Adaptation
Tom Friedman’s column on Denmark and energy policy over the weekend tried to get at a difficult to express point. Roughly speaking, in America when energy gets expensive quality of life declines. And Denmark has adopted policies that make energy expensive. Ergo, you might conclude that in Denmark quality of life is low. But in fact, Denmark is a rich and happy society in which people enjoy a great quality of life. The reason is that cheap energy over a prolonged period of time doesn’t buy you happiness — it buys you infrastructure that’s adapted to wasteful use of energy.
Denmark, by contrast, some time ago adopted policies aimed at promoting energy efficiency and conservation and, consequently, has an infrastructure that’s well-adapted to energy being expensive. Not only does that make Denmark greener than the United States but it also makes Denmark much less vulnerable to energy supply shocks than the United States is. In America, though, energy companies have traditionally had a lot of political power and the general thrust of our policies is to encourage lavish energy consumption and thus we have a waste-friendly infrastructure. I might add to what Friedman says that while converting to a more efficient model would certainly cost money in the short-run, that you ought to put this in the perspective not only of climate change but also of how much of our (costly) foreign policy is driven by a desire to avoid energy price shocks.
Photo by Flickr user jimg944 used under a Creative Commons license
46 Responses to “Adaptation”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I keep thinking that a meddling foreign policy as a result of oil-reliance in our country is a ‘feature’, not a ‘bug’ for some people. I mean, it doesn’t seem like our mideast policies reduce the cost of oil at all, but that oil does provide a rationale for an aggressive foreign policy from the mouths of people who generally want an aggressive foreign policy regardless.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Sure, the Danish are the happiest people on earth. And that’s exactly why their most productive members are leaving:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/business/worldbusiness/26labor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
It all makes perfect sense now.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Tom Friedman’s column on Denmark and energy policy over the weekend tried to get at a difficult to express point. Roughly speaking, in America when energy gets expensive quality of life declines. And Denmark has adopted policies that make energy expensive. Ergo, you might conclude that in Denmark quality of life is low. But in fact, Denmark is a rich and happy society in which people enjoy a great quality of life.
Yeah, sounds wonderful. Cramped housing. Commuting by bike in the rain. Cars and driving an expensive luxury.
Maybe you think that’s a great “quality of life.” I seriously doubt that most other Americans would agree with you. When are you going to realize that the kind of lifestyle you–a young, single, childless city boy–may want is not the kind of lifestyle other people want.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I doubt that a country with zero population growth, with a population smaller than Massachuetts and about the same land size, and with a population that is 95% from one demographic/ethnic group is really the best example of what can be done in the United States.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Completely unclear to Matt: Denmark is a tiny country. If the US were the size of New Jersey, lots of energy issues would dry up and blow away.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Take it from me, I lived in Aarhus for 3 years. Denmark is a great place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there…unless you really liked living in 750 square foot apartments and walking in the rain.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Well, if Denmark won’t do it for you, how about California? They, too, embarked on some serious conservation programs in the 1970s, and currently use about half the energy per capita that the rest of the nation does. Even less when energy speculators deliberately shut down power plants to try and get them to pay more for power!
But seriously, half the energy per capita, and with the utilities incentivized to come up with energy-efficient solutions, they’ve got the cost of conservation about down to one-fifth the cost of electricity nationwide.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Great. Mixner’s already fouling up the new digs.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:26 am
has sailer showed up yet? why don’t I just blame black people for some intractable aspect of the human condition, and we’ll pretend I’m him.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:38 am
“If the US were the size of New Jersey, lots of energy issues would dry up and blow away.”
New Jersey is the size of New Jersey. Have their energy issues dried up an blown away?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Hey, we all know that “public transportation” is code for “black people’s transportation”–maybe Mixner is actually Sailer!
August 11th, 2008 at 2:51 am
The thing is the extra space in housing doesn’t actually make people happier. Americans buy it because they think it’ll make them happier, but then people just realize they aren’t happier with an extra 400 square feet, especially since they had to work their butts off to afford that extra space.
