazon as cane growers use more and more land for producing fuel.

Then there are near-zero emissions energy sources such as solar and wind power. (I say "near-zero" because it does take energy to produce the wind and solar equipment). In any case, we are developing a diverse plethora of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Alternatives to fossil fuels are certainly one part of the solution to reducing carbon emissions. However, the pressing issue in the United States is not the type of fuel we use, but excessive consumption of resources in general. The bottom line is that we collectively consume a disproportionate amount of resources on a per capita basis. We are by far one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxidevia fossil fuels (though China and India are catching up pretty quickly).

If we are genuinely concerned with carbon emissions and other environmental damage, then it is imperative that we address the problem of over-consumption in the United States. The question then becomes how to do it.

Many would automatically answer that we need the government to intervene. One example of government intervention is a "carbon tax," whereby business and consumers pay an additional tax on fossil fuels beyond the excise taxes that are already in place. While this sounds good on paper, all it will really do is put more money into the already-bloated pockets of bureaucrats who care more about keeping their make-work jobs than the environment.

I contend that the government would not be very effective at reducing excess consumption in the U.S., especially since in some instances it has actually contributed to the problem. So I propose several ways to give people a financial incentive to consume less by downsizing the government.

First, deregulate the power industry. A number of states have deregulated electrical utilities in recent years, and the general trend is for consumer prices to go up. The cause could be that utilities are seeking higher profits, or they are simply now able to charge the full cost of resources. In either case, consumers in those states are now paying closer to the natural market value of electricity.

So now the only way people can keep their bills from going through the roof is to reduce electricity use, which is not hard to do. Turn off lights and appliances (like the TV and stereo) when they're not in use.

Speaking of lights, compact fluorescent bulbs use roughly one-quarter of the power as their incandescent counterparts. On a larger scale, people may seriously reconsider those 2,000-plus square foot houses that suck up a lot of juice for heating and cooling.

Maybe it would be more sensible for only two people to live in a smaller place.

Continue Reading: 12 Next »