Clean energy reasons to be thankful....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-25-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
More and more people AND countries are beginning to realize these things and take constructive action.
So, despite being badly rushed for time to act and the world-wide slow start, we are beginning to have some things to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
China has recently made several announcements that will soon add gigawatts of new electric generation from wind and solar sources. India has begun the process of adding gigawatts of solar electricity generation.
And, as these things come online they will gradually begin to trigger the transmission upgrades to deliver this new electricity to where it will be used.
Next, for several reasons, it turns out that global warming has temporarily slowed. Since we are so far behind in combating it, that’s a blessing. The world wide recession has caused many people to suffer and to a degree impoverished everyone. But we are generating and releasing far less CO2 than we would have been without it.
In addition, some of the effects of global warming have created some braking effects apparently. Just as ice cools a drink on a hot day, the increased melts of polar ice and glaciers has apparently caused some cooling of the oceans and changes in their currents that have temporarily slowed warming effects.
(Of course the people who want to believe burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 is not causing warming think this means they are correct. Their problem is that for the survival of our global economy as we run short of oil and the national security of the countries that now depend on imported oil, we need to act is if global warming is true even if they are right. Worse for them, the other and ample evidence shows they are likely only indulging in wishful thinking about CO2 releases not causing global warming.)
But regardless if they are right or wrong, we HAVE been cut a short break that will, or at least might, help us get started in time to prevent some of the worst energy related disasters.
In the United States and China, because of the huge installed base and massive economic dependence on coal fired plants, it will take far longer than many of us would like to begin to cut back on electricity from coal. But here too there are several signs of improvements to come.
Between the growing lack of patience of the people and politicians with the various kinds of pollution, other than releasing CO2, connected with mining and burning coal in BOTH the United States and China AND the need to burn far less to lower CO2 emissions AND the increasing availability of new clean sources of electricity that is finally beginning to come online, we may not yet be using less coal; but the amount of NEW coal fired plants being built is beginning to drop to zero.
Additionally, though the political representatives of the states in the United States that depend on coal for jobs, statewide over-all business income, and electricity now -- may stop cap and trade legislation in the US Senate for a while longer, many of the individual states that are horribly strapped for cash during this severe recession are firing up or acting on plans to set up state or region wide cap & trade policies that send them new revenue.
So, we will soon be left with a very different and smaller coal industry. More ways will be found to mine it without horrible land, water, and air pollution; and other practices will gradually be outlawed. More ways to clean particulates and other kinds of air pollution from burning coal will be found and mandated with many sloppier and less responsible current practices then outlawed. Many coal fired plants will be in political areas that have some kind of CO2 cap & trade. Then at some point renewable sources of electricity both existing and new will generate electricity for less money than coal will be able to do.
Some utilities and coal companies will begin to produce biofuels from feeding their released CO2 to algae that produce it, make coal directly into cleaner burning and more easily transported methane & directly into gasoline and diesel fuel not dependent on using petroleum. And they will begin to use coal to make plastics and other carbon based commodities as the petrochemical industries have done and to compete with them.
The rest of the coal companies will go out of business.
All this will take 25 to 35 years when we need it to take 10. But it is happening and will happen.
The leaders of the coal companies need to decide which group they want to have their company be in.
All of this is progress to be thankful for and was NOT happening before now.
Lastly, the boom in cars and trucks that are hybrids, can burn other fuels than petroleum based ones, and plug in hybrids and all electric cars, biofuel production, and soon more carbon based fuels from coal all mean that, we have a shot at using enough less oil soon to increase the dependence of the United States and other countries in the developed world on oil from politically unstable places. And, it is beginning to look now as if this is happening in time to prevent gasoline and diesel prices from going above $10 a gallon in today’s dollars or having our economy collapse when we begin to truly run out of petroleum.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Energy bill in two parts may make sense....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-18-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
The energy & climate change bills that are now being considered are both in favor of slowing the use of fossil fuels and increasing non-fossil fuel energy sources from renewables to energy efficiency and even nuclear power.
It may make sense to take up the issue in two parts instead of one.
A recent news article says that moderate Democrats have pushed for a “climate light” bill that focuses only on energy provisions which would leave the cap-and-trade part until after the economy recovers.
The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. And one moderate Democrat, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said he has found that a bill including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.
The Kerry, Graham, Lieberman bill would cover both parts but would have some increased drilling for oil in the United States and increases in nuclear power.
We do need to do both parts. But to some degree I agree that we should phase in the direct reduction of fossil fuel use with Cap & Trade or a carbon tax and revoking incentives and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries until far more of the alternative sources are in place AND until the economy begins to recover.
