• by Sam Gardner

Green gadgets are all around us. Photovoltaic cells will produce electricity, hybrid cars will cut greenhouse gases and bio-diesel is a sustainable fuel for cars and aeroplanes.

These green gadgets show promising technological pathways, but hailing them as saviors is not accelerating the drive for the greening of the economy. On the contrary, by detracting the attention from the investments that are already now economical and environmentally ready, they are used as a populist alternative for environmental policy.

Indeed, supporting the green gadgets as if they are sufficient is just populist politics: they promote a solution to a perceived problem, without taking into account the analysis of the problem and the alternative solutions. This is why good green policy should never promote a technical option. Instead it should promote an environmental objective, and judge the technical solutions on their merits.

Every day I make implicit or explicit choices impacting on the environment. I wake up in the morning and I brush my teeth with an electric toothbrush. With a rechargeable battery. However, lately the battery seems to deplete faster, so I throw the battery away. Where? Away…(People in Europe, used to recycling batteries and paying ecotaxes, might be at a loss at the US negligence in this regard). I check my E-mail on a 255 MHz computer from the mid-nineties. The apartment I live in has no roof insulation nor double glazing. I walk out the door to the Subway and go to work. When springtime comes, I ride my bike. I travel by plane 3 - 4 times a year, and while on holidays, I drive a rental car. I love driving a powerful all terrain vehicle.

Should the environmental impact of throwing batteries loaded with heavy metals in the trash count for more than the effects on global warming of using more energy? I am quite convinced of it. The poisoning of the environment seems to be fully forgotten as an issue while global warming is en vogue. A maize field is a biological desert, moreover it poisons the rivers and seas with over-fertilization. Extending the production of this crop for producing bio-fuel is not a boon for the biodiversity nor for the future of the planet. Meanwhile, it has been calculated that insulating roofs and windows could save up to 40% of our energy heating and air-conditioning bill, paying itself back after only a few years. A basic “stupidity tax” is raised daily on people who still use non-rechargeable batteries or fail to insulate their house. This tax should be raised to levels that are sufficient to change behavior.

Global warming is now the number one environmental issue, but we must remember that every intervention against global warming should be weighed against its impacts in other fields. such as broader environmental impact. The broader environmental impact, and economical, social , political and human rights issues should also be taken into account. This is what the “Copenhagen Consensus” exercise found while investigating the priorities for developing aid: when your number 1 problem is child mortality, a lot of other issues suddenly seem marginal.

The collateral effects of environmental choices can be in unexpected fields: I remember that more than 20 years ago one of the arguments against nuclear power was its scale and the need for security - during transport, and while in production - leading to a militarization of society with a monopoly of “big energy” together with a need for a security-obsessed “big government” in the production of electricity. This is probably an exaggerated fear, but it shows the need to discuss the impact on other fields of technological choices. If global warming is the only issue, nuclear power is a clearly a winner. However, a choice for nuclear power should be part of an overall policy. This policy should also contain elements to diminish the socio-economical risks of dependence on too-powerful providers.

The public debate on the importance of the environmental and economical priorities for the coming years seems to be rather shallow. Instead of analyzing the problem, and only then fixing the objectives and the optimal means to get there, short-term-ism seems to jump from the perceived problem to the perceived solution.

If the policy goal is producing fewer greenhouse gases , it should take measures to discourage greenhouse gas production over the board, from all sources: from cars, through meat production or for air conditioning. The carbon tax must be high enough to incite proper behavior. Meanwhile the state must run public information campaigns on the economical and environmental benefits of energy saving; campaigns from electricity producers alone look hypocrite. Moreover, there should be active support for the research in alternative energy and energy savings. On top of it all there can be measures to help those who suffer most from the tax in their transformation to a environmentally friendly approach to their business. Under such a policy, the numbers of green gadgets on the market would grow steadily, until they become the norm rather than a gadget.

Policy should not reduce greenhouse gases at all costs. Policy is about trade-offs, and society has not just one goal. The voice for other environmental causes has been silent lately.

Subsidizing the gadgets that are claimed to be a silver bullet, such as bio-fuels, will probably backfire. Supporting a current technology stifles innovation in new research and, in the long run, exacerbates the problem. The main role of the policy is creating an environment with strong incentives for diminishing the greenhouse gases, but not at all costs.

You can comment on this article on the Discussion Page