Green Choices

In the frantic rush to save the planet, the green way is presented as a clearly defined path in the wilderness. Certain choices are labeled as being environmentally friendly without defining how much and under what circumstances. We're told solar panels will prevent fossil fuels from burning but we're not told what quantitiy of fossil fuels were burned to make the panel. Hybrid cars are only effective when they're used in certain circumstances. Compact Flourescent Bulbs are a clear green choice...but not if you throw the bulb away. California is cleaner because of it's policies but what about the areas from where they purchase their electricities. If this is a global problem, surely it demands a global accounting? In general, we have alternatives that have marginal advantages depending upon circumstances.

****

Recently, I was asked about the "greeness" of a snowmobile. As an alternative to other winter sports, it probably isn't that bad. Locally, it would distribute fumes from the engine but how much worse is it than the huge ski resorts cut into the sides of mountains where people drive their cars in large numbers. Many continue to live there and have a lasting impact. Which is worse? You'd have to add up all the environmental costs, for construction and usage. You'll likely find that the ski resort option causes more damage over a broader geographical area, whereas the snowmobile causes more locally, where it is used. Neither will be a clear choice over the other.

****

Bottom line, people cause pollution. They also enjoy thinking their pollution don't stink like someone else's.