Dean Scanlen: Low-carbon life can be much cheaper

Dean Scanlen says he is finding out that a low-carbon life can be much cheaper. Photo / Northern Advocate

Opinion

Herald columnist Garth George has recently been busy rebutting the argument that the climate is changing and that we (humans) have caused, and will continue to cause, any such changes.

Several others have recently put, and continue to put, similar arguments. These include the Climate Science Coalition, which has a website dedicated to rebutting claims about climate change, and Ian Wishart, who recently published Air Con on the subject.

People and organisations on this side of the argument often quote and/or have in their ranks, apparently eminent scientists, who appear to have the necessary bona fides to speak with real authority on the subject.

On the other side of the argument, the International Panel on Climate Change, to which a large proportion of the world's eminent climate scientists have provided input, is adamant that we, and we alone, are changing the climate.

Dr Jim Salinger has responded to George's first article on the subject. Gareth Morgan and John McCrystal recently published Poles Apart - Beyond the Shouting, Who's Right about Climate Change? in which they describe their own careful evaluation of both sides of the argument. They finish by agreeing with those who say we are responsible.

Some of these people must be wrong. But where does that leave Joe and Joanne public? Whom do we believe?

Based on my membership of and regular contact with other members of, Joe and Joanne public, most people are simply too busy getting on with their carbon-intensive lives to even think much about it. Those who do will simply believe what suits them.

For many of us, that means business as usual, as long as that doesn't cost us too much. Articles and books by climate-change sceptics like Garth George must seem a relief to such people. World Governments know this very well, hence the pitiful progress towards policies that will make any real difference to our carbon emissions.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe we're going to hell in a handcart because of our carbon emissions, this means banging our head against a proverbial brick wall until the resulting headache has become unbearable.

But should we despair? I think not. The recent spike in oil prices is highly unlikely to have been a one-off. What this means is that a high-carbon life is likely to keep hitting us in the pocket until the headaches being felt by today's anti-carbon activists would seem a relief.

In the near future, I foresee many low-carbon energy technologies becoming economic even without the subsidies that some Governments provide for them. Plain good business, in fact.

However, we cannot afford to rely in technology alone. Witness America, which, compared with the 1970s, is producing about 40 per cent more for each unit of carbon it emits. Even so, over the same period, its carbon emissions and fossil fuel use also increased dramatically.

In conjunction with improved technology, we each must take individual action to drastically reduce our carbon footprints. Now, not soon, or maybe.

A big barrier to individual action like this is a perception that we can't afford it. My own experience is that a low-carbon life is already a lot cheaper than a high-carbon one.

Furthermore, it has huge personal benefits. I walk, cycle or ride a motorbike for more than 90 per cent of my trips. I've replaced virtually all incandescent light-bulbs with low-energy varieties and I've installed a solar hot water system.

I don't travel overseas and I grow a good, and increasing, deal of my own fruit and vegetables. I'm developing a low/no-energy method of wastewater treatment and have other low-carbon products in mind for future trials.

As a result, my fuel and holiday costs are only about a quarter of what they would otherwise be. My body mass index is 23 and I've had only two days of sick leave in the last 15 years, despite having asthma.

My product is not ready for market yet, but it's producing much better results than the existing, mostly high energy and carbon-intensive, methods of treatment.

Excuse me for sounding self-righteous, but if we all live like this, there would be a lot less pressure on our health services and a lot less congestion on our roads and in our carparks.

Our local accommodation and public transport providers would be a lot better off and we would have to import a lot less (soon to again be really expensive) fossil fuel oil. Our Government would probably be able to abandon its insane proposal to spend billions of our hard-earned dollars on more roads and motorways, without being hammered by its constituents.

We should also be able to export a lot of the technology we develop. And our consciences are likely to be much clearer.

Oh, and Garth George should be able to stop writing about climate change and concentrate on other important issues, on many of which I will agree with him.

* Dean Scanlen lives at Onerahi in Whangarei.