The Seven Generation Rule and Change

The discussion last class regarding the economics of conservation and sustainability practices got me thinking, especially in relation to the seven generation rule (3 forward, 3 back, and current). The economic impact of migrating towards energy efficiency is undeniable, if less power is needed due to changes in how energy is used (efficent lightbulbs, buildings designed for less AC/heating use, etc.) then *people will loose jobs in the energy industry* companies will loose money in the industry. It's impossible to avoid this, corporate models are based on growth, not detraction. It takes money to un-build an unnecessary power plant, as it does to keep it running when it's not needed, this is inefficent, and in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits...

Side note: Yes, this is a legitimate business model, read Robert Kiyosaki's book Rich Dad, Poor Dad for an excelent example of this. Kiyosaki outlines the priorities of resource allocation in business in the following way: 1) expansion, 2) regular workers, 3) specalists, 4) (Don't remember this one), 5) executives. Note how expansion is put first.

Anyhow, in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits, threatening a company's future profits threatens the salience of the company. Inventors pull out, stock price plummets, company goes under, people get laid off, etc etc. Not good... More people unemployed means lower quality of life, lower GDP, economic hurt all ways around.

Ok, yes it opens up green jobs, but consider this on a psychological perspective. Young people are more into the green job market these days than the older generation. Stratifying the economic impact generationally, we're looking at a disproportionate hit on the older generation, not the younger. Additionally, the older generation would know that they, basically, lost their job for a green job. This does not encourage the older generation towards job re-training to learn how to work in the industry that just stole their job from them.

This strikes me as selling out the old for the benefit of the young. Doesn't this violate the 7-generation rule, rather egregiously? In a way it's the opposite problem of what we've been talking about. Instead of pushing the burden in the future, we're pushing it backward.

Food for thought...

- Jason