I live in Colorado and I believe as a parent of 3 (9,11,15) if something isn't done about our, and the worlds current consumption of fossil fuels the chance of my grand children being able to see and enjoy the things I have in the wilderness are slim at best and that breaks my hart. To know that our current administration can and should do something about our current consumption of fossil fuels, but does nothing or even does things to worsen the problem thats insane.
( definition of insane: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome )
Maybe the next Administration will do something before it's to late, but who knows.
I'm starting yesterday!!!
Submitted by Erik Leipoldt on September 30, 2006 - 9:12pm.
Climate change is not a narrow national issue. Without tackling greenhouse emissions, the other three reasons do not fly. Renewable energy by itself however does not deliver a truly sustainable world. The First World has had it materially so good for so long because of its colonial history and technological advances - costly to many other peoples and the environment. We have operated on wrong assumptions of the nature of the world and of people, and it got us into the current mess. We are not individually independent material creatures who may fulfil their every want and need from unlimited sources - renewable or not. We are vulnerable, dependent and fragile in a limited world where much is uncontrollable. A blade of grass survives the fiercest storm where an unbending tree is uprooted. How do we become more like the blade of grass? By developing core public policy encouraging private practice of acknopwledged interdependence and relationship. How? By focusing on those people and environments who are among the most vulnerable and dependent we are drawn close to the reality of the human condition and may develop the empathy and creativity needed to best live with climate change in a truly sustauinable world where all are included. Using such inner resources are our most powerful alternative energy sources for a flourishing future
Submitted by zevkirsh on September 24, 2006 - 3:22pm.
I'm writing a paper on cafe ( corporate average fuel economy) legislation in america.
From the american point of view, the question of which argument is most compelling
seems to be very important.
Why?, becuase political polarization and interest group lobbying/politics dictates
what actions the government ultimatley takes to invest in renewable energy sources.
In the current environment, the only way to get things done is to focus on building more
consensus. This is best accomplished by relying on arguments that appeal to the hostile/opposing
group mentality. Conservatives, auto and oil industry execs, and the vast majority of american head of households who lead busy lives don't care enough about the environment or fuel efficiency to consider these issues decisive in their voting decisions. they consider national security, and the price of fuel decisive. i wager that americans are really no different than other citizens of the world in this respect. The reason they feel this way is because the fear of high cost of living and the fear of war are more immediate and urgent fears to most people than the fear of catastrophic destruction of the environment. wheather these folks are correct about this or not is besides the point. these people vote and they are good people, and they're not stupid becuase they disagree with the enviornmental fatalists' presumptions about what's more important to fear.
the ends of both camps are the same, and the language we use to persuade one another to pursue these ends, is not important unto itself. This language is only important as far as it expedites cooperation.
More people care about national security and the economy. to suit our ends, it's best to rely on the national and economic security arguments that most people care about.
why try to shove the argument about 'saving the environment' down someone's throat when they may well alread agree with you on other reasons for doing the same thing? avoid the argument and skip right to talking about how to best fashion a solution together.
Submitted by shodo on September 23, 2006 - 9:39am.
All reasons are important, but the survival of the planet must come first. So I voted for "reduce greenhouse gases," which you put in there without mentioning global warming. You also did not mention peak oil, which I found strange; I don't know whether we have 5 or 15 years before it takes more energy to retrieve the last oil (and natural gas, and coal) than we get out of it.
When and if that time comes, agribusiness will collapse because it's dependent on petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. Transportation will slow and then stop. There will be battles for food in our major cities. There are already wars over energy (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan are about controlling access to oil), and skirmishes over clean water.
It doesn't have to happen that way, of course. We need not only to switch rapidly to alternative energy (using the currently-abundant fossil fuels to build the infrastructure), we need drastic lifestyle changes. It's possible to build a house (or adapt it) to be comfortable with much less energy use than our current standards. It is possible to grow nearly all the vegetables needed for a city, in the city itself. It's possible to set up a vegetable garden to be very low-maintenance, and to create a "food forest." It's possible to heal damaged land, even on a large scale. It's possible to sculpt land so it doesn't need irrigation. For information, look up Permaculture on the Internet, or look up ZERI Institute.
