Time to slow down

Fo regular readers of The Guardian, a recent long-drawn spar has been one taken up by columnist George Monbiot that began with being cautious about nuclear to openly batting for nuclear power. To his opponents, Monbiot has had many points to quote on why he considers nuclear to be a clean option, wastes and security issues notwithstanding.

But a much recent off-shoot of the discussion has been his rhetoric to environmentalists advocating renewables and how they expected to live with lesser energy which this would mean, at least initially. An interesting retort by a fellow columnist brings up a valid point - 'the most obvious way of cutting production is to make things to higher standards. If everything were made to last twice as long then we would only need to make half as much of it. This requires us to slow down the rate of technological progress so that goods (and humans) do not become functionally obsolescent so quickly'.

To Monbiot's query on how to find the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles … ceramics and soap, Simon replies: 'Take bricks: for several years I lived in a cob house – built in 1911 from rammed unbaked earth – which was warm and delightful. I have also made unfired bricks with a device called a block ram, and 30 years later they are weathering fine.'

He goes on to say very pertinently that reducing consumption of goods is not a recipe for abject poverty. Half the world still lives without superabundance, but where there is misery 'it is because of lack of food, water, simple medicines and adequate shelter – not because of a shortage of cheap T-shirts, factory-fired bricks, or 17 varieties of cleaning product.'!! How true.

A large populace the world over is led to believe taht techno-fixes that will allow us to go on extracting the world's resources at an ever accelerating rate. What a fallacy.