Alda Yuan
Professor Alexandratos
MHC 200
Week 7 Response
A few years ago, long before the BP spill, I recall a commercial they put out featuring a cartoon young boy frolicking in a field. The commercial had cheerful music and a color scheme reminiscent of the oil company’s logo. They managed to somehow depict their company as the easy choice for those worried about the environment. Instead of think about the real issues and solutions that might lead to a reality half as idyllic, BP is encouraging us to leave it all in their hands. It is as if simply by purchasing their products, we are doing our part to solve the environmental crisis. Just the juxtaposition of an oil company using such a green theme and supporting the environment will have convinced a lot of people that they were sincere. Why else would they draw attention to environmental issues and invite scrutiny unless they really are taking action? Even at the time, I recognized it to be one of the most hypocritical ad campaigns out there. I think it is certainly possible for companies to do a turnaround, even switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy but that is plainly not what BP aims to do, as evidenced by the horrendous oil spill.
The cradle-to-cradle concept and approach to engineering seems to be without too many drawbacks. In the long run, it will both be green and economically profitable. The problem will be breaking industries and businesses out of their old ways of thinking and operating. But such fundamental changes are far from impossible. Take the revolution in the way we do business today because of the information technology revolution. Once people realize that producing products in this way and indeed, rethinking the ways we consume resources is profitable, changes can happen quickly.
Obviously, there will first need to be a substantial investment. If the free market is not willing to provide those funds, the government should most definitely step in. Personally, I think the emphasis on the financial costs of investing in green energy is both irresponsible and profoundly misplaced. Or course our government must be concerned of where its money is going with the economic recession. However, to call money being placed into environmental programs wasted funds is illogical. Supporting the burgeoning companies with a focus on green energy and sustainability is not an act of picking winners and losers. Ultimately, if government is successful in spurring a new green revolution, everybody wins, except for perhaps the oil companies. Even if you only take an economic view, a revolution in the way that we obtain energy can fuel development in many directions. The new technologies and devices that will be invented, designed and produced will create the kind of high skill manufacturing jobs that everyone has emphasized a need for. And these are not jobs that would go away and become obsolete quickly. Meanwhile, it has the capability to spur something of a fourth industrial revolution as it involves an overhaul of the whole system in a way that produces more wealth for everyone involved.
Then of course there are the non-economic benefits of such a path. The health of our citizens would be improved by less pollution. That of course can still be linked to lower health costs for us as nation. Less material than that is the question of quality of life. Even if pollution and harm to the environment did not hurt human health, is it not worth investment to preserve the natural beauty of earth?
