California Proposition 23 even more harmful than it initially looked....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-25-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
California Proposition 23 even more harmful than it initially looked.…
About a week and a half ago on Monday, 8-16-2010, The San Jose Mercury News ran a story titled:
“Global warming measure could suspend other landmark environmental rules”
It was written by their Paul Rogers.
Here’s a quote.:
“A November ballot measure that would suspend California's landmark global-warming law could also end up rolling back some of the state's other sweeping environmental standards -- including rules that require utilities to generate a third of their electricity from renewable sources and programs requiring oil refineries to make cleaner-burning fuels.”
Yes on 23 spokesperson Anita Mangels agreed with that assessment. :
“The two main rules that would be suspended, Mangels agreed, are Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2009 executive order requiring Pacific Gas & Electric and other utilities to produce 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and the state's "low carbon fuels standard," an executive order Schwarzenegger signed in 2007 requiring oil companies to reduce the carbon content of their fuel 10 percent by 2020.”
Combined these two rules are designed to cause the installation of enough solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources to begin to make a real difference in California’s energy mix and to begin to use less oil and natural gas as well. And, if it does work out well here, the rest of the country is likely to copy California at least in part.
(This is of course exactly what the oil companies paying for the Yes on 23 campaign hope will never happen. They could care less about California jobs. All they care about is maintaining our addiction to their oil.
They even wrote proof of this into Proposition 23. Proposition 23 is billed to the gullible who want to avoid slight increases in gasoline prices and utility bills as a “postponement” of these laws and rules until the economy is better.
Under Proposition 23, AB 32 & these 2 key rules would be suspended until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent for a year from the 12.3 percent it is now in California. But if I remember correctly, the proposition also says for four consecutive quarters. Note that it does NOT say until unemployment goes to 8.9 percent or below for two quarters – something that might actually happen in the next two to five years. Given the growing global economic competition, the increase in energy prices from peak oil and global increases in population, and the endemic and slow to fix increases in health care costs, the chances of unemployment falling to below 5.5 percent in California in the next hundred years approach zero, let alone doing so for four consecutive quarters.
Of course, despite being very short-sighted otherwise, the oil companies surely know this.)
We need to move to dramatically less use of oil and less use of natural gas although not to the same degree. AB 32 and these two rules that Proposition 23 would cancel would actually get us started to doing so enough to fight global warming a bit.
Even more important in my view, is that it will begin to protect our economy from the coming effects of peak oil. Those two rules and AB32 that Proposition 23 would cancel I believe may save us from economic disaster within 15 years from the economic threats posed by peak oil.
So, to put it mildly, passing Proposition 23 to ensure this never happens, will instead ensure economic disaster and massive job losses within 15 years instead in California.
We also will lose one of California’s best sources of new jobs in the clean energy industries affected.
In Paul Rogers’ article I found this.:
“"If we don't go forward with 33 percent renewable standard for California's energy supply, we undercut all those companies and entrepreneurs creating jobs in solar, wind, biofuels and other renewable forms of energy," said Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a San Jose organization that represents more than 300 companies and that opposes Proposition 23.
"We're saying let's take a U-turn to yesterday and be totally dependent on fossil fuels, rather than California leading the way to a renewable economy," Guardino said.”
But, that’s just the beginning. Passing Proposition 23 will also either suspend “60 state regulations, including rules to reduce smog from ships, certain chemicals in air conditioners and even a 2002 state law that requires automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent on new cars by 2016.
"Every measure to reduce greenhouse gases in California is at risk," said attorney Tom Adams, chairman of the California League of Conservation Voters. "All the regulations California has adopted for a clean energy future could be invalidated." “
Next in his article is the real motivation for the oil companies funding the Yes on 23 campaign.:
“Supporters of Proposition 23, which so far has been largely funded by oil companies Tesoro and Valero, acknowledge the measure would suspend several state regulations.
Most notably is the proposed "cap and trade" plan by the California Air Resources Board, which requires oil refineries, cement kilns, power plants and other large sources of greenhouse gases to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that the majority of the world's climate scientists say are warming the planet.”
More proof of the oil companies intent is written into the proposition itself. Paul Rogers’ article has this.:
“Billions of dollars could hinge on one part of Proposition 23. It says:
"no state agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation implementing (AB 32) and any regulation adopted before the effective date of this measure shall be void and unenforceable until such time as suspension is lifted."