And don't forget to vote in November. A national policy oriented toward protecting its citizens and nourishing the earth would make all the difference. (Current policy is about making us afraid and protecting the oil companies. Too large a topic to cover here.)
All the measures listed would be ineffective in reducing the USA's energy security without major social changes reducing your environmental footprint including conservation of energy. There are powerful but simple actions you could take that could transform your use of energy right now, conserving much more than you will produce in renewables now or in the medium term. But without this transformation your energy consumption will outstrip any greenhouse or security advantage offered by technology.
John Merory
Submitted by keniwashington on September 22, 2006 - 10:48am.
There is nothing more urgent than addressing the crisis of global warming. It is embarrassing and, actually, criminally negligent that the officials of our society have chosen to ignore, obsfucate and distort the profound importance of this issue. It is now clear that both the health of our planet and the ability of non-aquatic species to continue as its inhabitants depend on reducing within the next ten years the burning of fossil fuel to something less than 15% of current levels. --
Keni Washington, Managing Director
Earth Solar Technologies Corporation
Indianapolis
It's hard to ignore the connection between our craving for fossil fuels and our political ambitions. Those ambitions seem to be driving us towards a fate shared by other would-be imperial powers. It doesn't have to be that way and if we're going to thrive in a globally connected world, it can't be that way. Many of us have been working a long time for the sea-change that will carry us with favorable winds on a different trajectory than the one we're on. Enough of us and we'll get there.
Norm Cimon
Submitted by Tim Volk on September 20, 2006 - 4:17am.
An all of the above choice is needed. Renewables can address all of these items and that is part of their beauty. All of these reasons together make a more compelling argument than any single reason alone.
Submitted by Terri on September 19, 2006 - 8:57pm.
It is not only the states which need to diversify.Here in Canada we are also in the oil gluttony.There is a real need to put resources into alternative energies,not oil/gas companies r&d. This will ensure a healthier workplace and country, thereby ensuring an environment that is cleaner workforce that is healthier a climate of economic stability.Diversification is good when used in the proper way.
Submitted by schultedm on September 19, 2006 - 6:49pm.
The threats of climate change are much more dangerous to humanity than the threat of terrorism or economic failure. The US, as the principal emitter of ghgs, should become a leader in developing policies and technologies that address climate change in the most efficient and sustainable manner. This should be our number one concern in energy policy. Climate change has become not only a scientific issue, but also an economic, political, and ethical issue. Ethically speaking, it is our duty as the leading producer of ghgs to set an example for the rest of the world to follow (especially China and India). Renewable energy and clean technologies are a key component in the only future that works for humanity.
Submitted by MohanPeck on September 19, 2006 - 3:49pm.
Every year the US transfers untold billions of dollars of its national wealth to oil-producing countries, many of whose governments are either antagonistic to us or corrupt. We should be urgently making every possible effort -- whether energy investment or policy initiative -- to ensure that our country becomes energy independent and keeps its wealth circulating within our own communities. Renewable energy is an important element to that effort, but the cheapest and most cost-effective option is to improve the energy efficiency of every sector of our economy.
Submitted by acbradle on September 19, 2006 - 12:20pm.
All four are good reasons for investing in renewable resources. But expenditure of energies from any source will always have a downside. A higher priority must be to REDUCE our energy expenditures.
Submitted by Ernesto Mundo on September 19, 2006 - 11:39am.
It would make the world more secure by reducing oil income available to global terrorists. Without money, the mother's milk of terrorism, terrorism would wither on the vine and be reduced to local conflicts between religious and political factions. Megalomaniacs are only as effective as the amount of money available to fund their malevolent activities.