Am I the only one who thinks Mixner thinks liberals want to throw suburbanites out of their homes and onto trains into Harlem to sleep in Japanese-style sleeping tubes? There does seem to be a tinge of paranoia and an assumption that “Real American only live in the suburbs” to his posts.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:46 am
The mere suggestion that some Europeans might be doing something better than Americans will always send some people over the edge.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Danes live in smaller houses and sometimes ride bicycles. They are obviously miserable. I bet they don’t even have Ikea. Denmark is truly some kind of special hell.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:33 am
It doesn’t exactly hurt Denmark either, that we are a net exporter of oil. Not filthy rich as Norway, but just enough so that when oil prices soar, money fills the coffers.
But apart fom that Matt is right. Bicycling is great exercise, keeps those pounds of the side. Living closely in dense classical cities (with modern additions) allows for an exciting urban experience.
What Denmark did right was to tax oil during the first oil crises in the early seventies and adopt crazy strict rules for housing insulation. Housing uses 40% of all energy. Stop yapping about the cars, they are a minor issue with regards to energy conservation. Start insulationyour houses in the US and start using natural ventilation instead of air conditioning.
Of course, in the early seventies Denmark had no oil, and people were ready to do anything to make the hurt of the oil shock go away.
/Limagolf
August 11th, 2008 at 5:35 am
There probably should be a rule in the pundit’s guild on comparing a small country where five million people live, and a continental sized country where three hundred million people live.
The US is extremely wasteful of energy, but will still never achieve Danish levels of energy efficiency because we have more than one city, and people in the middle of the country can’t just get on a ferry and leave the country. For similar reasons, Americans will never be as proficient in foreign languages as the Danes.
Compare Denmark with the Dallas-Fort Worth “metroplex”, or with the state of Wisconsin. Or compare the US to the EU as a whole. We will still come across looking as bad, and there won’t be the obvious rejoinder about the discrepancy in scale.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Ed says:
“The US is extremely wasteful of energy, but will still never achieve Danish levels of energy efficiency because we have more than one city, and people in the middle of the country can’t just get on a ferry and leave the country. For similar reasons, Americans will never be as proficient in foreign languages as the Danes.”
I don’t see these points as relevant. The kinds of policies involved are applicable to urban and rural areas alike. However, there are two differences between Europe and the States in general: the US cities and towns have developed around the use of cars with the concommitant lower density, and in Europe there is no stigma attached to public transport or biking as there seems to be in the States. The first makes the relevant changes more difficult to implement, and the second keeps people from wanting to implement them.
As for our ‘cramped appartments’ here in Denmark, it is more often a choice than a necessity: for $ 500.000 you can either live 30 km from copenhagen in a big house with a garden, or in a large flat in the center closer to work, shops, nightlife. Many like me prefer the latter…
August 11th, 2008 at 8:20 am
A lot of the comments here are rather beside the point. Would America be better off financially with cheap abundant, reliable energy? Yes, of course.
But that’s just not an option at this point. Global demand for energy is on a long term trajectory to far outstrip supplies. Then there’s climate change, which is a threat we can no longer ignore.
So looking at the Danish example, there are a great many adaptations we can make that would better serve us to deal with this reality than Gas Tax Holidays or draining our meager off shore reserves.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am
From Friedman’s article:
Our toilet even had two different flushing powers depending on — how do I say this delicately — what exactly you’re flushing. A two-gear toilet!
Now why don’t we have these in the U.S., instead of these stupid low-flow toilets we have?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:47 am
As an aside, I think one of the broader points that should be emphasized is that in their efforts to shield themselves from global energy shocks, the Danes didn’t just promote energy efficiency, but also domestic energy production. And while I agree that something like offshore drilling isn’t going to do much to shift the balance of energy production into the United States, and that we should be doing more on wind and solar, we might also need to be open to less left-popular energy sources such as nuclear and clean coal.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Tom is unfailingly amusing in the gee-whiz discoveries he makes about the world. “Two-gear toilets” as some kind of a revelation?? C’meon, Tom, you mean you haven’t bothered yourself with any home-plumbing repairs in the past 20 years?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Remember when the Bush, Jr. campaign attacked Kerry for once advocating a 50 cent gas tax. Those were the days.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
While I generally agree with comments concerning Denmark and energy independence, on the flip side it appears that Danish tax policy has become less flexible as a result. That is, Danes leavy a hugh tax on every automobile purchased in Denamrk, and have become dependent on this tax as a source of revenue. These seems rational as long as automobiles use gasoline, a petroleum derive product. However, as I understand it, no credit is given if a Dane buys a hybrid vehicle or even an electric vehicile; the tax structure is set in concrete. Thus, there is no encouragement for Danes to switch to greener means of transportation.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Are you suggesting Denmark has better ideas about energy policy than the American Enterprise Institute?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Helena Cobban is trying to make me feel provincial. And succeeding.
