Austerity versus Conservation

The differences between words such as 'conserve' and 'preserve', 'frugal' and 'abstain' are merely down to semantics.

They exist in a rich seam of the wonderful English language that, despite such close relationships of meaning, helps provide subtle nuances of interpretation that result in them being categorised separately... and prevents them from ever being aggregated together into a singular dictonary entry.

But... in more simple languages, and indeed, if we employed more plain talking in our own everyday speech and correspondance, they do effectively mean the same thing. And no doubt such words would have been easily targetted in the first edition of the Newspeak Dictionary from Orwell's '1984'.

N.B. I am not proposing that we start thinning down the dictionary for this blog entry by the way!

Anyway, so: to be careful with the way one uses money or careful with the way how one looks after the 'environment' is surely connected?

To continue the dictionary angle for one final paragraph, the word 'environment' is simply defined in some books as 'surroundings' or 'atmosphere' (and in others, as 'the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates')... so surely, if you don't help look after your own surroundings, you put yourself in big trouble, regardless of how solvent you are?

There are certain situations, regardless of happiness, that money cannot not buy you out of.

----

Nowadays, in terms of politics and the media, we tend to capitalise the word and only use it in conjunction with all things 'Green'... and especially alongside the other common word and term: 'conservation'.

As a result, and as these times that we find ourselves in are, without a doubt, 'hard', we can then find it easier to dismiss them in terms of their importance... as we have to consider the more pressing financial matters at hand.

Many people think that the ideology of Green politics at this moment in time, is a luxury we can simply not afford to apply to our everyday concerns.

However, it makes sense to be careful with natural resources if we wish to also be careful with what finances we have left. And if our future governments, regardless of their political leanings, were aware of this (or worked harder to achieve it), then surely it would be the closest one could be to being conservative... with a small 'c'? The clue is in the title!

Why, in this time when all the world's economies are suffering, do the leaders of the richer western powers, such as in my home country, not take a lead and be genuinely more frugal and forward thinking at the same time? Anticipating the inevitable problems we will face in the future is a good thing as we can then help prepare to deal with them more effectively now rather than later!

Making cuts to various budgets is fine... but money is just an abstract concept. It literally doesn't grow on trees!
 
When people are finding it hard to make ends meet, all they are interested in, quite rightly, is in ensuring financial security for themselves, their family and their business.

But... that is why we have governments. They can think of the bigger picture and be less selfish in order to help with the greater good. What could be better than if we had a government that openly admitted that times are always going to get tougher in the future, not better, and that pressure on our resources (financial and physical) is going to increase as we continue to overpopulate this world and use up those physical materials that have a finite lifepsan and can never be replaced?

Regarding energy, not only can we/must we heavily invest what spare cash we have left into
alternative/renewable energies such as anaerobic digestion, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, tidal and wind power, but we must also avoid thinking we have cheap and easy short term get-out clauses in things like 'fraccing' (aka: hydraulic fracturing) or imported natural shale gas.

In addition, we must also support the subsidary industries and businesses that spin-off such concepts as: cogeneration, energy efficiency, green building, microgeneration, passive solar and the 'Organic Rankine cycle'.

If you asked the average person on the street if they would be happy if their future energy bills were to be reduced by, say, 75%, or, indeed, that they might even get money back from selling on the excess energy that they create, then surely they would be saying: 'of course!' and then: 'who do I vote for that offers that?'

If all our new houses were carbon neutral, and older houses re-fitted as to be more energy efficient, not only would we have less overheads, but we would have more jobs.

It has been proved many a time that large-scale house building is the best method of re-igniting a slumped national economy... so why don't we do it with these environmental'/'conservation'/'sustainable' (WHATEVER!!!) concepts in mind from the off? It's a 'no-brainer' as far as I'm concerned.

If we were ever to do this, then not only are we more genuinely 'austere' by definition, but we would also safeguard our economy, build the hundreds of thousands of houses we desperately need... and create many new jobs in new, innovative industries.

We then lead the world by example, and show everyone how it can be done... and thus, eventually, the whole planet benefits.

Looking after our 'cash under the mattress' AND our natural resources CAN be done at the same time... and by being a bit more sensible and temperant for the good of all will not only help our economy right now... but will also reduce the hardships faced by our progeny in the future.