Moreover, the United States is the most responsible steward of such technology. For you anti-American critics out there, I don't remember any other country generously makes its money and technology freely available whenever there's a natural disaster. Sorry if I've offended those of you fashionably anti-American critics out there, but I've yet to see any other country give its treasure and technology as unselfishly to the world as America. Before you reply with the stock "America has caused most of the world's misery" reply. Remember that America ended the oppression caused by the evil "isms" when the benign purveyors of appeasement stood weakly by clutching their wallets.
Submitted by Salvador Rios on September 19, 2006 - 10:49am.
Reducing green house gases is the direct goal, but the final objective is to secure political stability and ecnomic development.
If global warming finally arrives, it will stress eco/systems, bring bigger natural desasters and affect production, seriously endangering human development in the next decades, both in the US and worldwide.
All choices apply but this one really encapsulates the other three.
Given that $180 billion over the last decade increased renewable energy production six-fold, a dollar spent here is much better than a dollar spent in Iraq. Think where we'd be if all of that money was invested in renewable energy production. But would be as secure? Probably.
Ron
Submitted by isecke on October 14, 2006 - 11:13pm.
your comment is right on the money.
In addition, much money now spent on repair of storm damage and other results of climate change would be saved. There is a way to use wave powered pumps to reduce the energy of hurricanes that would be similarly economical.
Bill Isecke
Submitted by ByllyeM on September 19, 2006 - 9:53am.
Every reason is of major importance. It was difficult to choose which to designate as most important - but the world runs on money. The emerging technology market will lead to investment in development and to the other three benefits to this (and all) countries.
Countries and firms across the world are giving strategic attention to renewable energy technologies. While some of them are increasingly becoming viable and competing with conventional energy sources but most others are yet to attain that status. As long as the gap exists between conventional and renewable energy technologies there is scope for technological interventions and for evolution of leapfrogging technologies. Given its vast scientific and technological potentials and global leadership US is in a position to retain its global leadership by showing the way to rest of the world in renewable energy front.
Thilotham R Kolanu
Submitted by gremind on September 18, 2006 - 11:56pm.
It would yield significant and diverse results from reducing greenhouse gases emissions,and hence greatest problem faced by humanity such as global warming to climate change,war,struggle for energy security and exploitation of developing resource rich countries in African region and asia..bY energy grumbling so called developed countries!,Moreover this will help in decentralising power/energy production,procurement and usuage of energy.Looking at fresh war in the gulf and therfore repurcussion in the society,environment is frustrating.
As States dominates the balance of power in the modern world,this will also help other countries to put their energy in developing such technologies,pouring enermous amount of Foreign capital in other countries...such as Khosla the venture capitalist taking a god initiative.
When USA diversify energy uses,by cutting import of energy from across the world,this will strain the burden on other countries to look and use their local resource sustainably.
Enormous jobs will be created giving a space to the clean industry.
New paradigm of foreign relation will be evolved,which can be encouraged for environmental peacekeeping for peaceful conflict resolution.Countries like India,BRAZIL,SOUTH AFRICA who are marching ahead with such green initiatives will be the major ally of USA and dominate the international markets.
Trilochan Pandey,
New Delhi.
Submitted by U Loening on October 9, 2006 - 3:17pm.
I wish it would! To do so the total extraction of fossil fuels must reduce first. But the international community has no way of achieving that. There are two options: one is for some international agreement to limit extraction; in that case the price of oil and the others, would increase sharply as in 1973/9. That would lead directly to an economic collapse as it nearly did before. the other way is for all of us, ALL, to use less; that would lead to lower demand, and a fall in prices which would have two immpacts: one to hurt the poorer fuel exporting countries, the other to encourage us all to use more again. It seems that there is no way to achieve what is actually needed.