Environmentalists say that means potentially any one of the more than 60 rules and laws that the air board is counting on to meet the global warming target could be tossed out.
One, for example, is a rule the air board passed in 2007 requiring large ships to shut down their engines and plug into the electric grid at port. The goal was to reduce diesel soot in towns such as Long Beach and Oakland where it has been linked to high asthma rates. But the rule also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is counted by the air board toward the plan implementing AB 32.”
The balance of his article basically says that the people with the Yes on 23 campaign say it won’t be that destructive and some of those things will be spared.
But, the article also makes clear that anything that is in that list that is spared will then be taken to court to postpone or stop with arguments that 23 says it should stop.
So, anything that is not clearly included will be slowed or stopped anyway.
In the end, only the attorneys handling these lawsuits and the oil companies will benefit if Proposition 23 passes.
It will reduce new job creation and increase unemployment over what it would have been otherwise.
That’s because for sure there will be fewer new jobs in California if 23 passes.
Clean tech, even with all the harm that befell its component companies from the recent credit freeze, actually has continued to ADD jobs during the recession while nearly every other sector of California’s economy was losing them.
That will get better if 23 is defeated and AB 32 is implemented. Even more clean tech jobs in California will be created.
So a vote against 23 is a vote for MORE California jobs.
How about lower gasoline and transport costs and utility bills?
Because of the coming effects of peak oil and population growth and more economic growth in the rest of the world, Proposition 23 is penny wise and ten dollar bill foolish, literally.
In the first year after it passed if that happened, gasoline might cost the same or 5 cents a gallon less than it does now, subsidized by the oil companies to “reward” us for our stupidity in their favor.
But within a year to ten years gasoline will cost from 20 cents to $3.20 a gallon or even MORE than it would have had Proposition 23 failed to pass!
We’ll feel the full effects of peak oil and rising world oil prices since we won’t have gotten a running start on creating alternatives and they won’t be in place to protect us!
This will cause more increases in unemployment and cut back further on new jobs.
If 23 fails and AB32 and the other related rules are implemented, gasoline may go up 10 or 15 cents a gallon more than it would have given the status quo – initially.
But the run up in gasoline prices from a year to ten years from now will be about HALF of what they would have been with Proposition 23.
So, if you want a strong California economy,vote NO on Proposition 23!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
National Oil Savings Plan of the Union of Concerned Scientists....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-18-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
I subscribe to emails from 5 clean energy groups. I got an email this morning from the Union of Concerned Scientists asking me to forward a copy of their National Oil Savings Plan to President Obama.
I have two points to make in this post.
1. I think this is silly. President Obama believes in their goals; and he and the key people in his Department of Energy likely already have a copy of their plan. For example, they have already done well in supporting the development of electric cars and advanced battery design. They have acted to increase mileage standards.
What might help President Obama is a well informed enough and capable enough political consultant to show him how to sell the new jobs -- AND how overcoming the threat of peak oil slam dunking our economy is a critical job to PROTECT our existing jobs. This would be someone who would be effective enough and know how to test ideas well enough to enable him to promote actions to support clean energy AND win votes by doing so.
As long as the timid and short-sighted political consultants he has now hold him back or fail to do this, in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s words, he is “losing at the box office.”
In this economy, unless people realize and believe clean energy will add jobs and how much it will protect their jobs and lifestyles from the coming effects of peak oil AND that Obama is doing a good job on this issue, he will lose votes to others who voters think are promoting a strong economy better.
So, I decided to pass on writing him about their plan.
2. However, you and your Representative to the House in Washington and your Senators might not have seen it or understand how it important it is to put it into place.
So, I will post it here and add just after that why I think it is critical that it be adopted.
National Oil Savings Plan of the Union of Concerned Scientists
Scientific Solutions for America’s Oil Dependence
America's dependence on oil puts our environment, economy, public health, and national security at risk. But unless we create an oil savings plan that is based on sound science, smart policy, and good technology, we will repeat the mistakes of the past and stay reliant on oil.
That is why UCS is advocating for a plan that moves the country forward by boosting the fuel economy of our vehicles, producing clean biofuels, and investing in the next generation of advanced vehicles that no longer rely exclusively on oil.
If Americans were to do nothing to improve energy efficiency, or to invest in clean alternative fuels, and nothing to change the travel choices we make every day, our dependence could rise to more than 25 million barrels of oil each day by 2030.