But, there may be no Energy bill able to pass both the Senate and the House that contains both boosting more desirable energy sources AND beginning to cut back immediately on fossil fuels.
In addition, the members of congress facing large parts of their voters who have been laid off or are concerned they might be, so these politicians want to be sure to support bills that create jobs and avoid those that will remove jobs.
Right now, boosting the desirable alternatives is the priority. And, since that would create jobs and make it economically safer to add measures to restrict fossil fuels later, it may be far more politically doable and practical to get that part passed now.
There are two good ways theoretically to do both parts.:
One is to pass both parts now; but have the phase in of the fossil fuel restrictions contingent on having far more of the more desirable energy sources in place and rapidly expanding plus a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
The other is to pass the bill to rapidly increase the desirable energy sources now or very, very soon. And pass the part to restrict fossil fuels after far more of the more desirable energy sources are in place and rapidly expanding plus achieving a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
Both methods would do the job. But moderate or conservative Democrats and Republicans, according to this information, will vote for the first of the two parts now and get it passed while trying to do both parts now may not.
I like the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that contains both domestic energy increases from renewable energy sources that liberals support and some that conservatives support and does both.
But we may need to add to that approach dropping the direct regulation of fossil fuels now to get even that passed.
What may make sense is to pass a version of the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that only contains the energy positive parts that will create jobs. And leave the rest for later.
And, what may make sense for liberals to do is to focus on:
being sure that bill does a superb, large scale job of seeing to it that far more renewable energy is installed and that the electricity transmission and management system needed to get much of that to the end users is built;
being sure that funds are directed to developing and expanding successful new technology to do this better and at lower cost;
being sure that a large program is included that will increase energy efficiency in every way likely to have a large scale effect;
& seeing to it that new domestic oil drilling and transport is done with minimum environmental impact and that the new nuclear plants get adequate funding to reliably protect themselves from terrorists.
Every single part of that approach is likely to create jobs and add to the energy going into our economy.
And, it may be doable by just doing that part for now.
To try to do both and winding up doing nothing would be a disaster.
Why throw out the baby with the bath water if the two part version will fail to be passed and we can get part one that builds far more desirable energy sources in place and passed?
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-18-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
The energy & climate change bills that are now being considered are both in favor of slowing the use of fossil fuels and increasing non-fossil fuel energy sources from renewables to energy efficiency and even nuclear power.
It may make sense to take up the issue in two parts instead of one.
A recent news article says that moderate Democrats have pushed for a “climate light” bill that focuses only on energy provisions which would leave the cap-and-trade part until after the economy recovers.
The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. And one moderate Democrat, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said he has found that a bill including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.
The Kerry, Graham, Lieberman bill would cover both parts but would have some increased drilling for oil in the United States and increases in nuclear power.
We do need to do both parts. But to some degree I agree that we should phase in the direct reduction of fossil fuel use with Cap & Trade or a carbon tax and revoking incentives and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries until far more of the alternative sources are in place AND until the economy begins to recover.
But, there may be no Energy bill able to pass both the Senate and the House that contains both boosting more desirable energy sources AND beginning to cut back immediately on fossil fuels.
In addition, the members of congress facing large parts of their voters who have been laid off or are concerned they might be, so these politicians want to be sure to support bills that create jobs and avoid those that will remove jobs.
Right now, boosting the desirable alternatives is the priority. And, since that would create jobs and make it economically safer to add measures to restrict fossil fuels later, it may be far more politically doable and practical to get that part passed now.
There are two good ways theoretically to do both parts.:
One is to pass both parts now; but have the phase in of the fossil fuel restrictions contingent on having far more of the more desirable energy sources in place and rapidly expanding plus a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
The other is to pass the bill to rapidly increase the desirable energy sources now or very, very soon. And pass the part to restrict fossil fuels after far more of the more desirable energy sources are in place and rapidly expanding plus achieving a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
Both methods would do the job. But moderate or conservative Democrats and Republicans, according to this information, will vote for the first of the two parts now and get it passed while trying to do both parts now may not.
I like the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that contains both domestic energy increases from renewable energy sources that liberals support and some that conservatives support and does both.
But we may need to add to that approach dropping the direct regulation of fossil fuels now to get even that passed.
What may make sense is to pass a version of the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that only contains the energy positive parts that will create jobs. And leave the rest for later.
And, what may make sense for liberals to do is to focus on:
being sure that bill does a superb, large scale job of seeing to it that far more renewable energy is installed and that the electricity transmission and management system needed to get much of that to the end users is built;
being sure that funds are directed to developing and expanding successful new technology to do this better and at lower cost;
being sure that a large program is included that will increase energy efficiency in every way likely to have a large scale effect;
& seeing to it that new domestic oil drilling and transport is done with minimum environmental impact and that the new nuclear plants get adequate funding to reliably protect themselves from terrorists.
