Waste Not, Want Not: Conservation Is Key To Solving Energy Crisis

6 Oct

You’re a leech.


There, I said it.

But don’t worry; I am too. We all are.

I remember the first time I saw the Wachowski brothers’ film The Matrix back in the late 90s (a shame they never made any sequels). Not a bad flick; great soundtrack and perhaps the first time since Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure that Keanu Reeves had been cast in a role that suited his unique acting style (which is, of course, no style at all). The movie was largely a popcorn film designed to fill theater seats with technophiles, wannabe-hackers and otherwise disenfranchised youth of the end of the century. The premise of the film was pretty standard Outer Limits fare – machines take over the world and plug all the humans into a computer-generated reality while using our bodies as living batteries to power their 22nd century iPods and three-hundred foot plasma screen TVs and whatever – but they bandied around some interesting ideas. Of particular note was the following monologue, delivered by Hugo Weaving in his excellent portrayal of the evil computer program Agent Smith:

I’d like to share a revelation I had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Humans beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet…and we are the cure.”

agent smith

Okay, it’s pretty pithy upon reflection, but the idea is still sound. Since about ten thousand years ago, human beings have spread across the four corners of the earth, setting up McDonalds and Starbucks as we go, forging empires, having grand old wars, building up and burning down and building up again. And Hugo is right: our behaviour really does resemble a virus’. As we’re all well aware the biggest threats to our continued existence on this planet are overpopulation and dwindling resources. The fact of the matter is, no matter what school of thought you subscribe to, sooner or later fossil fuels are going to run out – that’s the whole point of the term “non-renewable”. It might take two or three hundred years; it might happen in our lifetimes (the reports are somewhat conflicting) but it’s going to happen. That’s not even taking into consideration the kind of damage we’re doing to the planet’s atmosphere and rapidly-disappearing natural environments.

pollutionSo what do we do?

I’ve written before on the topic of alternate energy, and in the past I’ve been pretty harsh in my judgements of the myriad proposals designed to wean us from fossil fuels and onto something better – proposals which have ranged from the reasonable to the sci-fi-esque to the patently ridiculous. I’ve been a staunch supporter of nuclear energy as a stopgap measure to get us through the current energy crisis until such time as a truly renewable option presents itself. Realistically, nuclear energy is the closest we have come to an unlimited source of energy for the planet’s ever-growing requirements, but it’s undeniably expensive (though cheaper and more efficient than many other options) and, perhaps most importantly, it doesn’t address the fundamental problem inherent to our race: like Agent Smith said at the beginning of this article, we’re just wasteful.


According to the Energy Information Administration the United States alone is responsible for the consumption of 335.9 million BTUs per person per year since 1970. To give you an idea (since I didn’t know either), one BTU (or British Thermal Unit) is equivalent to about 1.06 kilojoules, or the amount of energy required to heat one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. That’s a lot of science, so let’s break it down.


When you look at your electricity bill, you’re typically looking at it in terms of Kilowatt Hours (kWh), which is equal to 3.6 megajoules of energy. That means that one kilowatt hour is equal to 2.94 BTUs. That, in turn, means that each US citizen in the EIA statistics uses roughly one hundred fourteen million kWh per year. That’s not per household – that’s per person. Here’s a little context to give you an idea what this means.

According to Festival Hydro, some of the biggest kWh users in an average family are appliances like hot water heaters (running anywhere from 375-525 kWh per month), washing machines (33-196), dehumidifiers (42-252) and central air/heating (an incredible 850-3000 kWh per month). This is all average use, which is fine for my purposes.

Take a look at the linked table. Let’s assume the average family is using the absolute maximum of everything on that list. That’s a grand total of 5714 kWh/month, which in turn translates into 68,568 kWh/year.

Now wait just a goddamn minute here. The EIA tells us each US citizen is using one hundred fourteen million kilowatt hours per year.

lights on usa

To be fair, I’m no mathematician, nor am I a statistician, or any other kind of “ician” for that matter. But unless my math is totally pear-shaped, something is very, very wrong with these numbers. Hell, even if I miscalculated somehow and Festival Hydro’s numbers account for far, far more of the total year than it appears, that’s still vastly disproportionate.