If we instead secure the needed commitments from decision makers, automakers, fuel producers, and consumers, together, we can cut America's projected oil consumption by 2030 in half. This would save tens of billions of dollars at the gas pump; provide for a safer, more diverse, and more secure American energy future; and put the United States squarely in the driver's seat as a leader in addressing the urgent issue of climate change.
Working together as a nation we can finally start moving beyond oil. In addition to defending the hard-won victories on cleaner cars and fuel standards, UCS has developed a suite of policies that will transform our future:
Each point below lists these components:
Policy title
Description
Oil Savings (2030) in million barrels a day (mbd)
a) Improvements in Light-Duty Fuel Economy and Expanded Vehicle Electrification
Under existing authority, DOT and EPA can increase the fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions from light-duty vehicles. Tight standards and strong financial incentives can lead to an aggressive penetration of electric drive vehicles (plug-in hybrid, fuel cell and battery electric). By 2030, these vehicles would represent approximately 25% of all new vehicles sold.
5.8 mbd
b) Medium & Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy
Using existing authority from EISA and the Clean Air act, EPA and DOT can increase the fuel economy of medium duty vehicles to approximately 16mpg and heavy-duty vehicles to over 10mpg in 2030.
1.0 mbd
c) Improve Efficiency of Other Transportation Modes
Using existing authority, EPA can improve fuel economy and reduce emissions from non-road vehicles, including planes, trains, boats, and other non-highway vehicles.
0.7 mbd
d) Advanced Biofuels
Cellulosic biofuels made from grass, wood waste and even garbage can replace as much as 20 billion gallons of gasoline by 2030. But they are currently not projected to even meet the RFS mandates in 2022 due to a lack of capital. Adopting policies to launch a move from the lab into production would help reach and even exceed the RFS targets.
1.3 mbd
e) Industrial and Building Efficiency
Increase the energy efficiency in buildings and improve industrial processes, including an efficiency boost of boilers operating on fuel oil 50% by 2030
3.8 mbd
e) Smart Growth and Expanded Public Transit Options
Expanded public transit options, mode-shifting for freight, smart traffic management and other smart growth strategies.
1.3 mbd
TOTAL of these steps in OIL SAVINGS as contrasted to no action: 13.9 mbd
(These steps are listed exactly as they did. But I upgraded the format so they are clearer.)
The UCS oil savings plan is crucial to move our country forward. If we defend our current vehicle fuel economy standards and consumers and businesses meet oil consumption expectations, America’s oil use would simply remain at its current level.
We must go further, we must decrease our oil use, and that is what the UCS oil savings plan does.
The full suite of solutions will save more oil than the United States currently imports and will cut our total use of oil and other petroleum products to levels not seen since the 1960s. This would allow the transportation sector to emerge as the spearhead of a new clean energy economy.
Last Revised: 08/16/10 Clean Vehicles (plan)
My comments:
Their goals for expanding the use of electric cars and plug-in hybrids may be low. More may be achievable given the momentum building in the marketplace.
And, it would be a valuable addition to add goals for getting the new electricity for this effort from new wind and solar (both photovoltaic and thermal) electricity generation as well as from Bloom Energy’s natural gas powered fuel cells instead of by burning more coal.
Similarly goals for getting this natural gas from gasifying coal and getting some of the biofuels from the CO2 released when coal is used to generate electricity either with fuel cells or by burning in existing plants by having algae convert the CO2 to biofuels would be good. This would give the coal industry somewhere positive to go; and it would use our abundant coal deposits better to make us far less dependent on oil.
As you know if you have been reading this blog, peak oil is coming and to avoid having it slam dunk our economy which is now heavily oil dependent, taking these actions or at least doing the very best we can do to achieve them is truly imperative.
It would also make the United States a credible partner in fighting global warming with the rest of the world. It would be nice to lead by example instead of dragging our feet.
Doing these things also will clearly increase our National Security and improve our international balance of payments. The billions of dollars these actions can save in money spent to buy oil overseas times the coming increase in oil prices make this economically essential.
Simply put, if we take these actions, peak oil will challenge our economy but leave it functioning. If we do not, peak oil will slam our economy so hard the depression of the 1930’s will seem mild by comparison.
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-18-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
I subscribe to emails from 5 clean energy groups. I got an email this morning from the Union of Concerned Scientists asking me to forward a copy of their National Oil Savings Plan to President Obama.
I have two points to make in this post.