Every single part of that approach is likely to create jobs and add to the energy going into our economy.
And, it may be doable by just doing that part for now.
To try to do both and winding up doing nothing would be a disaster.
Why throw out the baby with the bath water if the two part version will fail to be passed and we can get part one that builds far more desirable energy sources in place and passed?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Energy entrepreneurs doing better than politicians....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-11-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
While there ARE some pieces of good news in posts I did two, three, & four weeks ago that show that some political leaders are beginning to take some decent first steps towards building the energy policy we ideally should have had 40 years ago, it’s mostly too little too late.
However, given the tiny bit of help from those political leaders, there are multiple examples of energy entrepreneurs who have already begun to create our new energy economy.
Those efforts are beginning to look more and more promising.
For example, since electricity can be generated by virtually all the renewable energy sources and by nuclear reactors and by burning the more clean burning than coal natural gas, NONE of which use petroleum, it clearly would help to run our transport systems more and more on electricity rather than by burning petroleum products such as diesel fuel and gasoline.
Not only that, even if you generate electricity by burning natural gas or coal, apparently electric vehicles, that incorporate regenerative electricity generation instead of using brakes to slow down and are more efficient in other ways, actually cause less CO2 to be released than comparable vehicles that burn gasoline or diesel fuel for the same mileage driven.
So while the politicians both in the United States are mostly playing roadblock instead of making workable compromises that move in the right direction and saying we’ll only do the harder stuff if everyone else does it first and few do very much, the progress towards well done all electric cars is breathtaking and the progress on plug in hybrids that use far less petroleum is getting there.
For example, as of today, you can go to: http://www.teslamotors.com/blogs.php & see the story of a man who bought one of the Tesla Motors Roadsters.
Of course, they are priced for multi-millionaires & for the people almost that fortunate market now, a bit over $100,000.
But Tesla Motors will soon sell their model S sedan that will sell for about half that, comparable to what other more affordable and existing high end cars sell for.
And, the comments by Eric Brechner who tells about his experience with the Tesla Roadster he bought while he and his wife waited to get their model S are very promising.
In software, even from well thought of major companies, it’s not uncommon for the first version of a new release to need multiple fixes before it really becomes a decent product.
So, since the Tesla Roadster was Tesla Motors initial product, he had expected comparable glitches. Instead he found it more user-friendly and reliable and easy to maintain than the best gasoline powered car he could have found to buy.
Further, due to the simplicity of the design, that advantage in maintenance will last the life of the car when compared to the complexity of a gasoline powered car.
(He also notes that their Roadster is so much fun to drive, when the model S is available, his wife will get one and they’ll use it when they need the added passenger seats as a family car; but he will keep the Roadster to keep driving himself instead of his original plan to sell it to buy himself a second model S.)
As more and more communities have electricity provided by solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear sources and more and more people drive all electric cars and trucks and mostly electric plug-in hybrids, we will begin to use far less petroleum even without the policies to revoke the multiple incentives the oil companies now have or the added taxes and regulations on CO2 release that the politicians may not be able to pass.
So, while the progress on energy by the politicians is still too little too late, the energy entrepreneurs are beginning to solve the problem.
So, although I still hope to influence the politicians to do the right things, as in my post last week, I’m placing my hopes and expectations for success mostly with the energy entrepreneurs.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-11-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
While there ARE some pieces of good news in posts I did two, three, & four weeks ago that show that some political leaders are beginning to take some decent first steps towards building the energy policy we ideally should have had 40 years ago, it’s mostly too little too late.
However, given the tiny bit of help from those political leaders, there are multiple examples of energy entrepreneurs who have already begun to create our new energy economy.
Those efforts are beginning to look more and more promising.
For example, since electricity can be generated by virtually all the renewable energy sources and by nuclear reactors and by burning the more clean burning than coal natural gas, NONE of which use petroleum, it clearly would help to run our transport systems more and more on electricity rather than by burning petroleum products such as diesel fuel and gasoline.
Not only that, even if you generate electricity by burning natural gas or coal, apparently electric vehicles, that incorporate regenerative electricity generation instead of using brakes to slow down and are more efficient in other ways, actually cause less CO2 to be released than comparable vehicles that burn gasoline or diesel fuel for the same mileage driven.
So while the politicians both in the United States are mostly playing roadblock instead of making workable compromises that move in the right direction and saying we’ll only do the harder stuff if everyone else does it first and few do very much, the progress towards well done all electric cars is breathtaking and the progress on plug in hybrids that use far less petroleum is getting there.
For example, as of today, you can go to: http://www.teslamotors.com/blogs.php & see the story of a man who bought one of the Tesla Motors Roadsters.
Of course, they are priced for multi-millionaires & for the people almost that fortunate market now, a bit over $100,000.
But Tesla Motors will soon sell their model S sedan that will sell for about half that, comparable to what other more affordable and existing high end cars sell for.
And, the comments by Eric Brechner who tells about his experience with the Tesla Roadster he bought while he and his wife waited to get their model S are very promising.
In software, even from well thought of major companies, it’s not uncommon for the first version of a new release to need multiple fixes before it really becomes a decent product.
So, since the Tesla Roadster was Tesla Motors initial product, he had expected comparable glitches. Instead he found it more user-friendly and reliable and easy to maintain than the best gasoline powered car he could have found to buy.
Further, due to the simplicity of the design, that advantage in maintenance will last the life of the car when compared to the complexity of a gasoline powered car.
(He also notes that their Roadster is so much fun to drive, when the model S is available, his wife will get one and they’ll use it when they need the added passenger seats as a family car; but he will keep the Roadster to keep driving himself instead of his original plan to sell it to buy himself a second model S.)
As more and more communities have electricity provided by solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear sources and more and more people drive all electric cars and trucks and mostly electric plug-in hybrids, we will begin to use far less petroleum even without the policies to revoke the multiple incentives the oil companies now have or the added taxes and regulations on CO2 release that the politicians may not be able to pass.
So, while the progress on energy by the politicians is still too little too late, the energy entrepreneurs are beginning to solve the problem.
So, although I still hope to influence the politicians to do the right things, as in my post last week, I’m placing my hopes and expectations for success mostly with the energy entrepreneurs.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Energy information for Republicans....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-4-2009
As you can see from the paragraphs below, I think taking steps to stop the growth of fossil fuel use and making huge progress on alternative sources of energy and electricity generation are crucial.
I completely understand that we need to be careful not to create rapid increases in energy costs in the middle of a recession.
Similarly, in any state or district that contains large businesses that are part of the fossil fuel economy, as their representative, you have a responsibility and strong incentives to see to it that their views are represented well and that they are treated fairly and if they must be downsized or their growth slowed, it be done in such a way they can still thrive in some way and not throw large numbers of their employees out of work in the middle of the recession.
However, nearly all Republicans in the United States congress seem not to understand what is happening in the modern world in the field of energy or to realize we need quick action to avoid truly frightening consequences – or they are willing to act as if they don’t.
Instead of seeing to it that reasonable short term protections are given the fossil fuel businesses in the areas they represent and adding to the energy bill things they favor that would increase energy efficiency or our national security they are mostly working to block any bill at all.
1. We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
(We have global warming. The evidence is in. Most scientists say the huge increases in world wide CO2 levels are the prime cause. And, the increases in CO2 levels are also documented to be real. The effects on emergency services that will be needed and on agriculture and on coastal cities if this warming trend continues are also quite clear.
Could it be that the CO2 is not the prime cause of the global warming? It doesn’t look at all likely. But, given these other facts, it will pay us to try to stop further increases in CO2 levels to help slow the warming even if there is another cause or two that is causing most of the warming.
In addition, virtually all the leaders of the developed countries in Europe believe that the global warming is real and believe that the people in the United States who are failing to act to contain it are under-informed and irresponsible. Worse, leaders in many other countries are even less happy with the United States for these reasons.
Given these considerations, we clearly must do far more than we have. And we must do it soon. Delay is not a good option. Great harm will befall the United States and all the people in the area that you represent will be harmed if we delay.)
2. At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
(Nuclear energy has enough risks from either the real cost of fail safe nuclear waste storage or fail safe protection from terrorists or both that it is a far less desirable and likely far less cost effective solution than renewable energy if we pay up to do the nuclear additions safely.
But, the need is so great and the ability of nuclear to generate electricity when and where there is no wind and little sunshine -- or none at night -- means that adding more nuclear power plants as a priority likely does make sense.
Large increases in renewable energy AND increases in nuclear clearly gives us & our economy better protection from running out of oil than renewables only.)
Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to the economy of the United States and the people in the area you represent if oil were to suddenly run out world wide BEFORE we have alternatives in place?
It would make the so called “Great Depression” look like a small hill by comparison!
3. Today we send staggering sums of money paid by people from the areas you represent and everyone else in the country to oil producers outside the United States. So do the people in Japan, China, India, and virtually all of Europe. Worse, many of the countries that the oil comes from – and who get the money – are either politically unstable or run by governments that don’t like the United States at all.
If we learn to use far less oil soon and become more energy efficient and add huge amounts of renewables and some more nuclear soon, we can put a screeching halt to this.
Even if you believe global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels, it seems reasonable to act to protect our national security and get this done soon.
4. Finally, as California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said it well, “You are losing at the Box Office.”
You lost the Presidency in the last election in large part because many people saw that the Republican leadership was under-informed or irresponsible on these issues.
And they saw that instead of adding to the solutions to these problems or working to make the solutions safer to implement economically, Republicans were the party advocating nothing be done at all about them.
Unfortunately, that has as yet changed little. Republicans have become and remained the party of “Just say no.” That’s simply not going to work.
To be fully functional and successful as a political party instead of being a dwindling minority that grows ever smaller, Republicans must do better at implementing and moving forward on actually helping to take action to solve these problems.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-4-2009
As you can see from the paragraphs below, I think taking steps to stop the growth of fossil fuel use and making huge progress on alternative sources of energy and electricity generation are crucial.
I completely understand that we need to be careful not to create rapid increases in energy costs in the middle of a recession.
Similarly, in any state or district that contains large businesses that are part of the fossil fuel economy, as their representative, you have a responsibility and strong incentives to see to it that their views are represented well and that they are treated fairly and if they must be downsized or their growth slowed, it be done in such a way they can still thrive in some way and not throw large numbers of their employees out of work in the middle of the recession.
However, nearly all Republicans in the United States congress seem not to understand what is happening in the modern world in the field of energy or to realize we need quick action to avoid truly frightening consequences – or they are willing to act as if they don’t.
Instead of seeing to it that reasonable short term protections are given the fossil fuel businesses in the areas they represent and adding to the energy bill things they favor that would increase energy efficiency or our national security they are mostly working to block any bill at all.
1. We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
(We have global warming. The evidence is in. Most scientists say the huge increases in world wide CO2 levels are the prime cause. And, the increases in CO2 levels are also documented to be real. The effects on emergency services that will be needed and on agriculture and on coastal cities if this warming trend continues are also quite clear.
Could it be that the CO2 is not the prime cause of the global warming? It doesn’t look at all likely. But, given these other facts, it will pay us to try to stop further increases in CO2 levels to help slow the warming even if there is another cause or two that is causing most of the warming.
In addition, virtually all the leaders of the developed countries in Europe believe that the global warming is real and believe that the people in the United States who are failing to act to contain it are under-informed and irresponsible. Worse, leaders in many other countries are even less happy with the United States for these reasons.
Given these considerations, we clearly must do far more than we have. And we must do it soon. Delay is not a good option. Great harm will befall the United States and all the people in the area that you represent will be harmed if we delay.)
2. At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
(Nuclear energy has enough risks from either the real cost of fail safe nuclear waste storage or fail safe protection from terrorists or both that it is a far less desirable and likely far less cost effective solution than renewable energy if we pay up to do the nuclear additions safely.
But, the need is so great and the ability of nuclear to generate electricity when and where there is no wind and little sunshine -- or none at night -- means that adding more nuclear power plants as a priority likely does make sense.
Large increases in renewable energy AND increases in nuclear clearly gives us & our economy better protection from running out of oil than renewables only.)
Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to the economy of the United States and the people in the area you represent if oil were to suddenly run out world wide BEFORE we have alternatives in place?
It would make the so called “Great Depression” look like a small hill by comparison!
3. Today we send staggering sums of money paid by people from the areas you represent and everyone else in the country to oil producers outside the United States. So do the people in Japan, China, India, and virtually all of Europe. Worse, many of the countries that the oil comes from – and who get the money – are either politically unstable or run by governments that don’t like the United States at all.
If we learn to use far less oil soon and become more energy efficient and add huge amounts of renewables and some more nuclear soon, we can put a screeching halt to this.
Even if you believe global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels, it seems reasonable to act to protect our national security and get this done soon.
4. Finally, as California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said it well, “You are losing at the Box Office.”
You lost the Presidency in the last election in large part because many people saw that the Republican leadership was under-informed or irresponsible on these issues.
And they saw that instead of adding to the solutions to these problems or working to make the solutions safer to implement economically, Republicans were the party advocating nothing be done at all about them.
Unfortunately, that has as yet changed little. Republicans have become and remained the party of “Just say no.” That’s simply not going to work.
To be fully functional and successful as a political party instead of being a dwindling minority that grows ever smaller, Republicans must do better at implementing and moving forward on actually helping to take action to solve these problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)