Let’s assume the EIA is talking about all the energy used, all the time – they account for the grill in McDonalds when you go in for a Big Mac, the streetlight you spent ten minutes waiting to turn green every evening, the electricity needed to pump the gas for your car, et cetera. Even then – a hundred and fourteen million kilowatt hours per year is pretty impressive as far as consumption goes.

And that’s just the United States. The EIA informs me that the US is actually seventh place as far as energy consumption goes – even here in Canada, we’re consuming more per person than those so-called wasteful Americans (at 427.2 million BTUs or 145 million kWh per year).

waste reduction week canada

Let`s face it – we can’t even comprehend numbers like this. It’s all science – it’s beyond our ability to envision, even with my amateur attempts at contextualizing it. Like Eddie Izzard said, you could count to a million, but you probably wouldn’t. But I think even us pseudo-scientists can agree that almost one hundred and fifty million of anything is a really huge number, and when it relates to the amount of energy we’re essentially pissing away year after year, the numbers become even more frightening.

So what’s to be done? That’s a question right up there with “what’s our place in the universe” and “what do women really want” as far as a difficulty-in-answering ratio.

what women want

Well, a lot of extremists on all sides like to say things like “we can’t live without oil; nothing else is going to work” or contrarily “dude, let’s totally replace all the coal plants with big wind generators – that’ll, like, fix the whole problem over night”. Of course both of these hypothetical people are idiots.

liberal versus conservative

I’m far more interested in people like the ones heading up the Rocky Mountain Institute who are working on an energy efficiency plan designed to wean the United States from its fossil fuel dependency inside of two decades. RMI Chairman and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins had this to say about his group’s plan:

Put simply, we intend to reverse the past quarter-millennium’s dominant global way in which people get and use energy…[f]ive years ago, almost nobody thought the United States could get off oil. “Now that’s a serious goal with encouraging momentum. Can we now imagine getting off the coal that makes half our nation’s electricity? Certainly.”

Sound good? It gets better. Here are some of the talking points from their Reinventing Fire campaign:

  • If America used electricity only as efficiently as the top ten states averaged four years ago, five-eighths of U.S. coal-fired electricity would become unnecessary.

  • Using electricity fully cost-effectively would save even more, displacing all coal power and more.

  • We could save two-fifths of the coal power by properly exploiting industrial co-generation, plus a lot more in buildings.

According to Lovin, applying just “part of what we know” about energy conservation and efficient use of what we have will lessen the load in a huge way over a period of years, freeing up resources to put towards developing truly renewable sources of energy.

So what does this mean for the average person? How do we help facilitate these processes, assuming we’re interested in doing so (which we all should be if we’ve got a half a brain)?

half brain

People born into my generation have been learning about the so-called Three R’s since we were old enough to read and write, and sometimes even before. The most important of these are the first two: reduce and reuse. Everybody knows it’s better to carry your groceries in your backpack than it is to use up three or four plastic bags you’re inevitably going to throw away, and everybody knows it’s better to put your lunch in Tupperware instead of using ream after ream of plastic wrap or tinfoil. But it also comes down to energy efficiency.

Personally, I’m one of the most efficient human viruses on the planet. I take public transit everywhere I go. My lights never get turned on at home unless I absolutely need them to locate a contact lens or if I’m cleaning and need to see where the dust bunnies are hiding. I never hang around with the fridge door open, staring aimlessly at my condiments, hoping that dinner will magically appear. I’ve noticed that because I live on the top floor of a building, everyone else’s heat tends to rise up to my place, so I don’t bother turning on the heat in the winter. In the summer, I use a comparatively energy-efficient desk fan (2-6 kWh/month) instead of my air conditioning unit (90-540). Hell, I don’t even use a microwave oven (5-30 kWh/month), opting to heat up my leftover pizza with the toaster oven (2-15). My roommate and I generate about one large green garbage bag worth of garbage a month between the two of us, and I’m currently starting up a guerrilla composting scheme somewhere near where I live (it’s a secret).


