Ecofascism is slowly but surely getting into our vocabulary and the question “Should we ban a high consumption of resources as in an eco-dictatorship” is asked more frequently. There are many facts and speculations about this subject, but the truth is that nobody really knows. How will alternative production of energy affect people who work in an energetic industry? Is the consumption of eco-friendly products going to save the Earth but ruin our economic system? Is a healthier lifestyle worth living in a world without free will? After all, is it possible to do something like that?
 Eco-fascism relies heavily on a concept called “deep ecology,” the idea that the only way to preserve life on Earth is to dramatically—forcefully, if necessary—reduce the human population.
Renewable energy, a perfect solution?
Many will agree that renewable energy is a perfect solution. Not only does it produce energy more eco-friendly, but it is also easier to sustain. We do not need whole factories to produce energy for households, moreover, every house could have their own “Solar Roof” or few Solar Panels. Using renewable energy is a smart move because we would reduce CO2 emissions and automatically decrease global warming. Most of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In contrast, most renewable energy sources produce little to no global warming emissions.
Producing energy through burning natural gas releases between 0.27kg to 0.91kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh); coal emits between 0.63kg and 1.63kg of CO2E/kWh. Wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric release much less energy, with the smallest possible amount of 0.009kg CO2E/kWh (wind) and highest possible about of 0.22kg CO2/kWh (hydroelectric). If we could complitely replace carbon-intensive energy sources with renewable energy sources, we could decrease CO2 Emissions drastically.
The air and water pollution emitted from burning natural gases and coal does not only affects global warming, but also overall health of citizens. It is directly connected to breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, cancer, premature death, and other serious problems. Most of health problems is directly connected to air and water pollution which renewable energy sources simply do not produce.
Wind and solar energy require essentially no water to operate and thus do not pollute water resources or strain supplies by competing with agriculture, drinking water, or other important water needs. In contrast, fossil fuels can have a significant impact on water resources: both coal mining and natural gas drilling can pollute sources of drinking water, and all thermal power plants, including those powered by coal, gas, and oil, withdraw and consume water for cooling.
One of the most important points to cover about renewable energy is that they cannot be destroyed, nor you can use all its power. Cole and natural gasses have limited resources and now or then we will be forced to produce only renewable energy.
On the other side there are people who believe renewable energy is not the best option, at least while we still have coal and/or gas and oil. Making renewable energy sources costs lots of money, especially at the beginning. You would have to invest a lot of money just to make the idea going.
It is also unreliable source of energy because it depends on the weather which can impact reliability and constant energy supply. Wind turbines demand wind to turn their blades; Hydro generators need enough rain to fill dams for their supply of flowing water; Solar panels need clear skies and sunshine to get the heat needed to generate electricity. Moreover, not everyone is able to afford solar panels.
It is also hard to produce same amount of energy as non-renewable sources. It goes much slower, just because it demands special weather conditions.
Most important point for the topic “Should we ban a high consumption of resources as in an eco-dictatorship”, is that people would lose their jobs, from facility cleaners to engineers. Not many people are needed directly for producing of renewable energy. Most of the people how can work in renewable energy segment are highly ranked engineers. Around 6.4 million Americans work directly in energy industry, directly. 13% of families included only one person employed and if we say that average family has 2 (1.93) kids we can see that around 832000 families would not have any income. That makes 3328000 human beings, and that is America alone.
Planned Obsolescence: Myth or Reality
Planned or programmed obsolescence refers to the deliberate shortening of a product’s useful life by the manufacturer in order to increase consumption. Planned obsolescence is one of the worst nemesis of the planet, and one of the biggest ecological issues. Every year around 50 million tons of electronic waste are generated of which around 85% is usually discarded randomly, ending up in waste tips in developing countries, creating a risk for the environment and the health of people, animals and plants.
A longer lifetime product would benefit consumers and companies. If we use an example of a lightbulb, we can see that average lasting time is between 800 and 2000 hours. Hundred years ago, average life span of a light bulb was about 1,000 to 2,000 hours. It is impossible that in hundred years difference there were no advancement in lifespan. Only explanation is planned obsolescence. If our lightbulbs worked around 10000 to 20000 hours and we would not have to produce as much waste as we do now.
It would be much better if companies sold products with longer life span, even when it means that we would have to spend more money on it. We are forced to buy new products against our own will because we need them for everyday life or for work. If we could cut the planned obsolescence off, we would protect our planet much better.
On the other side, planned obsolescence is one of the main parts of our economical system. Countries, Factories and workers become money by selling their products to us. We should be able to sell whatever we want to and make it more approachable to industrial countries too. Not everyone is able to afford high quality products. Would that mean that in the perfect ecological world poor people would not be able to afford main needs.
Our economy would sink, and we would need much time to get it back up to the way it was before. There would also be less choice and less innovations.
Living Healthy but Under Dictatorship, is it worth it? (Conclusion)
This is impossible choice for me. It has been so controversial topic for me, because I felt like I am choosing between bigger evil.
Living under dictatorship and letting other people decide how you or anyone else should live goes against every principle I have had in my life. It is completely unfair and after all it would made bigger difference between rich and poor. As I already wrote in the essay, not everyone is able to afford certain type of lifestyle and dictatorship would have made people buy more expensive things than they can afford.
On the other hand, saving planet has been my dream for years now. Doing everything in my power to protect it from the external enemies, such as waste. Eco-dictatorship would most certainly decrease the ecological footprint and made life on earth more sustainable for future generations. All in all, I personally cannot say am I against the idea or for it. The question on its own has too many other questions lining up, and I am not ready to make my own decision.