The only approach I know that might achieve some good, is the "Contraction and Convergence" proposed by Aubrey Meyer ( Global Commons Institute, London) which leads to a slow overall reduction (the contraction) without anyone losing out (the convergence between rich and poor)
Can someone please suggests other means forward?
If not, our civilisation has got itself into a self-made trap, with no means to dig ourselves out.
»
Comments
Global Warming
I live in Colorado and I believe as a parent of 3 (9,11,15) if something isn't done about our, and the worlds current consumption of fossil fuels the chance of my grand children being able to see and enjoy the things I have in the wilderness are slim at best and that breaks my hart. To know that our current administration can and should do something about our current consumption of fossil fuels, but does nothing or even does things to worsen the problem thats insane.
( definition of insane: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome )
Maybe the next Administration will do something before it's to late, but who knows.
I'm starting yesterday!!!
Change in thinking
Climate change is not a narrow national issue. Without tackling greenhouse emissions, the other three reasons do not fly. Renewable energy by itself however does not deliver a truly sustainable world. The First World has had it materially so good for so long because of its colonial history and technological advances - costly to many other peoples and the environment. We have operated on wrong assumptions of the nature of the world and of people, and it got us into the current mess. We are not individually independent material creatures who may fulfil their every want and need from unlimited sources - renewable or not. We are vulnerable, dependent and fragile in a limited world where much is uncontrollable. A blade of grass survives the fiercest storm where an unbending tree is uprooted. How do we become more like the blade of grass? By developing core public policy encouraging private practice of acknopwledged interdependence and relationship. How? By focusing on those people and environments who are among the most vulnerable and dependent we are drawn close to the reality of the human condition and may develop the empathy and creativity needed to best live with climate change in a truly sustauinable world where all are included. Using such inner resources are our most powerful alternative energy sources for a flourishing future
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SURVEY!!!
I'm writing a paper on cafe ( corporate average fuel economy) legislation in america.
From the american point of view, the question of which argument is most compelling
seems to be very important.
Why?, becuase political polarization and interest group lobbying/politics dictates
what actions the government ultimatley takes to invest in renewable energy sources.
In the current environment, the only way to get things done is to focus on building more
consensus. This is best accomplished by relying on arguments that appeal to the hostile/opposing
group mentality. Conservatives, auto and oil industry execs, and the vast majority of american head of households who lead busy lives don't care enough about the environment or fuel efficiency to consider these issues decisive in their voting decisions. they consider national security, and the price of fuel decisive. i wager that americans are really no different than other citizens of the world in this respect. The reason they feel this way is because the fear of high cost of living and the fear of war are more immediate and urgent fears to most people than the fear of catastrophic destruction of the environment. wheather these folks are correct about this or not is besides the point. these people vote and they are good people, and they're not stupid becuase they disagree with the enviornmental fatalists' presumptions about what's more important to fear.
the ends of both camps are the same, and the language we use to persuade one another to pursue these ends, is not important unto itself. This language is only important as far as it expedites cooperation.
More people care about national security and the economy. to suit our ends, it's best to rely on the national and economic security arguments that most people care about.
why try to shove the argument about 'saving the environment' down someone's throat when they may well alread agree with you on other reasons for doing the same thing? avoid the argument and skip right to talking about how to best fashion a solution together.
All reasons are important,
All reasons are important, but the survival of the planet must come first. So I voted for "reduce greenhouse gases," which you put in there without mentioning global warming. You also did not mention peak oil, which I found strange; I don't know whether we have 5 or 15 years before it takes more energy to retrieve the last oil (and natural gas, and coal) than we get out of it.
When and if that time comes, agribusiness will collapse because it's dependent on petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. Transportation will slow and then stop. There will be battles for food in our major cities. There are already wars over energy (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan are about controlling access to oil), and skirmishes over clean water.
