Saving Earth - One Issue at a Time

I'm all for keeping the earth clean, wisely husbanding resources, and other efforts at conservation. But the result needs to be a net benefit, not a benefit in one area of the environment and an offsetting degradation in another area. Consider the following items.

Yesterday, two young ladies showered outdoors in downtown Tulsa. The point they wished to highlight was, we should conserve water (hence the shower) by becoming vegans since beef production and processing uses an inordinate amount of water. If we all did this, beef consumption would be replaced by plant products (squash, green beans, beets, etc.). Except, the net benefit is in question. The change to vegan would require greater production of vegetables. In order to successfully grow veggies, you have to water them. That added veggie growing, water consumption lowers the net gain over beef. The consumption driven increase in vegetable growing would require more vegetables to be washed in preparation for shipping, and more water consumption in the cooking process (steamed or boiled). That further reduces the net water savings. Feed for beef cattle (hay and oats) has to grown to nourish the beef cattle, so water savings for being vegan goes back up by some amount. Further, what's the impact of putting more land area under plow for veggies rather than cattle feed? Not sure there.

Another example is ethanol. Story goes, if we use ethanol in motor vehicles we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce air pollution. How do we get ethanol? In the U.S. we grow corn and refine that in to ethanol. Ethanol can also be created from sugar cane. Both of those divert land area from the production of corn or sugar for human consumption, otherwise known as food. That diversion is an upward pressure on the cost of land. At some point in time raising food prices in general or reducing the amount of food the U.S. can export to other countries. Up ward pressure on land prices eventually works its way through the economy to higher housing prices. Is the a net benefit to the overall economy? that's in the eye of the beholder or home buyer.

The fundamental point is this. All efforts at conservation involve ending or adjusting human consumption. These efforts have both costs and benefits. Some may be net benefits for non economic reasons. Many carry their own set of costs. The ripple effect of conservation efforts (costs and benefits) ultimately traces back to one fundamental fact, total human consumption. Human consumption is driven by human population.

Are we capable of controlling the earth's population? First making the decision to do that, then carrying out that decision. Of course not. That would be the ultimate in-humanity. It would be a serious, if not fatal, degradation of our personal/individual humanity. Each generation should recognize we are stewards of the earth's resources. We should also approach the material benefits of environmentalism with skepticism. None are ever all good, or all benefits.