1. I think this is silly. President Obama believes in their goals; and he and the key people in his Department of Energy likely already have a copy of their plan. For example, they have already done well in supporting the development of electric cars and advanced battery design. They have acted to increase mileage standards.
What might help President Obama is a well informed enough and capable enough political consultant to show him how to sell the new jobs -- AND how overcoming the threat of peak oil slam dunking our economy is a critical job to PROTECT our existing jobs. This would be someone who would be effective enough and know how to test ideas well enough to enable him to promote actions to support clean energy AND win votes by doing so.
As long as the timid and short-sighted political consultants he has now hold him back or fail to do this, in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s words, he is “losing at the box office.”
In this economy, unless people realize and believe clean energy will add jobs and how much it will protect their jobs and lifestyles from the coming effects of peak oil AND that Obama is doing a good job on this issue, he will lose votes to others who voters think are promoting a strong economy better.
So, I decided to pass on writing him about their plan.
2. However, you and your Representative to the House in Washington and your Senators might not have seen it or understand how it important it is to put it into place.
So, I will post it here and add just after that why I think it is critical that it be adopted.
National Oil Savings Plan of the Union of Concerned Scientists
Scientific Solutions for America’s Oil Dependence
America's dependence on oil puts our environment, economy, public health, and national security at risk. But unless we create an oil savings plan that is based on sound science, smart policy, and good technology, we will repeat the mistakes of the past and stay reliant on oil.
That is why UCS is advocating for a plan that moves the country forward by boosting the fuel economy of our vehicles, producing clean biofuels, and investing in the next generation of advanced vehicles that no longer rely exclusively on oil.
If Americans were to do nothing to improve energy efficiency, or to invest in clean alternative fuels, and nothing to change the travel choices we make every day, our dependence could rise to more than 25 million barrels of oil each day by 2030.
If we instead secure the needed commitments from decision makers, automakers, fuel producers, and consumers, together, we can cut America's projected oil consumption by 2030 in half. This would save tens of billions of dollars at the gas pump; provide for a safer, more diverse, and more secure American energy future; and put the United States squarely in the driver's seat as a leader in addressing the urgent issue of climate change.
Working together as a nation we can finally start moving beyond oil. In addition to defending the hard-won victories on cleaner cars and fuel standards, UCS has developed a suite of policies that will transform our future:
Each point below lists these components:
Policy title
Description
Oil Savings (2030) in million barrels a day (mbd)
a) Improvements in Light-Duty Fuel Economy and Expanded Vehicle Electrification
Under existing authority, DOT and EPA can increase the fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions from light-duty vehicles. Tight standards and strong financial incentives can lead to an aggressive penetration of electric drive vehicles (plug-in hybrid, fuel cell and battery electric). By 2030, these vehicles would represent approximately 25% of all new vehicles sold.
5.8 mbd
b) Medium & Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy
Using existing authority from EISA and the Clean Air act, EPA and DOT can increase the fuel economy of medium duty vehicles to approximately 16mpg and heavy-duty vehicles to over 10mpg in 2030.
1.0 mbd
c) Improve Efficiency of Other Transportation Modes
Using existing authority, EPA can improve fuel economy and reduce emissions from non-road vehicles, including planes, trains, boats, and other non-highway vehicles.
0.7 mbd
d) Advanced Biofuels
Cellulosic biofuels made from grass, wood waste and even garbage can replace as much as 20 billion gallons of gasoline by 2030. But they are currently not projected to even meet the RFS mandates in 2022 due to a lack of capital. Adopting policies to launch a move from the lab into production would help reach and even exceed the RFS targets.
1.3 mbd
e) Industrial and Building Efficiency
Increase the energy efficiency in buildings and improve industrial processes, including an efficiency boost of boilers operating on fuel oil 50% by 2030
3.8 mbd
e) Smart Growth and Expanded Public Transit Options
Expanded public transit options, mode-shifting for freight, smart traffic management and other smart growth strategies.
1.3 mbd
TOTAL of these steps in OIL SAVINGS as contrasted to no action: 13.9 mbd
(These steps are listed exactly as they did. But I upgraded the format so they are clearer.)
The UCS oil savings plan is crucial to move our country forward. If we defend our current vehicle fuel economy standards and consumers and businesses meet oil consumption expectations, America’s oil use would simply remain at its current level.
We must go further, we must decrease our oil use, and that is what the UCS oil savings plan does.