It doesn't have to happen that way, of course. We need not only to switch rapidly to alternative energy (using the currently-abundant fossil fuels to build the infrastructure), we need drastic lifestyle changes. It's possible to build a house (or adapt it) to be comfortable with much less energy use than our current standards. It is possible to grow nearly all the vegetables needed for a city, in the city itself. It's possible to set up a vegetable garden to be very low-maintenance, and to create a "food forest." It's possible to heal damaged land, even on a large scale. It's possible to sculpt land so it doesn't need irrigation. For information, look up Permaculture on the Internet, or look up ZERI Institute.
And don't forget to vote in November. A national policy oriented toward protecting its citizens and nourishing the earth would make all the difference. (Current policy is about making us afraid and protecting the oil companies. Too large a topic to cover here.)
American Energy - The Renewable Path to Energy Security
All the measures listed would be ineffective in reducing the USA's energy security without major social changes reducing your environmental footprint including conservation of energy. There are powerful but simple actions you could take that could transform your use of energy right now, conserving much more than you will produce in renewables now or in the medium term. But without this transformation your energy consumption will outstrip any greenhouse or security advantage offered by technology.
John Merory
Greenhouse Gasses
There is nothing more urgent than addressing the crisis of global warming. It is embarrassing and, actually, criminally negligent that the officials of our society have chosen to ignore, obsfucate and distort the profound importance of this issue. It is now clear that both the health of our planet and the ability of non-aquatic species to continue as its inhabitants depend on reducing within the next ten years the burning of fossil fuel to something less than 15% of current levels. --
Keni Washington, Managing Director
Earth Solar Technologies Corporation
Indianapolis
The hardest of drugs
It's hard to ignore the connection between our craving for fossil fuels and our political ambitions. Those ambitions seem to be driving us towards a fate shared by other would-be imperial powers. It doesn't have to be that way and if we're going to thrive in a globally connected world, it can't be that way. Many of us have been working a long time for the sea-change that will carry us with favorable winds on a different trajectory than the one we're on. Enough of us and we'll get there.
Norm Cimon
An all of the above choice
An all of the above choice is needed. Renewables can address all of these items and that is part of their beauty. All of these reasons together make a more compelling argument than any single reason alone.
energy diversification
It is not only the states which need to diversify.Here in Canada we are also in the oil gluttony.There is a real need to put resources into alternative energies,not oil/gas companies r&d. This will ensure a healthier workplace and country, thereby ensuring an environment that is cleaner workforce that is healthier a climate of economic stability.Diversification is good when used in the proper way.
It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly
The threats of climate change are much more dangerous to humanity than the threat of terrorism or economic failure. The US, as the principal emitter of ghgs, should become a leader in developing policies and technologies that address climate change in the most efficient and sustainable manner. This should be our number one concern in energy policy. Climate change has become not only a scientific issue, but also an economic, political, and ethical issue. Ethically speaking, it is our duty as the leading producer of ghgs to set an example for the rest of the world to follow (especially China and India). Renewable energy and clean technologies are a key component in the only future that works for humanity.
It would improve/increase U.S. economic and political security.
Every year the US transfers untold billions of dollars of its national wealth to oil-producing countries, many of whose governments are either antagonistic to us or corrupt. We should be urgently making every possible effort -- whether energy investment or policy initiative -- to ensure that our country becomes energy independent and keeps its wealth circulating within our own communities. Renewable energy is an important element to that effort, but the cheapest and most cost-effective option is to improve the energy efficiency of every sector of our economy.
Reduce Energy Usage
All four are good reasons for investing in renewable resources. But expenditure of energies from any source will always have a downside. A higher priority must be to REDUCE our energy expenditures.
Economic & Political Security/Emerging Technology
It would make the world more secure by reducing oil income available to global terrorists. Without money, the mother's milk of terrorism, terrorism would wither on the vine and be reduced to local conflicts between religious and political factions. Megalomaniacs are only as effective as the amount of money available to fund their malevolent activities.
