I’m not a big fan of mandatory do-goodedness, such as is happening in the current conversation about mandatory green buildings and LEED certification for buildings of a certain size or more.
Please don’t be an idiot and attempt to dissect my position by saying that I, therefore, must be advocating that we should have no standards or laws requiring basic common sense and safety. I don’t think you’ll find me — or any rational human being — saying, “Sure, go ahead and just dump that perchloroethylene into the creek behind your dry-cleaning shop.”
What I’m getting at is that attempts to mandate do-goodedness (LEED buildings, for example) flatten the conversation about a critical subject. It’s an over-institutionalized solution with a whole lot of adverse side effects when the real issues (environmental integrity, safety, protection, et cetera) can be solved from so many angles: one of which *includes,* for example, incentives for green buildings. Unfortunately, to my eyes, the current green building push — while well-intended, of course — comes off as a clumsy policy that polarizes the conversation rather than engages people, businesses, organizations and institutions.
Really. If, as a county, we want to take a strong stand on environmental protection and integrity — as our county exec has stated — there are zilions of ways to do that. Why mandate one solution (green buildings) and call it good? It ain’t. (Good, that is.) It’s contentious and does little to further the desire for people to find workable solutions from myriad perspectives.
Yeesh. How ’bout this simple solution: Yo, everybody with a yard, get yourself a friggin compost bin. Really. Compost your yard waste. And your vegetable and fruit scraps while you’re at it. Then, come spring, dig that rich, composted material out and– instead of slathering your plants with chemical (read: petroleum-based) fertilizers that invariably run off into our streams and man-made lakes (which then accelerates imbalanced ecologies and requires all kind of municipal dollars to keep the residents happy with their pretty fake lakes) … instead, you can fertilize some of your plants with God’s food: decomposted organic material. And it’s all free. Plus, you’ll be saving the county untold thousands-o-bucks by decreasing landfill and yard waste recycling costs.
Wow! A solution that benefits the citizens and the county and the environment, and it don’t cost a thang! Whodathunkit?
2 Comments
July 30, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Jessie, this was a good post. But believe it or not, I (of all people) actually disagree with you on this. If there is any legitimate need for government regulation, protecting common goods (like the environment) is it. The market price of energy does not factor in the environmental destruction that energy consumption causes. Thus, the “true cost” of burning oil and using electricity is not factored into the price of that energy. As a result, more energy is consumed than what would be in a perfect market that factors in all the costs. I guess what I am saying is that I don’t see a fundamental difference between the proposed green legislation and the regulation that prevents my dry cleaner from dumping waste chemicals in the creek out back.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this legislation will solve all environmental problems, but it is a good start. I’d like to see more regulations like this and fewer regulations on gay marriage, drugs and the countless other ridiculous government intrusions.
July 30, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Love you (or at least your blog) as I do, Freemarket, I need more information to understand your thinking better. See, I’m all for calculating in the cost of resource consumption. And, if this is what’s needed (and I’d argue it is), then that’s where the focus should be. Oui?
Perhaps (and I’m aiming for a bit of hysteria here, mind you) there should be a fee-penalty-tax on low-quality (low price) carpets that invariably get ripped out in a few short years and unceremoniously stuffed into our landfills to sit for a mighty long time. Or on, of all things, the schoolbus-sized SUVs, with their extra weight and road-wear on our highways and streets. Or, heck, on Happy Meal toys that have a half-life of about 37 seconds.
See, I don’t follow the logic that if we want a change in how we protect (salvage) our environment that we mandate one action (laws, laws, laws) and neglect the more predominant and pervasive issues (behavior, behavior, behavior).
I mean, come on, but how many 50,000 + sq ft buildings will be built in our rather-crowded county already? Hrrmph. Lots of talk. Lots of contention. Little result accept posturing, laws and more dollars spent.
We’ve got 270,000 people in this county, give or take a few. Wouldn’t we find more effective results of true environmental salvaging by finding ways for each and every one of them to do one little thing, every day, to make a difference?
For starters, if we’re going to mandate actions, I recommend that parents be banned from driving their kids to school except when the weather is utterly nasty! (Hah, that’s meant to rile feathers of all you wonderful helicopter-parents out there. I’m 98% joking … ) Perhaps we’d find average commute-time would decrease and air quality would increase; and people arguing that local traffic is just too intense would suddenly find clearer roads and commutes. To boot, kids would be healthier and neighborhoods would be safer. Just a thought.
I just get riled by these single-focus solutions. Maybe it’s a male-female worldview difference thing. (Of course, I know that many women are supportive of this green legislation. Gimme a break.) It’s just that I find big posturing for little results ineffective and alienating when there are so little things that have big results (over time) … many of which are free or really low-cost. Back to the compost-bins-for-all strategy for a super-simple start!
And, by the way, Freemarket, I agree with you about wanting to see fewer regulations on gay marriages and such, as you say, “countless other ridiculous government intrusions.”