The full suite of solutions will save more oil than the United States currently imports and will cut our total use of oil and other petroleum products to levels not seen since the 1960s. This would allow the transportation sector to emerge as the spearhead of a new clean energy economy.
Last Revised: 08/16/10 Clean Vehicles (plan)
My comments:
Their goals for expanding the use of electric cars and plug-in hybrids may be low. More may be achievable given the momentum building in the marketplace.
And, it would be a valuable addition to add goals for getting the new electricity for this effort from new wind and solar (both photovoltaic and thermal) electricity generation as well as from Bloom Energy’s natural gas powered fuel cells instead of by burning more coal.
Similarly goals for getting this natural gas from gasifying coal and getting some of the biofuels from the CO2 released when coal is used to generate electricity either with fuel cells or by burning in existing plants by having algae convert the CO2 to biofuels would be good. This would give the coal industry somewhere positive to go; and it would use our abundant coal deposits better to make us far less dependent on oil.
As you know if you have been reading this blog, peak oil is coming and to avoid having it slam dunk our economy which is now heavily oil dependent, taking these actions or at least doing the very best we can do to achieve them is truly imperative.
It would also make the United States a credible partner in fighting global warming with the rest of the world. It would be nice to lead by example instead of dragging our feet.
Doing these things also will clearly increase our National Security and improve our international balance of payments. The billions of dollars these actions can save in money spent to buy oil overseas times the coming increase in oil prices make this economically essential.
Simply put, if we take these actions, peak oil will challenge our economy but leave it functioning. If we do not, peak oil will slam our economy so hard the depression of the 1930’s will seem mild by comparison.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Why the November, 2010 election in California is so important....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-11-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
Since California passed AB32 & Governor Swarzenegger signed it showing that California was serious about cutting back on CO2 emissions and rapidly and massively increasing renewable and sustainable energy, literally millions of dollars of venture capital have gone into companies that will help do the job. Most of those have been in California and have added new jobs here that would otherwise not have existed.
Even more important, if AB32 says in place and is implemented two very desirable things will happen. These positive trends will continue and thousands of new jobs will be added. Secondly, when California pioneers a new trend that works, often the federal government and/or many other states will emulate California’s success.
That’s extremely important -- and I think may be critical for preventing economic collapse in the United States. Peak oil is predicted for 2014 & at today’s prices, production has already flat-lined. This trend towards very expensive and less available oil will keep growing rapidly now. Economic growth is expanding in the near term and even if it stalls, population growth will not stall and will keep increasing demand.
In addition, it turns out that more expensive oil comes from places like deep water oil drilling such as the well in the Gulf of Mexico that caused such severe problems. And, it comes or may come from oil from shale. It turns out that extracting oil from shale is one of the worst polluting ideas mankind has ever conceived. It manages to add strip mining to risks of pollution spills comparable to the recent oil spills in the Gulf and in Michigan. People who live in the areas affected are beginning to fight this, understandably. Their efforts are likely to decrease the amount of oil from these sources and make them cost more. This will NOT be a positive for the economy if we haven’t cut back on oil use and begun to bring clean energy alternatives online and on a large scale.
AB32 is not perfect. But given how important its goals are and that it has begun to make a real dent in this problem and will start to bring solutions online when little else of comparable size has yet been done, I think it is critical to put it into place and give it a fair trial. The good news is that the initial results have been quite good. In part because of the promise of AB32, solar and other clean technology companies have been the one sector in California that has consistently added jobs during the recession.
When you add in the facts that had the credit markets not collapsed to slow that job growth, it would have been two or three times as high and the credit markets are now in better shape, it seems clear to me that the LAST thing someone who cares about adding jobs in California would want to do is to stop AB32!
So, how does the upcoming November election in California relate to that?
Some people DO want to stop AB32 including some who SAY they want more jobs here in California.
If they succeed, none of this positive progress will happen or it will become an anemic, tiny part of what it would and should have been.
The buggy whip manufacturers went out of business when the market changed from buggies to cars by thinking of themselves ONLY in those narrow terms instead of as makers of useful components for vehicles. In almost the same way exactly, today’s oil companies think of themselves as oil and gas companies and have not really done the diversification they would and should have done into renewable energy had they actually realized they were in the energy business. The management at Exxon even heard this from most of their shareholders from the Rockefeller family and declined to do much. (They have added to their position in Natural Gas which I think will help them in the short run as that natural gas is used to make some of the electricity for electric cars. But I think of their stock as a long term sell unless their management improves.)
