Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

We Can Stop Global Warming

By Sen. Bernie Sanders, TheNation.com. Posted November 29, 2007.


By implementing new technologies, we can avert a potentially disastrous future.
Advertisement

Scientists now tell us that the crisis of global warming is even worse than their earlier projections. Daily front-page headlines of environmental disasters give an inkling of what we can expect in the future, multiplied many times over: droughts, floods, severe weather disturbances, loss of drinking water and farmland and conflicts over declining natural resources.

Yet the situation is by no means hopeless. Major advances and technological breakthroughs are being made in the United States and throughout the world that are giving us the tools to cut carbon emissions dramatically, break our dependency on fossil fuels and move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. In fact, the truth rarely uttered in Washington is that with strong governmental leadership the crisis of global warming is not only solvable; it can be done while improving the standard of living of the people of this country and others around the world. And it can be done with the knowledge and technology that we have today; future advances will only make the task easier.

What should we be doing now?

First, we need strong legislation that dramatically cuts back on carbon emissions. The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309), a bill that I introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer and that now has eighteen co-sponsors, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.

Second, if the federal government begins the process of transforming our energy system by investing heavily in energy efficiency and sustainable energy, we can accomplish the 80 percent carbon reduction level and, at the same time, create millions of high-paying jobs.

Energy efficiency is the easiest, quickest and least expensive path toward the lowering of carbon emissions. My hometown of Burlington, Vermont, despite strong economic growth, consumes no more electricity today than it did sixteen years ago because of a successful effort to make our homes, offices, schools and other buildings more energy-efficient. In California, which has a growing economy, electric consumption per person has remained steady over the past twenty years because of that state's commitment to energy efficiency.

Numerous studies tell us that retrofitting older buildings and establishing strong efficiency standards for new construction can cut fuel and energy consumption by at least 40 percent. Those savings would increase with the adoption of new technologies such as LED light bulbs, which consume as little as 10 percent of the electricity that incandescent bulbs do and last twenty years.

Transportation must also be addressed in a serious manner. It is insane that we are driving cars today that get the same twenty-five miles per gallon that US cars did twenty years ago. If Europe and Japan can engineer their vehicles to average more than forty-four miles per gallon, we can do at least as well. Simply raising fuel-efficiency standards to forty miles per gallon would save roughly the same amount of oil as we import from Saudi Arabia and would dramatically lower carbon emissions. We should also rebuild and expand our decaying rail and subway systems and provide energy-efficient buses in rural America so that travelers have an alternative to the automobile.

Sustainable energies such as wind, solar and geothermal have tremendous potential and often cost no more than fossil fuels (and, in some cases, even less). Increased production and research should cause sustainable energy prices to decline steeply in the future.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: alternative energy, fuel, carbon, global warming

Bernie Sanders is a U.S. Senator from Vermont.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 29, 2007 1:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cheapest energy is that which you do not use. Our appliances, homes, cars, lighting and much more are way less efficient than they could be with existing technologies. This is exhibit 1a as to why we need a Carbon Tax to incentivize more efficient everything.

The money from the carbon tax should be directed 3 ways:
1- 1/3rd of the money can go directly into funding research for more efficient technologies, with NO PRIVATE PATENTS, so all are free to use them.
2- 1/3rd of the money to fund the retrofitting of public buildings and facilities for higher energy efficiency.
3- 1/3rd of the money to fund retrofitting the homes of the poor and elderly for higher energy efficiency.

The law should prohibit Congress, the President or any other official from spending the money for any other purpose. If they can re-direct it into pet projects or pork- they will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What nonsense. The anthropomorphic debate is over.
Posted by: UKMale on Nov 29, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot stop the way the earth works. Warming and cooling are well know, well documented and what we are experiencing now is just natural.
That is not, of course, to say that development of better energy generation systems is not a good thing to do, but please, let's not give false reasons for doing so. Renewables are, in principle, a good thing, but many seem to have inbuilt problems:
Food --> Fuel. Whoever thought this was a good idea?
Hydroelectric, Geothermal, yes if that is what comes naturally, let's not dam up an entire valley to do it, if you have rain and mountains in place already fine.
Of course the actual solution will be Nuclear, despite the obvious risks.

Yours,

Pete

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Regarding GHG deniers, who just happen to be pro-nuclear
Posted by: Kafwood on Nov 29, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What drives this perspective? Denial & avoidance on a catastrophic scale?

First, you deny that human-produced greenhouse gas emissions (it's not just carbon) have initiated the current bout of global warming, then you say nuclear is the solution. But wait, you just said there isn't a problem with global warming...it's natural.

Nuclear energy is the most toxic and expensive energy source out there (yes, even more toxic than ethanol, which is saying a lot) once you work in all the externalities, which proponents of nuclear are slow to (if ever) do.

Oh, and uranium isn't renewable. In fact, it's due to peak in 40-50 years, sooner if all the countries in the world build more nuclear plants, as the nuclear industry is so eager to suggest. So your "solution," will cost trillions, expose the population to unnecessary risks, take decades (which we don't have) to build and won't last more than two generations if fully implemented. Got it.

And...nuclear energy depends on fossil fuels for the mining, milling, fabrication and refinement of the fuel rods, which is to say that nuclear will become even more expensive as peak oil drives prices up.

Consider what you are really doing here. Why are you so determined to decry over 30 years of study by over 2400 scientific experts from around the world as "false"? Where do your talking points come from? Not science. Well, I'm sure you think it's science...all good deniers do.

Undoubtedly, on the eve of the agricultural revolution, there were hunter/gatherers who just didn't get the advantage of having grain surpluses and the benefits of domesticating animals. We should expect the same sort of resistance now, from ghg deniers as the sustainability revolution pushes our species forward.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, the debate has moved on (as Bernie Sanders' piece demonstrates) from WHETHER we should do something or not to WHAT needs to be done and HOW to accomplish it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Big Oil vs. Big Ag? Posted by: xconservative
» Follow the money to Big Oil Posted by: marteau
The Way The World Works
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Nov 29, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, you can't change the way the world works. And the way it works is this: If you screw around with it by polluting it and altering it's chemistry, then bad things happen.

On one hand, we have thousands of smart, dedicated, highly educated climate scientists who say that there is a greter than 90% certainty that humans are causing global warming.

On the other hand, we have some anonymous guy commenting on a website that it's just the natural cycle.

Which one do you beleive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Way The World Works Posted by: Knot_Rich
Note To Senator Sanders
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Nov 29, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for being a champion of this cause, but I have to say that while solar power is a great idea, it is nowhere near as cheap as fossil fuel. The only reason it is popular in Germany and California is because of the huge incentives provided.

I would love to put solar on my roof, but it is way too expensive, and the present incentives are barely any help at all.

It would cost me anywhere from $75,000 to $125,000 to put solar on my house, and the federal incentive only provides $2000, My state can provide another $3000. Multiply both by 10 and I'll do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» same here Posted by: Trazom
» Why is solar so expensive for you? Posted by: xconservative
» RE: Good point about covenants... Posted by: xconservative
» RE: Note To Senator Sanders Posted by: laszlortreiber
Between a rock and a hard place
Posted by: solrev on Nov 29, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are going to survive huge population losses from global warming we need a government that will not go off hog wild delivering money to the piglets. 99.9 % of the species that ever existed on this planet are extinct and they became extinct, because the ecosystem that they were naturally selected for, changed. Global warming probably will not be capable of causing our extinction. It will simply determine the number of people existing on this planet. We may already be in over our head, and technology may not be able to save us. The problem is not just global warming. We are trapped in no man’s land between global warming and global dimming. Solving one problem insures mass destruction from the other. This fact is not even on the public radar. If it is true that across the planet, there is 10 to 20 percent less sunlight striking the planet and the temperature is rising we better be careful in a rush to reduce global warming from greenhouse gases. We need a government that will convene a symposium of scientists from both fields of study (no swift boat people need apply) and allow them to come up with a procedure for a balanced reduction in both green house gas pollution (global warming) and particle pollution (global dimming). One with out the other may lead to disaster. Since this is not likely to happen in the near future maybe the best thing we can do now is nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar is great but does not work for apartment residents. Here's another idea.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 29, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
End the Drug war and LEGALIZE HEMP for fuel. Hemp does not contribute to global warming, does not deplete land to grow, and can grow anywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Slow down' would be better usage
Posted by: gerly on Nov 29, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be great if the pundits would defer from using 'stop global warming' and instead use operatives like 'slow down/mitigate global warming.'

Whenever I see a read with 'stop global warming' I become confounded. The non-scientific community (and a good number of folks in the scientific community) writes as if there is some switch that can be flipped and global warming will be turned off. I fear we're already in a positive feedback loop and it will be many years, perhaps even centuries (or even longer) before the natural flows can bring our anthropogenic carbon exacerbations into equilibrium.

Can we slowdown/mitigate our anthropogenic contributions that have escalated global warming? Sure thang we can reduce our carbon footprints--in the many ways enumerated in this read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The United States as a small planet. ? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 29, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simply raising fuel-efficiency standards to forty miles per gallon would save roughly the same amount of oil as we import from Saudi Arabia and would dramatically lower carbon emissions.

Obviously, because no one else on the planet has any use for that oil, and if wealthy (by world standards) Americans stopped using so much, it would just sit there underground. No, economics and a creative interpretation of Newton's tenets tell me that a decrease in consumption of something as useful as oil here would spur and increase in that consumption elsewhere. Bottom line is that our conscience would be satisfied, at the expense of our investment in more new technology, with virtually no impact on carbon emissions over a 100-200 year time period.

Don't get me wrong, I like filling up cheaply in a 34mpg import, and I enjoy riding my bike to work on pretty days. I fully support the introduction of more energy-efficient vehicles and infrastructure. In fact, as the price of a gallon of gas approaches $5.00 a gallon, wide-spread commuter rail may become a viable option in this country again, saving people from having to fill up their gas guzzling SUVs and--even worse--this country's fleets of 1980's era Cadillac/Buick/Ford/Chevy hoopties, minus catalytic converters/EFI/etc. So, I like the process of migrating towards energy efficient solutions in this nation.

Logically, however, if America cuts oil imports by X percentage, then supply will increase by X percentage, leading to a drop in the cost by X percent. Anyone considered the possibility that there may be lots of countries that would love to buy oil at prices that are indirectly subsidized by investment in alternative fuels here? Anyone have any idea what is happening in urban China with respect to oil consumption? How many coal-fired plants open there per day? Or is that planet a tad too far out of mind in certain politician's mad rush to be seen as "doing something"?

China aside, I'm not sure at all if energy-desperate nations who lack the level of luxury we enjoy that allows us to devote thought, will, and effort to global warming will have the same appreciation for leaving a barrel of oil in the ground, rather burning it up to run a tractor or a truck with it in order to harvest or bring food to their hungry families.

Again, not that LED bulbs, or other new technologies aren't important, fascinating, efficient, and worthy of imminent adoption by U.S. consumers. Indeed, they are great ideas, and great products, whose time has probably come.

I wouldn't, on the other hand, try to sell an LED bulb to someone who has to make a choice between that, and an old $0.08 Thomas Edison-style model A bulb + rice for three or four months.

I fear on thses matters many people have bought wholly into the Booshayan doctrine that the U.S. can fix everything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our part, it just means that we aren't on a planet by our little lonesomes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Global warming is natural
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes the planet is heating up. No doubt about it. We're relaesing more carbon into the atmosphere than all the active volcanos on Earth. Global warming isn't as big a problem as Global poisoning. Planting Trees and making biodiverse forest farms can help with the CO2. What really needs attention is the way we humans have changed the gas composition of the air we breathe. We have chemical compounds that were never meant to be there.
We have metric tons of mercury falling on us daily from coal burning. Causing everything from developmental difficulties to physical deformities and problem pergnancies. Are we trying to clean the mercury out of the atmosphere? NO. We have gas realeses of all sorts comming out of manufacturing plants. If you live in the country,you get to see first hand how the gases in the atmosphere are working. It shows up in the rain. Fourty years ago when you got a 'soaking' rain the ground would stay wet for hours. Now a soaking rain has evaporated in as little as ten minutes. Never having time to soak down far enough to replenish the underground water supply. Those supplies are now threatened by those very same chemicals. Chemicals that will last in our systems for hundreds of years effecting our future children.
If we spend too much time looking into carbon alone we are going to come headlong into a time when we start seeing human deformities that we'll be hard pressed to correct.
We must,for the sake of the future generations, look at ALL the pollution we dump into the air,water and on the ground. We have to place a 'value' on pure water and clean air that is greater than gold. Otherwise our three-eyed,four limbed,leather skinned great-great grandchildren will call this generation 'Fools after a buck.' and they would'nt be wrong

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WAR - the real bad guy
Posted by: EJW on Nov 29, 2007 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we stop polluting the world with 'the products of war' we don't have a chance. The power mad despots running most countries will not give up there 'war toys' for the public good. No military in the world is beneficial to life on Earth.

If we are to survive we must put all the resources put into the 'war' or 'security' arena into the attempt to save our species. We don't have the 'luxury' of settling disputes with wars any longer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WAR - the real bad guy Posted by: barogw
» RE: WAR - the real bad guy Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: WAR - the real bad guy Posted by: barogw
A SKEPTIC’S VIEW ON “GLOBAL WARMING”.
Posted by: laszlortreiber on Nov 29, 2007 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Due to the irreversible physical and chemical processes converting biomass to fossils the amount of carbon available in the biosphere is steadily diminishing and, on a geological time scale, it is certain that without human intervention it would eventually lead to critical shortage of carbon available for life on Earth. Human activities are the single most important if not the only mechanism by which carbon and other essential elements are returned to the biosphere. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact, that at one time virtually all the carbon now trapped in fossils was present in the biosphere. After all, before carbon compounds became converted to fossils, they first, by definition, had to have been incorporated in living materials. With all the carbon available in the biosphere, the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and light hydrocarbons had to have been substantially higher in the atmosphere than it is now. Nevertheless, the evidence is overwhelming, that Earth not only did not go up in flames but instead it was a very inhabitable place providing favorable conditions for all kinds of living organisms to thrive. If the fossil records and vast amounts of scientific results derived from them prove anything, they provide irrefutable evidence that maximum production of the essential bulk components of life such as proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids coincided with significantly more carbon in the biosphere than we currently have. Incidentally, with the vast fossil fuel reserves still untapped we are not even close to reaching the same level of greenhouse gases any time soon that may have existed when the production of biomass was at its peak. One thing is certain, cooling historically has been more detrimental to agriculture and standard of living than warming. The agriculture-supported Viking settlements of Greenland were wiped out and parts of Europe suffered from famine during the “little ice age”. As evidenced by historical records, we have more reason to fear cooling than warming.
The narrow scope of the discussion and the contradictions with well established scientifically proven facts allow raising a valid suspicion that some kind of self-serving agenda may be behind the global warming campaign. Two obvious examples are the savvy film director Davis Guggenheim who is aware of the fact, that movies based on horror and fear result in great financial success and just like all seasoned career politicians would do Al Gore knows very well, that fear can produce votes and portraying himself as a super hero capable of saving Planet Earth from epic destruction may prove beneficial for his political fortune.
With respect to the human perspective, the existing population density around the world and the current trend of voluntary migration of people (to e.g. Florida, Arizona, California, Costa Rica, Mexico, etc.) are a resounding testimony of our preference for warmer climate. On the other hand, should the trend ever be reversed due to global warming, increasing temperatures would open up vast territories of Canada, Europe and Siberia for agriculture as well as industrial development, that currently are sparsely populated due to the climate too cold to be attractive for the general population. So, instead of the counterproductive rhetoric and posturing about postulated changes such as “global warming” now or “nuclear winter” of the 1980s, would it not be much more in line with time-tested human traditions to trust our ability to turn whatever situation may occur to our advantage?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solutions to Global Warming
Posted by: brauerdave on Nov 29, 2007 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reducing the carbon we put into the air is a good start as is the use of wind and solar energy. All uses of “clean” energy should be used and a carbon tax may be an idea whose time has come.

However, it is highly likely that global warming is responsible for Atlanta’s water problem. Our use of oil in our transportation system and to generate electricity wastes a very useful carbon. It is also highly likely that oil is the reason George Bush took us to war in Iraq.

I believe that there are two things we can do to help stop (or at least slow) global warming that were not mentioned, prepare for the worst case of warming in the US, and eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil.

First, the US government should start building water desalination plants on the west coast (then the east cost) for food growth and human consumption. Second, the US government must highly support the change to a hydrogen based transportation system. This includes hydrogen fuel cell cars, a country wide scale of hydrogen fuel development, and hydrogen distribution facilities at the retail level.

There are two parts of hydrogen (and one part oxygen) in every drop of water in the on the planet – a nearly inexhaustible supply.

The large oil companies are going to resist this by saying it is unrealistic and that global warming is not as bad as we think – SO WHAT? Sooner (rather than later) it will be a problem that destroys them as well as us. If we start now, our children may live to see a better life where global warming has a reduced effect (and without having to have troops in the Middle East).

Dave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is this really just chicken little?
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i've been an environmentalist since i was in 4th grade in the 70s and i've been accused of being a "tree hugging californian" on numerous occasions...we turned off lights and recited the mantra "if its yellow let it mellow..." i certainly don't advocate gobbling up resources as fast as we can and i'd never drive an suv...but it seems that since green went mainstream its more about greeD and less about greeN....new technologies will require more resources and force us to BUY BUY BUY...current biofuels are more environmentally detrimental than current energy sources...its just less obvious as the environmental costs are in the growing and processing not at the tail pipe...most people rarely think about the costs associated with bringing a product to their local mega-wal-store...you can go out and buy a hybrid suv that gets 21mpg...i guess thats an improvement, but is it really green?? i guess it all seems a little fishy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wish I had a Senator like Sanders...
Posted by: antiapathy on Nov 29, 2007 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all empty rhetoric from Obama and Durbin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just More MAKE BELIEVE - "Better Living Through Better Chemistry" Illusion
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 29, 2007 5:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just more make believe that technology can solve our problems of over-consumption and fouling up the planet. We are told: "you just need to trust in all the fancy technologies, why, we will have wind farms in every backyard and solar panels on every vacant lot." Sorry to bust the bubble but this better living through better chemistry stuff just won't cut it. What these politicians want to say, Obama included, is that we really don't have to sacrifice, we really don't have to worry about conserving. But, here is the problem, the human population is expanding, countries like China are going to need power and they are going to go for the cheapest way to get it that they can, coal fired plants with no pollution controls. A few solar panels back in the good ole USA might make a few yuppie do-gooders happy, but it will make no difference to global warming. None at all. What needs to change is the mentality, and get away from this technological fix-it-up make believe nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nice ideas boys and girls BUT
Posted by: Don Garb on Nov 30, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The psychopathic billionaires who control this messed up world are thinking that you are all so naive, you will never see the truth. They don't care about cleaning up the air, or water, or saving species or even ourselves from extinction.

They want to increase the inequity of wealth. The crazily uneven distribution of money in this world is no accident, it's what evil billionaire scum sit around talking and thinking about with their psychopathic cronies.

Wars, plagues like cancer and diabetes, environmental disasters, they love all that stuff. What do you do when you get so ridiculously rich? You work hard to make everyone else poorer.

For the last 40 or 50 thousand years, psychopaths have been getting into lots of trouble. Massacring and torturing people, raping 15 year old girls, usually they got hunted down by posses and killed. So a balanced equilibrium existed: the majority of psychopaths were killed off sooner or later.

But then we stopped killing them. And their numbers grew very high as they were now unchecked. What kind of people poison food, water and air? Lay tons of depleted uranium around the world and tell any lie to cover it up?

Until we wipe out the sociopaths and psychopaths and undo all their works, we will be headed for planet wide extermination of all living things. I know you think I'm crazy, but you just wait and see!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The proponents of nuclear energy continue,
Posted by: Squarehead on Dec 1, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proponents of nuclear energy continue, in I am sure, complete good faith, to promote its virtues.

I could agree, if there were no other course to our energy needs. I could reluctantly accept that nuclear power works brilliantly, from a pollution point of view, until something goes wrong. If there were no alternative, that might be an acceptable risk and therefore be the correct course.

But there are alternatives; the problem is one of imagination rather than science.

The solar derived energy resources (solar heat, solar light, wind power, wave power) are scorned as being unreliable, not available all the time, etc. However, the need to use these resources is therefore the need to consider the question of energy storage. These storage solutions are scientifically and technically simple problems; their only difficulty is their cost, since they are typically 6 – 12 times more expensive (as infrastructural cost) than an equivalent generation capacity from oil, gas, or coal.

They do however have the great virtues of Zero fuel cost and near zero pollution output. The approximate costs of electricity generation, per KW/hr are: Nuclear, $0.10; Fossil fuel, $0.05 (& rising); Solar (thermal), $0.06 to $0.15; Solar (photovoltaic), $0.15 (& falling).

Any reasonable logical person can see that 20 – 30 years (the project life) of NO cost for fuel eventually adds up to “a very good deal”.

The consequence of nuclear generation, if that were the total energy supply planet wide, would eventually include an enormous surplus heat problem. To use either fission or fusion energy is to release energy from the creation of the universe; acceptable in a (relatively) small scale; potentially disastrous at the levels that nuclear enthusiasts envisage. Current levels are already significantly damaging to local ecologies (plant & animal life).

The sun provides over the entire planet approx 84 Terrawatt/hours per 24 hours; our current worldwide consumption is about 12 Terrawatt/hours per 24 hours. Does not the cost of human extinction suggest that ANY money cost is an acceptable alternative?

I would not, however, expect too much of that scientific or technical expertise from this government or indeed from most throughout the world.

In the event that we do actually get angry enough to achieve change (it only needs 10% of us), the systematic renewal of this nation’s energy infrastructure can provide a wonderful opportunity, especially in the context of a slowing economy.

This infrastructural development could solve a raft of economic and political problems for the world of the very near future.

I don't agree that 'renewables' are non-viable at present, or can only provide 20% of our energy requirement. The belief in nuclear (seems to me) to be a constant desire for an easy solution. Bad idea. The building of suitable infrastructure (for solar thermal) could be an amazing opportunity for constructive economic growth. The energy, CO2 & money costs of construction are justifiable in terms of subsequent (10 years) reduced costs in all fields.

The nuclear 'hype' of the present, about equally from the well intentioned enthusiasts and from the opportunist business interests, does not address the lack of sufficient supply of Uranium and the obvious effect that interest is having on its marketplace price; nor does it address the ecological problems mentioned.


I say again: Does not the cost of human extinction suggest that ANY money cost is an acceptable alternative?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Without Lowering Our Consumption ...
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 1, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no technology will solve any major environmental problem. Senator Sanders is my favorite senator, but this column doesn't even mention the serious simplifying of our lifestyles that is necessary in order to stop human-caused global warming, along with other human-caused environmental problems. Some technologies are more environmentally harmful than others and all of the suggestions in this article should be implemented. However, there is no magic technology that's going to save us or solve environmental problems caused by unnatural human behavior. We have a choice between our selfish, materialistic desires -- which include convenience -- and the planet. Which do you choose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

very very interesting concept
Posted by: kkmedia1 on Dec 24, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
online casinos USA | leather jackets The essential one-step product for Il migliore Casino Online complete leather care. URAD NEUTRAL buy cigarettes |brings back and revives the original buy diamond earings color and is remarkable buy cigarettes online |leather and fur is always great leathers to casino bonus |mint condition. Also, it offers efficient casino and poker no problems, Casino Online casino and poker no problems. Whether used as a simple shoe polish, as a cleaner for golf shoes or as a online casino gambling Online Casino Games
das beste internet casino best internet casino best online casinos casino spielen | blog for all | conditioner for Best Online Casinos leather and fur is always greatblog for all |car interior, URAD will surpass Das beste casino | any other product as to ease of use, dry time and leather and fur is always great on leather furniture and saddles, and URAD COLOR to bring a Das beste casino | better shine and hide scuff marks play bingo online casino and poker no problems.
online Casino bonus | Livonia transmission repair shop Michigan | Online Casino Gambling leather and fur is always great casino links and casino and poker no problems on we also have online casino links and more like cigarette links exchange always great| tamiflu, viagra, cialis buy tamiflu, viagra, buy cialis | pharmacy links | link directory, free link exchange | Online Casino United States | online casino US players leather and fur is always great judaica, kotel, menora | Casino Bonus Code | free casino bonus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]