Moreover, the United States is the most responsible steward of such technology. For you anti-American critics out there, I don't remember any other country generously makes its money and technology freely available whenever there's a natural disaster. Sorry if I've offended those of you fashionably anti-American critics out there, but I've yet to see any other country give its treasure and technology as unselfishly to the world as America. Before you reply with the stock "America has caused most of the world's misery" reply. Remember that America ended the oppression caused by the evil "isms" when the benign purveyors of appeasement stood weakly by clutching their wallets.
Reducing green house gases
Reducing green house gases is the direct goal, but the final objective is to secure political stability and ecnomic development.
If global warming finally arrives, it will stress eco/systems, bring bigger natural desasters and affect production, seriously endangering human development in the next decades, both in the US and worldwide.
It would improve/increase U.S. economic and political security.
All choices apply but this one really encapsulates the other three.
Given that $180 billion over the last decade increased renewable energy production six-fold, a dollar spent here is much better than a dollar spent in Iraq. Think where we'd be if all of that money was invested in renewable energy production. But would be as secure? Probably.
Ron
energy
your comment is right on the money.
In addition, much money now spent on repair of storm damage and other results of climate change would be saved. There is a way to use wave powered pumps to reduce the energy of hurricanes that would be similarly economical.
Bill Isecke
It would position the U.S. as a global leader in an emerging tec
Every reason is of major importance. It was difficult to choose which to designate as most important - but the world runs on money. The emerging technology market will lead to investment in development and to the other three benefits to this (and all) countries.
Countries and firms across
Countries and firms across the world are giving strategic attention to renewable energy technologies. While some of them are increasingly becoming viable and competing with conventional energy sources but most others are yet to attain that status. As long as the gap exists between conventional and renewable energy technologies there is scope for technological interventions and for evolution of leapfrogging technologies. Given its vast scientific and technological potentials and global leadership US is in a position to retain its global leadership by showing the way to rest of the world in renewable energy front.
Thilotham R Kolanu
It would reduce greenhouse gases emissions significantly
It would yield significant and diverse results from reducing greenhouse gases emissions,and hence greatest problem faced by humanity such as global warming to climate change,war,struggle for energy security and exploitation of developing resource rich countries in African region and asia..bY energy grumbling so called developed countries!,Moreover this will help in decentralising power/energy production,procurement and usuage of energy.Looking at fresh war in the gulf and therfore repurcussion in the society,environment is frustrating.
As States dominates the balance of power in the modern world,this will also help other countries to put their energy in developing such technologies,pouring enermous amount of Foreign capital in other countries...such as Khosla the venture capitalist taking a god initiative.
When USA diversify energy uses,by cutting import of energy from across the world,this will strain the burden on other countries to look and use their local resource sustainably.
Enormous jobs will be created giving a space to the clean industry.
New paradigm of foreign relation will be evolved,which can be encouraged for environmental peacekeeping for peaceful conflict resolution.Countries like India,BRAZIL,SOUTH AFRICA who are marching ahead with such green initiatives will be the major ally of USA and dominate the international markets.
Trilochan Pandey,
New Delhi.
It would reduce greenhouse gases emissions significantly
I wish it would! To do so the total extraction of fossil fuels must reduce first. But the international community has no way of achieving that. There are two options: one is for some international agreement to limit extraction; in that case the price of oil and the others, would increase sharply as in 1973/9. That would lead directly to an economic collapse as it nearly did before. the other way is for all of us, ALL, to use less; that would lead to lower demand, and a fall in prices which would have two immpacts: one to hurt the poorer fuel exporting countries, the other to encourage us all to use more again. It seems that there is no way to achieve what is actually needed.
The only approach I know that might achieve some good, is the "Contraction and Convergence" proposed by Aubrey Meyer ( Global Commons Institute, London) which leads to a slow overall reduction (the contraction) without anyone losing out (the convergence between rich and poor)
Can someone please suggests other means forward?
If not, our civilisation has got itself into a self-made trap, with no means to dig ourselves out.
»