Saturday 9 May 2009

Living the good life

When I first arrived in Australia in 2004, it didn't take 12 hours before I was told of the drought and reminded to keep shower time down. In subsequent years, the concept of a filled bath tub became - slowly but surely - relegated to the realm of science fiction. And it doesn't look like this was just because of the few strange people I fell in with: after nearly four years in the country, I'm just about convinced that the nation - and especially the big cities - are obsessed with saving water.

Yet, water isn't where it ends. As the elections loomed and environmental concern reached the political agenda, televisions were struck with government-funded adds that seemed to have the single purpose of making us feel guilty of using any electricity at all: switch on lights, TVs, microwaves or alarm clocks and black balloons of doom would fill your house: the CO2 is everywhere and it will kill you. (This purpose was of course secondary to trying to convince the electorate that Howard was good for them. As good as CO2, if you ask me.)

Such guilt-ridden consumerism (aka the idea that anything beyond sitting in a cave is bad for the Earth and will destroy your kids and grandkids if not yourself), is of course nothing new to me: one doesn't have to live in an extremist-Calvinist community to be made aware of the dreadful things we do to our planet and how this will curse us in the end. As a point of illustration, one of the few things I remember from primary school is how we were told of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest for the dual benefit of quick gain from tropical wood sales and opening up of cheap pastures to breed McDonalds-cows. I've been ingrained by obsessive-compulsive turning off of lights, closing of dripping taps and taking trains not cars. However, environmental concerns aren't the end of this, either: the government and lobby-groups go through quite some effort to push us into the correct straightjacket: extensive advertising campaigns have left me incapable of considering driving and drinking (however little) on the same night. It's an interesting life, which is guided by reflexes of guilt.


Down here, I haven't detected much of that. In contrast to the Australian balloons of doom, here I've seen car stickers praising the merits of coal ("coal forever!") and the secretary of the interior explains on prime-time television that limiting the consumption of coal is simply not something worth thinking about. Here, people have figured out that it's so much easier to go by car than by any other means, so why wouldn't we? And if you've had a few to drink - hey, as long as you know what you're doing and you've got a big enough 'truck' to feel safe, what could go wrong?

Don't worry about long showers or filling bath tubs - in fact, the shower knob doesn't even allow me to adjust the volume of water, so maybe a full-blown bath may be more economical after all! Also, you shouldn't feel obliged to fill your kitchen with fifteen different trash bags: just put it all in a single one, it isn't really your problem what happens to it, after all - that's why you pay bills for trash collection, right?

Another one: why would you go through the effort of buying groceries, cooking and doing dishes (or, rather, filling the dish washer) every day? Eating out is cheap, yummy and fast. Surely in a time and place where time is money, you'll just pop by Subway or KFC after work? There's no need to panick about refilling your drink during dinner, either - while in Belgium the biggest cost of eating out is often that second Coke you've ordered, in the US (or at least in Morgantown), refills are free.

In fact, to come down to the most nitty-gritty details: my age-old obsession with not choking the kitchen sink is rendered worthless by the mechanical cutter-device installed underneath. Drop anything you like down the sink, if it gets stuck you simply flick the switch and along with the whirring noise, the water level will drop again.


Of course the above is a bit of a caricature: I've seen water wasted in NSW and know plenty of Belgians who wouldn't give a light switch a second thought. On top of that, I've only lived here for 3 months so the few Americans I know and an out-of-context quote from the secretary of the interior may not really paint a convincing picture. But even so, I cannot escape the feeling that the USA isn't only pervaded with a feeling of opportunity and optimism, but also of an attitude to live the good life. And take it or leave it, there's a lot to be said in favour that.

