As I mentioned earlier, the BBC is running a series called Energy Swap, the premise of which is that an English family swaps homes with a Texan family to find out the differences in energy consumption due to lifestyle. The first episode ran last Friday and it’s got one of the best opening montages ever.
(with ominous Who Wants to Be a Millionaire style music)
“Why do they need to use so much concrete to make the road so wide?”
“Treehuggers…the dirty hippy type that don’t bathe. And they smell horrible.”
“What’s the colour of money? It’s green.”
The programme continued in the entertainment mode focusing mainly on giving a descriptive introduction to the people and places. For example, we learned a few interesting facts about the inefficient Texan home: computer on for three years (not a server by the way, for those tech-minded readers), an air-conditioner straining to cool an uninsulated 140°F loft and a monthly electricity bill of $850.
In the longer term though, the programme hopes to make a serious point: how do you convince people that individual action can make a difference to climate change? One way in which the first episode, I believe inadvertently, explored this question was by highlighting the difference between how households engage with local and global pollution issues.
For example, with one exception, the participants consistently conflated recycling and energy issues. While there is certainly a connection between waste management and climate change, it’s frustrating to hear one person talking about efficient lighting only to be interrupted by someone asking about recycling. In the context of domestic energy consumption, they’re largely apples and oranges. However how you deal with your waste is much more immediate and tangible than the consequences of carbon emissions from a distant power plant and so it’s not surprising that this is what many people think of when discussing ‘the environment’.
A second related example came when the host interviewed a representative from the local environment agency in Dallas. She described that city’s smog problem and its impact on health and well-being. Consequently, when the local utility proposed building 11 new coal-fired power plants, there were significant objections on local air pollution and health grounds.
As I said, I don’t think these cases were intentionally presented as evidence for a larger argument about household responses to climate change. But still, I will be interested to see how the programme develops over the next two episodes and if you have a chance, do listen in. At the very least you’ll get to hear a great opening montage.