The problem is that in California, that management style has caused two Texas oil companies to fund Proposition 23, which is worded as if it is a postponement of AB32 but also includes a restart clause that is quite likely never going to happen. In essence, this means that they are funding a disinformation campaign to turn off AB32 entirely.
Please do job creation in California a favor and vote NO on Proposition 23!
Next, we have two races one for our next Governor and one for one of our two US Senators.
For Governor, we have Jerry Brown who, as our attorney general for California, thinks that increasing the solar part of renewable energy is important enough he just sued the Federal Agency that shut down an innovative funding plan to add the cost of building solar on your home to your property taxes.
Meg Whitman who is running against him said that even if Proposition 23 was defeated by the voters, one of the first things she will do if elected will be to suspend AB32. She can rationalize all she wants about this not slowing job growth in California. To me, it means she is so poorly informed she is not qualified to be our Governor.
I think that choice is quite clear, because even if you aren’t super sold on Jerry Brown in other ways, we will have more jobs in California and a more stable and secure economy if Jerry Brown is elected.
For US Senator, the choice is even clearer.
Barbara Boxer, the incumbent, has seniority and has been one of the strongest and most effective supporters in the country for clean and renewable energy.
Meanwhile her opponent, Carly Simon, is getting funded by oil and coal executives who not only are trying to avoid the needed changes in energy policy due to peak oil, they don’t believe that the data collected by scientists showing global warming is real.*
Here again, if you want more jobs in California and the United States and you want our future economy to be safe and secure, Barbara Boxer is dramatically more likely to deliver that.
*In my view, they are showing themselves to be close-minded, very poorly informed, and incompetent managers in so doing. I’d very strongly prefer we have a US Senator who they are not influencing with their money.
The data DO show global warming has been happening; and some of effects we are seeing are scary such as the current heat wave and fires in Moscow and the ones that happened not that long ago in Greece and near Oklahoma City in the United States. The percentage of CO2 in the earth’s air has been documented as going up and up and up.
I respect someone who says that there may be other reasons for these effects or that the CO2 burning fossil fuels has put into the air may not be the main cause. One book writer even has argued that global warming driven by fossil fuel burning may not wind up being that harmful. You often don’t find out the whole truth in science unless contrarians make you look for data that might fit these kinds of ideas. Even though none of the current data seem to support those views, some might exist. And, if we don’t look for that data, we may miss something real.
But these folks are certifiably incompetent managers. They may be not quite sane due to their lack of connection to reality.
Jack London once said that the contest is not always won by the strong nor will the victory in a race go to the swift, but that’s the best way to bet. The data show so far that it’s about 100 to one that global warming is real, has extremely dangerous effects, and is so far mostly triggered by burning fossil fuels.
If these executives said that they were holding onto some of the old ways in case the one chance in a hundred comes up, that’s fine. If they say that in their local community, the jobs doing it the old way are important and those workers and their local economy need some kind of protection, that’s reasonable and even responsible management.
But the ones that simply aren’t able to look at the data, understand they are likely real and make the best bets they can to move to a future they can be a part of if they are real are, in my view not competent managers and their connection to reality is suspect.
Since peak oil and global warming do look real and that dangerous and threatening to our economy and total amount of jobs, I strongly urge all voters in California to vote NO on Proposition 32 and to vote for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-11-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
Since California passed AB32 & Governor Swarzenegger signed it showing that California was serious about cutting back on CO2 emissions and rapidly and massively increasing renewable and sustainable energy, literally millions of dollars of venture capital have gone into companies that will help do the job. Most of those have been in California and have added new jobs here that would otherwise not have existed.
Even more important, if AB32 says in place and is implemented two very desirable things will happen. These positive trends will continue and thousands of new jobs will be added. Secondly, when California pioneers a new trend that works, often the federal government and/or many other states will emulate California’s success.
That’s extremely important -- and I think may be critical for preventing economic collapse in the United States. Peak oil is predicted for 2014 & at today’s prices, production has already flat-lined. This trend towards very expensive and less available oil will keep growing rapidly now. Economic growth is expanding in the near term and even if it stalls, population growth will not stall and will keep increasing demand.
