Thursday, January 22, 2009

Two, two, two posts in one

I've been remiss in my blogging, so in this post I'll attempt to atone by--well, by writing a grossly oversized post (I tend to go on, sorry), but actually by giving both my reaction to last night's film and the preconceived notions that I had previously entertained. Last week's blog was also meant to have a reaction to Margot's lecture, so I'll get to that first.

Firstly, I am very grateful that Margot took time out of her schedule as a professor and a mom--both roles being evident that evening--to talk to us about energy in America. I chose this ASB trip because I hardly know anything about the topic--again, I am remiss--and it interested me to learn how our energy sources are divided up (85% of energy come from fossil fuels? No wonder there's a crisis!) and what sort of potential there is for green energy, if only it got more support... and/or if the Dakotas were closer to anything. It amazed me to hear Margot say that our energy problem could be solved (solved? Solved!?--or did she not actually say "solved" and that was just how I expressed it in my notes...?) with wind farms in the Dakotas, if only it wouldn't cost so much build transmission lines to link them to the major power grids. Oh, money. I suppose the current economic situation won't help further the Dakotan wind farm idea. I wonder if overall these hypothetical wind farms would be a cheaper (literally cheaper, environmental costs aside) way to provide America with energy than how we're getting our energy now? Money is everybody's main concern, it seems, so could money actually be a long-term incentive to harvest the Midwestern winds?

And what about solar energy? If my notes are truthful, she mentioned that solar power has the greatest green energy potential today. (The idea brings to mind that scene in "Gattaca" with the solar panels... and if it's in a movie, it must be cool.) Somewhere in my mind I scarcely believe it--the part of my mind where my worldview was cemented as the Pacific Northwest--but, assuming she's right, that is amazing: amazing that we're not taking as full advantage of that resource as we could be! After all, even Margot's son knows that all of our energy--and that is a tremendous amount of energy--comes from the sun. I was talking to my roommate last night about the future of solar energy and we agreed that, the way technology works, pretty soon we're going to have such efficient solar panels that we could power a flying car with just a discreet panel somewhere on top. That makes me think: is the future of solar energy one of solar power plants--like the vast array of panels in "Gattaca"--or in consumer-level energy production? Margot mentioned that most solar panels are in fact on people's roofs and whatnot, for their own use (and to sell the extra back to the power company), but might that change? Of course, the more homes providing themselves with power, the better, at least in sunny areas, but will actual power plants also rise?

Clearly, it's green energy that interests me the most, here. I suppose in many ways I hold the fossil fuel industry in contempt (I know, I know, not the right, open-minded attitude): not only is oil and coal extraction and combustion detrimental to the environment, but I associate the process of obtaining them (especially coal) with exploitation of the human element, as well. My image of the coal-producing regions of America--well, basically Appalachia (I'd never thought of Montana, for example, as containing substantial coal reserves until the Family Feud game)--was one of great poverty and hardship caused, or at least exacerbated, by the arrival of unfeeling, anti-union, abusive coal companies. In my mind, people matter, and the Earth matters, and anything that damages either or especially both of them, like the coal industry, quickly crosses the line into "pure evil" territory. This is my prejudice.

The video we watched last night somewhat confirmed my bias against the coal industry in Appalachia, except for one thing: that people were proud of their coal mining past. One of the singers they showed sang a song where one of the lines was about how she was proud to be a coal miner's daughter. I wonder: how much of that is the assimilation of coal mining into the people's tradition of Appalachia, and how much of it is the psychological need to love what you can't escape? I mean, you've got to be proud of something.

Another thought that kept occurring to me while watching the movie was one unrelated to the coal mining industry. I had never thought of country music--what I think of country music, at least--as being derived from "hillbilly music." The mountain music that we heard in the film was exactly like what I would call bluegrass or, better, folk music--not what I would call country, which seems to me to be a more western style. But, seeing as I know little about music in general, and virtually nothing about country music... I really don't know where I'm going with this, but it kept occurring to me as we watched the film.

Wow, did I go on! I could probably write more but I had really better stop. I apologize, guys! How embarrassing...

Anyway, see you next week. Ciao!

No comments:

Post a Comment