Now if each of my fellow viruses would take up even a few of these suggestions, we might be farther along towards Lovin’s ultimate goal.

But don’t take my word for it. I’m not an environmentalist; I’m just a concerned citizen. If you’re interested in hearing from people who actually know what they’re talking about, here are a few suggestions.

Green Me Up, Scotty!


Living Lime

Seriously, these folks know way more than I do.  I’m more of a Jack(hole) of All Trades as opposed to a specialized critic.  Or something.

It’s time to quit being a detriment to this planet that so kindly lets us live here, build our Starbucks and kill one another all over its land masses. Let’s try to be less like viruses and more like functioning parts of an ecosystem, shall we? Just a thought.

save earth

7 Responses to “Waste Not, Want Not: Conservation Is Key To Solving Energy Crisis”

  1. Anonymous October 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM #

    lololol… These are all great!

  2. Shayla October 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM #

    Good tips! Isn’t an environmentalist just someone who’s concerned about the environment and makes lifestyle changes to harm it less? If you don’t qualify for an environmentalist, I’ll have to stop calling myself one. I really need to get back into making more of an effort. I still have a lot of good habits, but I feel like I could be doing more (ie. using less).

  3. tonyisnt October 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM #

    … Realistically, nuclear energy is the closest we have come to an unlimited source of energy for the planet’s ever-growing requirements, but it’s undeniably expensive (though cheaper and more efficient than many other options) and, perhaps most importantly, it doesn’t address the fundamental problem inherent to our race: like Agent Smith said at the beginning of this article, we’re just wasteful.

    This paragraph is somewhat contradictory. On the one side of it (the end), you re-emphasize that humans are wasteful, but since they are wasteful, and since they live within a finite system (the planet Earth), that wasteful lifestyle will not—let me repeat that: it will not—last indefinitely. In the scale of human history, millions of years, it will probably come to an end in relatively short time. In just 10,000 civilized humans have sucked up just about all Earth had to offer—but how much longer can they go on doing the same? But then on the other side (the beginning), you refer to an increase in need.

    I put it this way in a post I made earlier this year:

    Living as we do today in a society that uses energy in an unsustainable manner, the real need is a reduction in energy to reach a level that can be sustained. The grow-or-die economy is what needs enormous amounts of energy to live, not the human populations that live within our societies. The lifestyle is what needs the energy, not the life.

  4. Mario October 6, 2009 at 11:59 PM #

    It’s disheartening to see global warming and the destruction of the environment unfolding before our eyes, especially knowing that we’re the cause of it

    There was a debate on The Agenda in 2008, including the authors of a book called “Hot Air: Fixing Canada’s Climate Change Challenge”. I remember part of the debate surrounded laws in Canada, or lack thereof, making it very difficult for alternative energies (wind, solar, low impact hydro, etc.) to be implemented. They contrasted that with laws in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and other green countries where alternative energies are used much more widely.

  5. Alex James October 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM #


    Thank you for your reply. Your comments are extremely insightful, and I agree 100% with your estimation that there’s a huge difference between “life” and “lifeSTYLE”. The unfortunate reality is that, especially in the Western world, our reach exceeds our grasp in terms of the way we live. People in Canada and the United States particularly live in relative extravagance compared with most of the rest of the world (the oft-cited statistic that 2% of the world’s population controls 98% of the wealth or something like it).

    Have you read any work by Daniel Quinn? Your theories line up with his in a lot of ways. I’d recommend checking out “Ishmael” as a starting point; I think you’ll find it as interesting as I did, being that you’ve obviously put a great deal of thought into the issues of sustainability and overpopulation.

    Thanks again for your comments; I’ll be looking forward to reading your blog in return.

    Alex James

  6. Zero February 9, 2010 at 8:38 PM #

    lol those pictures r funny


  1. Population Control: Dilluting the real problem « Envirogy - October 7, 2009

    […] about how you live.  The amount of energy you use may surprise […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: