Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Renewables Can Turn the Tide on Global Warming

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted February 12, 2007.


There is no "silver bullet" solution to our energy crisis. But a new study shows that the right combination of renewables may be our best bet.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The American Solar Energy Association (ASES), with the backing of several U.S. representatives and a senator, released its new nuts and bolts approach to reducing carbon emissions with a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

The report comes at an opportune time: the release of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest climate change report is expected to finally clear up any lingering uncertainty about the role fossil fuel burning and other human activities have in changing the Earth's climate. As the deniers and obstructionists lose all credibility, the debate now turns to solutions.

The ASES report, titled "Tackling Climate Change in the US -- Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions From Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030," makes this extraordinary claim: "Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies have the potential to provide most, if not all, of the US carbon emissions reductions that will be needed to help limit the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to 450 to 500 ppm."

The ASES report was presented at a press briefing in the Capitol with the support of Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Chris Shays, Sierra Club president Carl Pope, and NASA's chief climate change scientist, Dr. James Hansen.

Hansen's backing is especially important because the report is aimed at meeting a target for emissions reductions that he and other scientists agree is the minimum necessary to preserve a habitable planet. The target is to keep the global average temperature from rising by more than one degree Celsius, and to do that, it will be necessary to limit atmospheric CO2 levels to 450 to 500 ppm. That means reducing U.S. emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by mid-century.

Over the past several years, as the dimensions of the energy and climate crisis have unfolded, the press, the public and politicians have embraced various "silver bullet" solutions one after another according to the fad of the day: at one moment it's hydrogen, then ethanol, then nuclear power, then wind. Today there is a growing recognition that no single energy technology can replace fossil fuels, but there is still no recipe that tells us how to combine energy technologies into a healthful brew that can save our planet and our civilization.

The ASES report takes a unique approach. Instead of turning to the systems analysts who normally tackle such problems, ASES asked the experts in each technology to estimate how much carbon-emitting energy their technologies could displace. Each technology is conceived of as a "wedge" in a stack of wedges that add up to a replacement for fossil fuels. The report consists of separate papers on each technology, including energy efficiency, concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, windpower, biofuels and geothermal.

Each paper was written by experts in the technology, presumably giving the most realistic possible assessment of the capabilities of the technology. And each technology was evaluated in terms of its current capabilities without relying on any major new technical breakthroughs, although some research and development to increase efficiency and reduce costs was assumed. The papers took economic factors into account and real world constraints like the silicon supply shortage that has hampered photovoltaic productions.

Despite its conservative assumptions, the ASES report concludes that renewables and efficiency alone can meet the goal of a 60 to 80 percent emissions reduction by mid-century while the economy continues to grow. Energy efficiency accounts for 57 percent of the reductions, and the renewable energy technologies provide the other 43 percent.

While the report does not estimate a total cost for the deployment of the technologies, it does assume that some government support for R&D and production tax credits will be available. At the press briefing, James Hansen also said that while much could be accomplished without a carbon tax, attaching some kind of economic cost to carbon emissions would be essential to keep the effort on track.

Representative Henry Waxman reiterated the need for a price on carbon: "Unless we put a price on carbon emissions I don't see how we can avoid them continuing to emit carbon from other sources. I mean people are already starting to go to the Rocky Mountains and try to cook oil out of the tar shale there, which you can do, but that's an indication of just how addicted we are to oil."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, renewable energy

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl. Greg Bear, author of Darwin's Radio, says: "Primal Tears is primal storytelling, thoughtful and passionate. Kelpie Wilson wonderfully expands our definitions of human and family."

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

Advertisement
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 First, Alternatives Second, Conservation Always
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 12, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If everyone would go out and replace their existing incandescent bulbs with LED or compact fluorescent bulbs we could offset a significant number of power plants instantly. You would save money as well, because the lower electric bill and longer life would more than cover the difference in up-front price.

That is a prime example of the power of efficiency. Even if Congress & the President mandated a crash conversion program for sustainable energy, it would be years to decades before much of a difference was felt. More efficient appliances, HVAC, lighting and insulation can be done and had today and pay dividends every day and for much less money.

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

from here to there
Posted by: edith on Feb 12, 2007 1:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How does solar power and use of renwables solve our transportation problems? It seems that Americans would heat or cool homes and offices with solar or renwable fuel without the whining and foot dragging that is inevitable if gasoline powered vehicles are taxed heavily or mandated out of existence. And what level of fuel efficiency would cars and trucks have to meet for the 60% desired reduction to be achieved?

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

» RE: from here to there Posted by: ruckrover
» RE: from here to there Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» Defending coal again... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» So we all take up riding horses? Posted by: Leadbyexample
» Here is a start Posted by: Logic's Edge
Send a copy...
Posted by: ahmlco on Feb 12, 2007 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody send a copy of the report to this guy. He seems to think we should give up and go back to Mayberry RFD.

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

» RE: Send a copy... Posted by: NoPCZone
» Better yet... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
renewable energy
Posted by: theairboater on Feb 12, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is allready a renewable energy source.It is called HEMP.Read"the emperor wears no clothes".

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

» Some things hemp does well ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Some things hemp does well ... Posted by: theairboater
Misleading title.
Posted by: brad on Feb 12, 2007 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does the title claim that renewables can solve the CO2 problem when the report says that the biggest reduction will come from efficeny? Efficency and lifestyle reduction is the clear way forward, renewables will play a very small role.

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

Second step shouldn't go first
Posted by: yank in london on Feb 12, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Renewable energy sources will be of some help in dealing with the CO2 emissions issue but first and foremost has to be an attack on America's (and to a slightly lesser extent Europe's) arrogrant and profligate per capita energy consumption. Irrespective of the energy source it is clear that the level of energy use in the Western world must be significantly and quickly reduced.

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

Good intentions, I guess. But
Posted by: jsong123 on Feb 12, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the author: Did you ever consider providing a link to the report mentioned in the article, so that the readers can use it to verify the rest fo the article?

"grid regulations that limit solar and wind production" must be referring to "grid regulations that ensure reliability" The AWEA likes to twist things a bit.

"Pope vowed that the Sierra Club would aggressively pursue solutions..." LOL How do you pursue solutions if you don't know shit and your organization, the entire environmentalist movement is in chaos.

But, there is always the anti-nuclear line. Nuclear still has a bad public image, so since they don't have any facts, they will be anti-nuclear.

John Hughes

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

A copy of the report
Posted by: Cap'n Solar on Feb 12, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Report

It is long past time the US started supporting renewable sources of energy in mass.

Most of the technologies, including the most expensive (solar photovoltaics), would easily become economically competitive with fossil fuels if we obtain large enough scales - see this short paper

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

bla bla bla
Posted by: dbaker on Feb 12, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
human excrement + Nuclear waste = hydrogen

dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com

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

Yes, there is a "Silver Bullet".
Posted by: craigandrew on Feb 12, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Silver Bullet" is adapting ourselves to be more energy efficient by changing our behavior... not just waiting for technology and industry to solve the problem for us.

To save time, just cut and paste this answer to every other problem we have in this country.

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

Solving the CO2 problem means abandoning coal and oil as energy sources
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 12, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it has to be done on a global basis - it'll make little difference if the US switches to renewables while the developing world doubles it's coal and oil use, will it?

Most of the coal and oil that remains must be left in the ground to head off global warming, in other words. There is a limited amount of uranium in the ground, mining it is a mess, and in any case nuclear power expansion leads to weapons proliferation - nuclear obliteration is still a threat. It might slow down the world's economy, reduce CO2 emissions and throw a lot of radioactive dust into the air - not a very good 'solution' to global warming...

Renewables can replace a lot of the fossil fuel generated energy, and efficiencies in tranport can easily be increased from 10-20 mpg to 60-80 mpg using hybrid and fuel-efficient technology, and if Brazil can do sustainable biofuel production so can a lot of other countries - but the best source is wind and solar energy of all forms.

It won't happen until we institute caps on CO2 emissions and start shutting down coal-fired power plants, and we'll have to encourage China and India to do the same thing - which means signing the Kyoto Accord as a first step. We should also ban or highly tax any petroleum imports to the United States.

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

What about population growth?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 12, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
". . .the ASES report concludes that renewables and efficiency alone can meet the goal of a 60 to 80 percent emissions reduction by mid-century while the economy continues to grow."

For how long? It should be obvious that we are living in a finite ecosystem, and that there is no place to go from this little planet. It also should be obvious that unlimited growth cannot continue in a finite system – and we are beginning to see the limits of that system today. Thanks to mankind's long history of, and thus, biased mindset toward unconstrained growth, the ASES report again understates the scope of the problem. Unrestrained growth in population will likely negate efforts to ameliorate greenhouse gasses almost as soon as they are instituted. We must finally do what we should have done 100 years ago, what Paul Erlich and The Club of Rome understood needed to be done more than 30 years ago: limit population growth worldwide to at least replacement level through aggressive education and contraception. Do anything less, and we energetic little hamsters will not only foul our cage, we will fill it to the bursting point. History shows that Nature's control for any species that does this are not pretty: famine, thirst, disease, and death through war and murder. If we cannot be wiser, we will be history.

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

» Seconded Posted by: JohnF
» RE: What about population growth? Posted by: SolarElectrics
"Renewable" vs. Responsible
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Feb 12, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm more than a little tired of the over-promotion of alcohol and vegitable oil, lumped into the catchall 'renewable energy resources' as solutions to both the 'high price of fuel' AND global warming ...

Frankly ... some of the best solutions tidal, solar, wind and wave energy are not so much 'renewable' as 'more or less eternal' ...

Whereas hydrogen and nuclear are 'non-renewable' yet have lower carbon loads than biodiesel or alcohol fuels.

When we discuss 'energy issues' we tend to lose sight of the idea that 1)global warming 2) fuel costs 3) fuel politics 4) pollution and 5) 'sustainability' are interrelated factors in a set of interrelated problems with no simple solutions.

When planet-friendly writers slip from one factor to the other in the same paragraph without hinting that they know they've changed the subject ... (cuz they know WE'RE too damn stupid and lazy to follow the more complex argument) ... well, it just doesn't help anything --does it ?

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

» Our bus... Posted by: bassman
» You seem to be the excitable sort. Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
The Most Important Statement in this Article:
Posted by: rwa on Feb 12, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Nuclear power, I think, is almost certain to be emphasized to a greater extent if a cap and trade system is put in place."

This is where the elites want to take us. It's much more dangerous to the environment than coal (over the long haul).
Let's face it, there is a Uranium exploration "boom" going the likes of which we have never seen before. We need to face the fact that the public is being softened up for the introduction of new subsidies for economically nonviable, corporate developed and operated, nuclear plants. It will be claimed that these "new and improved" plants are safe[r]. There will be little or no discussion of waste. Contamination and waste disposal will be externalized costs, left for future generations.

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

We should be putting up solar panels as fast as possible:
Posted by: PT Alden on Feb 12, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And we should start reducing our coal plants and increasing our dependence on these self-same solar panels. We have plenty of rooftops, and at a certain point those little panels would not only start paying for themselves, they would start to reduce global warming.

At the same time we should be planting as many trees as we can. I would like to see asphalt and concrete torn up, the land underneath restored, and trees planted. From there we can move to expanding community gardens, and we can even use some of those solar panels to protect delicate crops that do better in shade.

See how neatly that all ties together?

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

Well, that will help..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 12, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That'll help on greenhouse gas emissions... but then we still have ALL the other environmental problems that are going un or underreported because of the fixation on global warming (not that I'm complaining.. anything getting this much press is better than nothing getting anywhere near this much bress). It is believed that we can simply reduce, reuse, and recycle all the harmful substances we create through industry.. such as in the making of solar panels, etc... But that, whether actually true or not, ignores the fact that the biggest problem isn't so much that we pollute but that we consume at such a pace as to make our way of life unsustainable even with the best efforts towards sustainability. We overfish. We radically deforest the planet. We continue to raise more livestock and grow more crops on less and less land. We continue to pave wild areas and extend our influence into the wild making it only semi-wild which directly and indirectly effects biodiversity and the sustainability of the ecosystems.

In short... you're solving one problem... but there are a whole lot more problems that you aren't even looking at.

www.greenanarchy.org

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

Live with Climate Change
Posted by: Liger on Feb 12, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Patrick J. Michaels

"It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed.

However, actually "doing something" about warming is a daunting endeavor. The journal Geophysical Research Letters estimated in 1997 that if every nation on Earth lived up to the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, it would prevent no more than 0.126 degrees F of warming every 50 years. Global temperature varies by more than that from year to year, so that's not even enough to measure. Climatically, Kyoto would do nothing.

In the past four years, the Senate has voted twice against "cap-and-trade" legislation — sponsored by New Mexico senators Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, and Pete Domenici, a Republican — that would set quotas on carbon emissions and let companies buy and sell them. If adopted, their cap-and-trade law would reduce emissions by less than the Kyoto Protocol specifies. In other words, the Senate has been loath to even adopt something that does less than nothing.

The stark reality is that if we really want to alter the warming trajectory of the planet significantly, we have to cut emissions by an extremely large amount, and — a truth that everyone must know — we simply do not have the technology to do so. We would fritter away billions in precious investment capital in a futile attempt to curtail warming.

Consequently, the best policy is to live with some modest climate change now and encourage economic development, which will generate the capital necessary for investment in the more efficient technologies of the future.

Fortunately, we have more time than the alarmists suggest. The warming path of the planet falls at the lowest end of today's U.N. projections. In aggregate, our computer models tell us that once warming is established, it tends to take place at a constant, not an increasing, rate. Reassuringly, the rate has been remarkably constant, at 0.324 degrees F per decade, since warming began around 1975. The notion that we must do "something in 10 years," repeated by a small but vocal band of extremists, enjoys virtually no support in the truly peer reviewed scientific literature.

Rather than burning our capital now for no environmental gain (did someone say "ethanol?"), let's encourage economic development so people can invest and profit in our more efficient future.

