12/25/2006

The big differences

It’s the day before Christmas, and so far this winter, it hasn’t snowed. It looks like it’s gearing up to be another mild winter. It’s a relief for the girl from Bondi, … but what about the planet? Having lived in New York for a year now, and after coming back to Australia for a visit last month, one of the big differences between the two places, and populations, has become clear. Environmental attitude. As Australians, concern for the environment – in a great number of ways – has become second nature. We have come so far from the days when it was acceptable to throw empty chip packets out the car window (“litterbug!”) or brush our teeth with the tap running. Since the 80s we have been slowly (and forcefully) educated to Do the Right Thing, save water, save energy and think about fire danger. So, when someone like Al Gore creates a documentary to educate the world about climate change, we are not particularly surprised. When, at the end of the film, he encourages audiences to contribute to the cause by making little positive changes, I am sure that for Australians, three or four examples of such immediately leap to mind. Not so, necessarily, for Americans. Here, the culture of wastage and excess is thoroughly ingrained. Supermarket checkout girls gleefully double bag your purchases in paper and/or plastic. No take-away meal is handed to you without a wad of napkins. Everything you buy is wrapped once, twice and again (for your convenience). And it gets worse. Evil almost. When I moved from one studio apartment downtown to another, of similar size and in the same zip code, I noticed a horrifying leap in my monthly electricity bill. My usage had not changed. I was rarely home, used a few lights, the TV, the stove to make coffee. My bill had morphed from a modest $35 a month, to $85. What was going on? I called the electricity company to demand they correct the mistake. The person at the other end of the phone asked me some particulars about my apartment and then explained that since I had a giant hot water tank in my closet and a personal thermostat to regulate the heating of my space, it was me who paid for their running, and not the building management as in most cases. Wow. The worst part was, this had taken place in the spring. I was not yet running rampant my air conditioner to quell the summer heat, or cranking up the heating to fight off frostbite. At most, I was watching a little TV! I lurched into gear, replacing my regular light globes with ugly, buzzing energy efficient equivalents and washing my dishes in cold. My favourite science geek friend helped explain to me that each time I used hot water in my apartment, a lot of electrical energy had to be spent in reheating the whole huge tank. So, I started taking shorter showers, with lower pressure and less heat. I eagerly awaited my next bill. And it came. Seventy-five dollars. How was this possible!!!??? I had spent $65 on the energy efficient bulbs alone. I was outraged, and scoured my bill for the cause. Dumfounded, I found my answer. Con Edison, the almost exclusive supplier of electricity to the city, charges at discounted rates for bigger spenders. This means, the less energy you use, the more you pay for it per kilowatt-hour. There was no incentive to save energy, only an incentive to use more and pay less for it. I was shocked, defeated and disgusted. Finally, I began to understand how deeply the problem was rooted. How could this population be expected to take action on environmental issues, given the lack of practical, day-to-day education on the subject? More importantly, how would they know to pressure their government on the biggest issues? I am no expert on the issue, but from what I understand, the small steps taken by individuals are of almost little consequence. Over-using those ridiculous supposedly-environmentally-friendly green (or now, any coloured) bags, looking down on four-wheel drivers, recycling. Individual damage pales in comparison to any pollution that might spew from factories, industry, even farming. If we are to have a running chance at affecting climate change, it will largely depend on government regulation. Observing the Australian population, compared with New York, I see phenomenal differences. Aware of conservation and environmental concerns, my Sydney friends are more likely to avoid polystyrene, and car pool on the way to brunch. Okay, so most of my New York buddies don’t have cars and are likely to walk greater distances, but if its too far for that we think nothing of taking multiple cabs from similar start points to our destination. In a city as grimy and smoky as this, taking one less cab seems trivial. So which population is more likely to demand change from their legislators? Which will even know to ask? A culture of excess (just look at restaurant portion sizes) cannot be expected to grapple well with the notion of conservation. What would conservation on a grand, societal scale even look like here? What scares me is the old chicken-and-egg quandary. Is the US government likely to educate the people about the environment? Are the people likely to put pressure on their representatives? Then there are those who argue that Al Gore was grandstanding. That he ignored any facts that wouldn’t scare the bejeezus out of everyone. And besides, who wants such a frosty winter anyway?

About Me

I'm a freelance food writer formerly based in New York City, and now exploring the globe... one dish at a time.