While I’ve certainly not replaced a toilet in the past 20 years, having only been a homeowner for 7, I have stayed in a lot of hotels - many of which have those awful low-flow models that require you to fill the tank with additional water using the ice bucket if you want to flush anything … um … substantial - and I’ve never seen one of these two-gear models.
Heck, I’ve even had the privilege of using those fancy ass-washing Japanese toilets on several occasions, and I’m somewhat surprised at the existence of the two-gear toilet.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Using incentives to create alternative energy jobs is high on Obama’s list of initiatives to help make the U.S. a greener place and also to provide the jobs that Friedman mentions as one result of this emphasis in Denmark. He notes that unemployment there is very low and jobs in the alternative energy sector help keep it that way: they supply 1/3 of the wind towers made in the world right now. Their competition is beginning to come not from us but from China. We lag, and Obama wants to change that.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I think Schock Mouse gets us off to a good start pointing out that the Danes don’t support a huge parasitic military/industrial/commercial enterprise, with government lackeys persuading the citizens that “freedom” is imperiled anytime, anywhere profligate consumption of energy is impeded.
Of course, as political and geographic entities the U.S. and Denmark are not comparable. However it does seem significant that with their comparatively tiny economy they are at the forefront of alternative energy research, production, and distribution. Their sin, however is high taxes and thehova glibly asserts that the “most productive” among them are of course those willing to split rather than pay taxes, even when these government revenues educate them into the privilege they enjoy.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Limagolf: start using natural ventilation instead of air conditioning
Might I suggest that the citizens of Denmark should probably keep their mouths shut on the question of whether or not Americans ought to use air conditioning.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Mr. Friedman is a bit of a hypocrite as he chooses to live a car-dependent lifestyle in suburban Bethesda, Maryland, just outside Washington, DC. If the Danish lifestyle is so appealing, why doesn’t he move downtown and walk everywhere? I’m sure his book deals have paid nicely. This is yet another typical case of environmentalists preaching “conservation for thee but not for me.”
Additionally, many people live in far-out suburbs because they cannot afford safe neighborhoods closer in. Many American cities run by “progressives” have high crime rates and lousy public schools. The safe part of town is thus more popular and more expensive and the only reasonable option for schooling is costly private school. Most families simply cannot afford this and thus live in suburbs where their dollars go much further.
Wagging one’s finger at suburbanites smacks of classism.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Mark, I find your comment astonishing. Is fighting wars over access to energy really preferable to making practical changes in how we live? Please don’t take insult where none is intended, but my several European friends are baffled that we prefer squandering our billions on military adventures to adjusting our transit and housing circumstances in practical and efficient ways which are doable today. I think we have to get past Cheney’s assertion that a personal conservation ethos is merely balm to one’s self-esteem, actually meaningless in the face of geo-political power realities. Do we stake our national pride on air-conditioning?
August 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
All I meant Chuck was that someone who lives in climate with a temperature that rarely exceeds the mid-60’s, probably shouldn’t tell people from Arizona, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, etc. to get rid of their A/C. It’s not about national pride, it’s about someone who probably has no clue as to how hot it gets in some places.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
However, as I understand it, no credit is given if a Dane buys a hybrid vehicle or even an electric vehicile; the tax structure is set in concrete. Thus, there is no encouragement for Danes to switch to greener means of transportation.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing - as a tax policy wonk, I am usually more than a little leery about trying to change people’s ways with the tax code, instead of doing so directly.
However, to the extent that I take your point, that’s a strike against their tax policy, not their energy policy. The two are largely independent.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
someone who lives in climate with a temperature that rarely exceeds the mid-60’s, probably shouldn’t tell people from Arizona, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, etc. to get rid of their A/C
Because that’s what you’re being told. That you have to eliminate all your air conditioning. They’ll come for your toasters next! Not much for nuance, are we?
(Proper energy efficiency in construction - most of which costs a relative pittance - massively reduces the need for energy inputs into A/C. I wouldn’t suggest living in Florida with no A/C… I think it’s equally mad to live in one of the uninsulated plywood boxes that get passed off as homes down there).