7 comments:

  1. Its all about protecting the environment right? I know some people here in Denmark that doesn't care about the environment. Some of them use electricity for so many devices which are on all the time. 3 computers with huge monitors can draw lots of power in one day, or just imagine... a WHOLE year. Water however is something else. We learn to not misuse our water supplies from 3rd grade. Its a common thing. Well, at least here it is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joris, you perplex my good self. You are further to the left than I am (from the barrel of the gun, not the legislature, remember) and yet that read like, dare I utter it, an Andrew Bolt column. "A lot to be said for" not considering the ramifications of one's actions? Mock over-emotive language about "black balloons of doom"? Sirrah, defend thyself!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not quite sure to be pleased or worried about that reaction, Paul. Let's approach it sentence per sentence.

    "left of the barrel of the gun, remember"? Uhm, no, I don't. I really haven't a clue what that means, I'm afraid. (Though the remainder of your comment suggests it means "to the right of the legislature"?)

    "That read like an Andrew Bolt column." My goodness. According to Wikipedia, Andrew Bolt is "a conservative pundit [who writes for] the Herald-Sun." So I guess I should be really upset now.

    "not considering the ramifications of one's actions" - well, that's not really what this was all about. For example, having a massive weed hacker at the bottom of a kitchen sink, is a good idea and for all I know the trash (or some of it) will be sorted out afterwards. But let's get on to the next point, because I feel it's related.

    "Mock over-emotive language about black balloons of doom". Yeah, the language is a bit colourful, but I guess that's just the way I like it :-P As for mocking the ad - yes, I really, really dislike that ad. I know its purpose was all good and acceptable, but that doesn't take away the fact that, while all of Europe has spent the last 20 to 30 years moving away from coal, to the (somewhat) cleaner energy sources of gas, nuclear, water, wind and (most recently) solar, the Australian government (like WV, by the way) has been asleep and more concerned about banning unions than about moving away from coal. Who pays the price? Who has to be instilled with a feeling of guilt and doom every time they switch on a light switch? The common Australian.

    Now I know saving energy is a good thing - trust me, I do know that very well and try my best to live by it - but I honestly think this is an unjustified apportioning of blame: it's not my fault that Australian electricity makes so much CO2 - it's the government's fault. If the add had been about saving energy in general, I would have been all for it. Since it's about our CO2 footprint, I think I can wash my hands of it.

    Linking this in to the earlier point, I guess my opinion is that, provided with a good and strong government, it should be possible to lead a live with less worries. If your government is responsible enough to get its energy from the cleanest resources, then running the airconditioning a few degrees lower shouldn't be a problem. If your government is responsible enough to pull the water bill high enough to actually make sense, then water-saving shower heads and toilets will probably become an industrial standard because they actually pay off. Cars are almost an identical story: industry cannot be expected to have too much of a long-term vision, so why haven't governments given more support to non-petrol-based cars?

    All I'm really saying is that it's not a reflex of mine to live the good life and that maybe that's a loss which I didn't fully appreciate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I must confess, my comment was supposed to be slightly provocative, but then so was your post I think.

    First things first: no, you do not want to be Andrew Bolt. In this format I cannot use the necessary words to describe that cheap, phoney, sensationalist fear monger (and the worst thing, when you scratch the surface, he appears to knw better, and dilutes his garbage with just enough nuggets of sense to be dangerous). Secondly, the reference you refer too was from a kitchen discussion we had about how to enact a certain philosophy from the 1800s. I didn't want your visa revoked by being too explicit.

    As to the general bulk, yes, I agree whole-heartedly. I personally did not get that that was what you meant by the initial post. The government attitude here on energy is akin to the 'tipping' culture where you are; rather than the government setting a decent minimum wage without exceptions, the individual member of the public gets guilted into remedying the problem day by day.

    My only criticism is with this rhetoric: "industry cannot be expected to have too much of a long-term vision, so why haven't governments given more support to non-petrol-based cars?". You must never forget that industry will lobby government and crate scare campagnes to defend their short-term visions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ouch. My poor spelling in that one makes me a true (that is, illiterate) internet user.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "extremist-Calvinist" is it in anyway related to Calvin and Hobbes ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uhm. Not really. Except maybe in a contradictory way. What it was intended to refer to, was the religious order of the Calvinists which - as Wikipedia puts it - "is best known for its doctrines of [...] total depravity."

    ReplyDelete