In addition, it turns out that more expensive oil comes from places like deep water oil drilling such as the well in the Gulf of Mexico that caused such severe problems. And, it comes or may come from oil from shale. It turns out that extracting oil from shale is one of the worst polluting ideas mankind has ever conceived. It manages to add strip mining to risks of pollution spills comparable to the recent oil spills in the Gulf and in Michigan. People who live in the areas affected are beginning to fight this, understandably. Their efforts are likely to decrease the amount of oil from these sources and make them cost more. This will NOT be a positive for the economy if we haven’t cut back on oil use and begun to bring clean energy alternatives online and on a large scale.
AB32 is not perfect. But given how important its goals are and that it has begun to make a real dent in this problem and will start to bring solutions online when little else of comparable size has yet been done, I think it is critical to put it into place and give it a fair trial. The good news is that the initial results have been quite good. In part because of the promise of AB32, solar and other clean technology companies have been the one sector in California that has consistently added jobs during the recession.
When you add in the facts that had the credit markets not collapsed to slow that job growth, it would have been two or three times as high and the credit markets are now in better shape, it seems clear to me that the LAST thing someone who cares about adding jobs in California would want to do is to stop AB32!
So, how does the upcoming November election in California relate to that?
Some people DO want to stop AB32 including some who SAY they want more jobs here in California.
If they succeed, none of this positive progress will happen or it will become an anemic, tiny part of what it would and should have been.
The buggy whip manufacturers went out of business when the market changed from buggies to cars by thinking of themselves ONLY in those narrow terms instead of as makers of useful components for vehicles. In almost the same way exactly, today’s oil companies think of themselves as oil and gas companies and have not really done the diversification they would and should have done into renewable energy had they actually realized they were in the energy business. The management at Exxon even heard this from most of their shareholders from the Rockefeller family and declined to do much. (They have added to their position in Natural Gas which I think will help them in the short run as that natural gas is used to make some of the electricity for electric cars. But I think of their stock as a long term sell unless their management improves.)
The problem is that in California, that management style has caused two Texas oil companies to fund Proposition 23, which is worded as if it is a postponement of AB32 but also includes a restart clause that is quite likely never going to happen. In essence, this means that they are funding a disinformation campaign to turn off AB32 entirely.
Please do job creation in California a favor and vote NO on Proposition 23!
Next, we have two races one for our next Governor and one for one of our two US Senators.
For Governor, we have Jerry Brown who, as our attorney general for California, thinks that increasing the solar part of renewable energy is important enough he just sued the Federal Agency that shut down an innovative funding plan to add the cost of building solar on your home to your property taxes.
Meg Whitman who is running against him said that even if Proposition 23 was defeated by the voters, one of the first things she will do if elected will be to suspend AB32. She can rationalize all she wants about this not slowing job growth in California. To me, it means she is so poorly informed she is not qualified to be our Governor.
I think that choice is quite clear, because even if you aren’t super sold on Jerry Brown in other ways, we will have more jobs in California and a more stable and secure economy if Jerry Brown is elected.
For US Senator, the choice is even clearer.
Barbara Boxer, the incumbent, has seniority and has been one of the strongest and most effective supporters in the country for clean and renewable energy.
Meanwhile her opponent, Carly Simon, is getting funded by oil and coal executives who not only are trying to avoid the needed changes in energy policy due to peak oil, they don’t believe that the data collected by scientists showing global warming is real.*
Here again, if you want more jobs in California and the United States and you want our future economy to be safe and secure, Barbara Boxer is dramatically more likely to deliver that.
*In my view, they are showing themselves to be close-minded, very poorly informed, and incompetent managers in so doing. I’d very strongly prefer we have a US Senator who they are not influencing with their money.
The data DO show global warming has been happening; and some of effects we are seeing are scary such as the current heat wave and fires in Moscow and the ones that happened not that long ago in Greece and near Oklahoma City in the United States. The percentage of CO2 in the earth’s air has been documented as going up and up and up.
I respect someone who says that there may be other reasons for these effects or that the CO2 burning fossil fuels has put into the air may not be the main cause. One book writer even has argued that global warming driven by fossil fuel burning may not wind up being that harmful. You often don’t find out the whole truth in science unless contrarians make you look for data that might fit these kinds of ideas. Even though none of the current data seem to support those views, some might exist. And, if we don’t look for that data, we may miss something real.
But these folks are certifiably incompetent managers. They may be not quite sane due to their lack of connection to reality.