People who invested in automobile companies that developed hybrid technology have been rewarded handsomely in the past few years, and there's no reason to think environmental speculators won't be rewarded in the future, too."


This article appeared in the USA Today on February 2, 2007.

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

Population increase
Posted by: vertical on Feb 12, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people are figuring out what power we are going to need to they ever think about the 90 million more Americans there will be in thirty years?

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

» RE: Population increase Posted by: Cathyc
But how to pay for it?
Posted by: jcschaef on Feb 12, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ASES report lays out nicely what we need to do. But we all know how hard it is to stop people from doing what they always (or for a hundred years) have, and do something else.

Conservation and renewables appear now to be more expensive and inconvenient, but the present system of encouraging them with rebates, tax incentives, and carbon emission trading is complicated. It's not a system at all, but just a hodge-podge of special interest goodies.

What the growth of wind power in the 1980s showed us is that firms do respond to real pricing incentives. We knew that anyway.

So a better approach now is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and instead charge a fee or tax based on the carbon emissions they produce. It'd be easy to collect because fossil fuels are provided to us by a small number of monopoly suppliers.

How much, you say? Nobody knows, probably between ten and a hundred dollars a ton. We could start at ten and increase it every five years by ten until nobody will build fossil power plants any more.

This scheme has the added benefits of making governments financially solvent and assuring that polluters pay more than conservers.

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

The potential for sustainable ethanol production is expanding:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 12, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MIT Experts Foresee Efficient Ethanol Production, ScienceDaily Feb 12 2007

Most of the 5 billion gallons of ethanol produced annually in the United States comes from corn, but there's not enough corn available to make it a viable long-term source, according to Stephanopoulos.

Right now, about 16 percent of the U.S. corn crop is going into ethanol production, but the fuel makes up less than one percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels, once you take into account the amount of energy needed to produce the ethanol, Stephanopoulos said. Even if all U.S. corn went into ethanol production, there would only be enough for 4 to 5 percent of U.S. annual liquid fuel consumption.
To replace corn, scientists are turning to cellulose found in grasses and agricultural wastes. In his Science article, Stephanopoulos outlined several challenges to producing ethanol from cellulose and avenues of research scientists are pursuing to overcome them.


Still, there's no way out of the need to end the use of coal and petroleum - all the renewables in the world won't mean a thing unless we stop burning fossil fuels, periods.

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

Full Report Links
Posted by: solarsprite on Feb 12, 2007 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Main Web Page:
Tackling Climate Change
Here

Download Report Link:
climate_change.pdf
Here

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

ASES Report short on specifics
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 12, 2007 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read through this report several days ago and was disappointed in the lack of quality information in the area of energy efficient buildings and retrofits. This report is an overview only on some of the technologies available and those being researched. It is time to move beyond generalizations and get down to specifics, I had hoped for more from this organization.

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

renewables, efficiency, and vegetarianism would do the trick
Posted by: CyberBrook on Feb 12, 2007 9:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using newable fuels, increasing efficiency and conservation, and switching to vegetarianism would do the trick. The longer we wait, the more damage there will be; the faster we make the changes, the cheaper it'll be and the happier and healthier we will be.

Another Inconvenient Truth
www.anotherinconvenienttruth.org

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
www.brook.com/veg

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

Let’s focus on what we know works best and do that first.
Posted by: MISSING on Feb 12, 2007 9:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy is the only true alternative to date that shows promise. Most other alternatives consume more energy than they make. Let’s get wind generators in every area with 12+ average wind speeds.

White roofs and insulation are nice but let’s build earth homes that are off the grid. This way you do not support the distribution system of electric and gas networks that use a lot of energy (oil) to maintain them. You also force people to be more efficient this way. If these earth homes are designed correctly, (using passive solar to heat the house) they do not even need a furnace or airconditioner.

Let’s face it, peak energy is upon us, you might as well build a home now that is sustainable, (Like Bush, Cheney and Prince Charles). I would have done it myself by now but I only took the red pill recently.

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

Why the obsession with growing the economy?
Posted by: JohnF on Feb 13, 2007 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the ASES report concludes that renewables and efficiency alone can meet the goal of a 60 to 80 percent emissions reduction by mid-century while the economy continues to grow."

This statement seems just more of the usual growth obsession. The fact is that economic growth of the sort we've become accustomed to has a physical growth component (throughput) and is part of what's killing our ecosystem. We must consider such things as ecological economics and the steady state economy.

We will also get nowhere unless we seriously address population growth at the same time that we address consumption rates. Our total consumption is, after all, the product of population size and the average per capita consumption rate. We can't ignore either side of the equation if we don't want to fail in our efforts.

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

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R12
Posted by: renewableenergy on Feb 13, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R12

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."

Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
Feb. 13, 2007
renewableenergy2@msn.com

P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.

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