Placing Substance Over Form in the Green Movement

"Depending on people to make a hard choice every day -- don't turn on the lights so much -- is a less-promising solution than getting people to make a hard choice once, [for example, paying more for a high-efficiency bulb] and thereafter having the 'save energy' decision be automatic." Travis Reynolds, graduate student, University of Washington

That quote appeared in an article in the WaPo this past weekend -- a far more candid perspective on the shortcomings of the "green movement" than we've come to expect from that newspaper. The problem, according to the Post article, is that environmental symbolism often overshadows actual substance.

Ya think?

The WaPo article uses Earth Hour as an example. On March 29 people in cities across the world turned their lights out for an hour in a symbol of their commitment to save energy. For the most part individuals and companies do this kind of thing because it looks good -- or because not to do it in their community looks bad. But as the article notes, "if everyone who participated in Earth Hour had left their lights on and instead switched to mundane, high-efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs," energy savings would be 1,368 times greater because the bulbs would have saved energy all year long.

That's consistent with our message on Capitol Hill: There are a myriad of products on the market today that alllow consumers to achieve huge energy savings, from CFLs and programmable thermostats to NEMA Premium electrical motors and energy-efficient washing machines. As Mr. Reynolds notes above, Americans simply have to make the hard choice once, and put substance over form, to really make a difference.