Jack London once said that the contest is not always won by the strong nor will the victory in a race go to the swift, but that’s the best way to bet. The data show so far that it’s about 100 to one that global warming is real, has extremely dangerous effects, and is so far mostly triggered by burning fossil fuels.
If these executives said that they were holding onto some of the old ways in case the one chance in a hundred comes up, that’s fine. If they say that in their local community, the jobs doing it the old way are important and those workers and their local economy need some kind of protection, that’s reasonable and even responsible management.
But the ones that simply aren’t able to look at the data, understand they are likely real and make the best bets they can to move to a future they can be a part of if they are real are, in my view not competent managers and their connection to reality is suspect.
Since peak oil and global warming do look real and that dangerous and threatening to our economy and total amount of jobs, I strongly urge all voters in California to vote NO on Proposition 32 and to vote for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Electric cars may be a key catalyst for renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-4-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
There will be a place for biofuels in an economy that is sustainable. Aviation fuels and for travel outside of areas with access to electricity and for the transition while very large numbers of vehicles still in use run on liquid fuels will all continue to need liquid fuels. So to stop using fuels from oil, we will need biofuels. And, biofuels from agricultural waste, from algae grown on lands not suitable for farming, and from algae fed CO2 from burning coal or oil or natural gas or from fuel cells using natural gas (see Bloom Energy), all will gradually become more available and more economically viable.
But, as the founder of Nanosolar showed in his blog, for harvesting energy from the sun, even our current technology for photovoltaic solar cells delivers many multiples of the energy that can be harvested from the same area through biofuels. Similarly, solar thermal, wind, and even nuclear as a CO2 and coal and oil free source of energy all output electricity.
So to the extent we wish to run our economy or the clear and large majority of our economy free from oil and coal, it will pay us to use these cleaner sources instead. And, they output electricity.
So, because of the large numbers of electric and plug-in hybrid cars now poised for sale in the next few months to few years, this enables a trend towards a more sustainable energy economy based on these renewable sources.
However, while oil and coal are not yet charged for the real costs of the pollution generated in extracting and burning them or for releasing CO2, it will take continuous drops in cost for electricity from renewable sources.
The good news is that I think over time they will be charged for these things. Further, due to the growth of population and economic growth the demand for oil will be greater than the supply again. That will drive costs up for drivers enough to make biofuels cost less and cause many people to switch to electric cars.
Then we will reach peak oil and the prices for oil will double and double again while the actual supply of oil will go down.
So, to change the majority of our transport to sustainable energy sources and to protect our economy, the majority of our transport should soon be powered by electricity. That means that the current surge of new models of cars that will be powered all or mostly by electricity, is not just good news but is in fact a critically important development.
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-4-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
There will be a place for biofuels in an economy that is sustainable. Aviation fuels and for travel outside of areas with access to electricity and for the transition while very large numbers of vehicles still in use run on liquid fuels will all continue to need liquid fuels. So to stop using fuels from oil, we will need biofuels. And, biofuels from agricultural waste, from algae grown on lands not suitable for farming, and from algae fed CO2 from burning coal or oil or natural gas or from fuel cells using natural gas (see Bloom Energy), all will gradually become more available and more economically viable.
But, as the founder of Nanosolar showed in his blog, for harvesting energy from the sun, even our current technology for photovoltaic solar cells delivers many multiples of the energy that can be harvested from the same area through biofuels. Similarly, solar thermal, wind, and even nuclear as a CO2 and coal and oil free source of energy all output electricity.
So to the extent we wish to run our economy or the clear and large majority of our economy free from oil and coal, it will pay us to use these cleaner sources instead. And, they output electricity.
So, because of the large numbers of electric and plug-in hybrid cars now poised for sale in the next few months to few years, this enables a trend towards a more sustainable energy economy based on these renewable sources.
However, while oil and coal are not yet charged for the real costs of the pollution generated in extracting and burning them or for releasing CO2, it will take continuous drops in cost for electricity from renewable sources.
The good news is that I think over time they will be charged for these things. Further, due to the growth of population and economic growth the demand for oil will be greater than the supply again. That will drive costs up for drivers enough to make biofuels cost less and cause many people to switch to electric cars.
Then we will reach peak oil and the prices for oil will double and double again while the actual supply of oil will go down.
So, to change the majority of our transport to sustainable energy sources and to protect our economy, the majority of our transport should soon be powered by electricity. That means that the current surge of new models of cars that will be powered all or mostly by electricity, is not just good news but is in fact a critically important development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)