August 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Additionally, many people live in far-out suburbs because they cannot afford safe neighborhoods closer in.
Then they ought to be willing to live in unsafe nieghborhoods, dammit! What are you, a racist?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
As always, I think it is worth noting that while housing in decent close-in neighborhoods in the most popular coastal cities can be extremely expensive, that is much less the case in many post-industrial interior cities.
I also think it is always worth noting that a fair accounting of the risks of harm to oneself and one’s family based on housing location wouldn’t just look at violent crime rates, but also things like deaths due to car accidents (the latter, for example, being a much greater mortality risk for children than murders, particularly if you look only at stranger murders). In that sense, people who significantly increase the amount of time they and their children will spend in cars just to live in a neighborhood with marginally lower crime rates may be making a mistake from a physical safety standpoint.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I also think it is always worth noting that a fair accounting of the risks of harm to oneself and one’s family based on housing location wouldn’t just look at violent crime rates, but also things like deaths due to car accidents (the latter, for example, being a much greater mortality risk for children than murders, particularly if you look only at stranger murders).
The risk of death due to car accidents for children who live in particular neighborhoods or particular kinds of neighborhood (suburban ones, for example) may differ significantly from the national average for all children or for all Americans. Unless you have detailed information on the variation of this risk by neighborhood, you’re not in a position to say a child would be at greater risk of death from car accidents in a particular neighborhood or kind of neighborhood than he would be at risk of death from violent crime in another neighborhood.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Because that’s what you’re being told.
Did you actually read the relevant posts? Because that’s pretty much what I was being told: “Start insulationyour houses in the US and start using natural ventilation instead of air conditioning.”
So I don’t think I missed any nuance when I accused the commentator of telling Americans to get rid of their A/C.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:56 am
There is no doubt that there are many more car fatalities in the U.S. every year than there are murders. Children, however tend not to travel very far in suburbs to go to schools, so their risk, especially if they ride school buses, is especially low. In addition to murder, one must also consider that rates of robbery and burglary are much higher in many cities. In some of the more affordable neighborhoods in Washington, DC, it’s a given that if you live there you’re going to be robbed at least once. It’s not considered shocking— just the cost of doing living in DC. In an equally affordable neighborhood in suburban Maryland or Virginia robberies are extremely rare.
That’s just crime, though. If you consider the quality of public education, many “progressive” urban center continually fail to provide their children a decent education. In the Washington, DC, area, DC proper has among the worst performing public schools in the entire country. Neighboring Fairfax and Montgomery Counties in Virginia and Maryland respectively have among the best performing public schools in the country. And the housing is cheaper.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Capitol Dome,
School buses are indeed pretty safe, but what about the rest of the time a child will spend in a car during their childhood? Again, the statistics say car crashes are the leading cause of death for children, and so if those deaths aren’t happening on school buses (and they largely are not), then it is happening in other circumstances.
Incidentally, there was a study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine about the risk factors for death in car accidents for older children (the group of children with the highest death rate in cars). The top three risk factors were driving on roads with speed limits over 45 MPH, riding without restraints, and the driver being a teen. Also on the list of top risk factors were drivers who’d been drinking alcohol, specifically male teen drivers, and driving on weekends.
None of this should be too surprising, of course, but that doesn’t sound like a list that is likely to make the suburbs particularly safe for children in cars. Basically, it seems the rational bet is that the more time your kids are going to be in cars on highways, the more dangerous, and also the more time they are going to spend driving around in cars with their friends, the more dangerous.
As an aside, urban schools are a whole different topic, but I would caution against generalizing from DC public schools to urban public schools in other cities. I would also note that I think a lot of people fail to normalize for incoming socioeconomic characteristics when assessing the value-added of various public schools. Finally, charter schools are increasingly making it possible for parents to create the kinds of public schools they want in otherwise desirable neighborhoods.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Oh, and I forgot to mention that while it is fine to consider the risks posed by crimes besides murder to your family, it should also be fine to consider non-fatal car accidents, including non-fatal injuries and of course property damage.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Yeah, Nobody lives downtown any more: It’s too expensive.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
mOnRf3 hi! http://msn.com my site
March 11th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:39 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 8th, 2009 at 4:32 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive!
viagra