http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_energy_shift

Here’s a link to an article from the Associate Press that was headlined on Yahoo’s! homepage this morning. Natural gas is finally getting as much media play as reality television programs and Hollywood scandals. That’s good, but not all the publicity shows a true persepective of what’s at stake. This article doesn’t even mention the negative impacts on the environment and communities in the area where drilling is taking place. I don’t think that was the point of the article so I won’t call the Associated Press a lot of nasty names. But, the article does explain a lot of what our country is up against as far as climate change goes. We need to change the way we produce energy; we need to do it quickly; we need to do it cheaply. Natural gas is looking like the best option for that at this point and despite the down side(s) of the gas industry, I don’t think we will be able to fight the idea of tapping into this energy resource  to make the rest of the globe happy as well as prolong our ability to live life as we have known it on this planet.

At this point it would make all the more sense to see some severance taxes, higher well bonds, ANY waste water disposal management plans and safer methods for hydro-fracking of wells. I always wonder if any of the folks who write up these articles live in any of the states where the drilling is going on. Do they have a well in their back yard and a contaminated water well?

In the wake of what is shaping up to be the spectacular failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change, it may be that this presents an opportunity for a new look at the issue. I refer you to this piece by Bjorn Lomborg in the WSJ arguing that the current strategy being demanded by the global warming hysteria lobby – stringent worldwide emissions restrictions – fails not only because it is not achievable, but because even if it were achievable it would fail to benefit the people of the world’s underdeveloped countries. Because of poverty and disease, many people in these countries will not live long enough to suffer from rampant global warming. Emissions reductions, Lomborg points out, are incredibly costly and yet relatively ineffective in reducing global temperatures. For a fraction of the cost we could be wiping out malaria, for example, and save many more lives.

The irony of the global warming hysteria industry is that they have actually eroded support for moving away from fossil fuels by blotting out everything else and insisting on making global warming the defining issue. In fact, there are plenty of good reasons to support reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and expanding our use of alternative and renewable energy, while conserving energy through hyper-efficient “green” technology. You don’t have to be a faithful worshipper at the Church of ManBearPig, er, I mean man-made global warming, to support these things. Lomborg points out that even a major increase in funding for these initiatives would be vastly cheaper than what is being discussed in Copenhagen:

“Specifically, we should radically increase spending on R&D for green energy—to 0.2% of global GDP, or $100 billion. That’s 50 times more than the world spends now—but still twice as cheap as Kyoto. Not only would this be both affordable and politically achievable, but it would also have a real chance of working.”

Even the Obama Administration is taking a break from cheerleading for Al Gore to propose tax breaks for clean energy technologies - which in addition to helping the environment, also benefits the economy, unlike Copenhagen-style emissions restrictions which hurt the economy. To use a metaphor that carbon-haters can understand – the difference between promoting clean energy and mandating emissions caps is like the difference between walking and driving. Walking may be slower but it’s reliable, healthy and doesn’t cause collateral damage. Driving will get you where you want to go in a hurry, but at what cost?

Copenhagen, Denmark-Tackling climate change and a host of other global challenges will require systematic transformation of the global energy system over the next several decades, according to Renewable Revolution: Low-Carbon Energy by 2030, by Janet Sawin and William Moomaw. The report, released by the Worldwatch Institute and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), highlights four key synergies between energy efficiency and renewable energy and argues that these two strategies, used in concert, can play a key role in meeting rising global demand for energy services while averting catastrophic climate change.

“A low-carbon energy revolution is not only necessary, but also entirely achievable,” says Worldwatch researcher and co-author Janet Sawin. “In this instance, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: renewable energy and efficiency acting together can get us much farther than either can individually.”

Due to the inherent efficiency of most renewable energy technologies relative to fossil fuels, renewable energy does not need to replace fossil fuels exajoule for exajoule. An enormous amount of energy is wasted when converting fossil fuels to energy services such as light, heat, and mobility. These losses can be side-stepped through the use of renewable energy, providing the same level of energy services with far less primary energy. In turn, improvements in energy efficiency make it easier, cheaper, and faster for renewables to achieve a large share of total energy production, while also rapidly reducing greenhouse gases and other emissions associated with energy use.

“Humanity can prevent catastrophic climate change if we act now and adopt policies that unleash the full potential of these resources,” says co-author William Moomaw. “But this goal is not likely to be achieved if our only measure of success is emissions reductions. Climate change is fundamentally a development issue, not a pollution problem. No one benefits from the release of greenhouse gas emissions, but developed and developing nations alike will benefit in numerous ways from the transition to an energy-efficient and renewable world.”

For more than a decade, solar power, wind power, and other renewable technologies have experienced double-digit annual growth rates. Renewables technologies are already enabling Germany, Spain, Sweden, the United States, and several other countries to avoid carbon dioxide emissions. And in recent years, several communities have successfully transitioned from fossil fuels to 100-percent renewable energy, or are well on their way.

“Each of these communities has taken its own path, but all have shared a major emphasis on improving energy efficiency in concert with a dramatic ramp-up in renewables,” says Sawin. “For the world to avoid catastrophic climate change and an insecure economic future, this transition must be accelerated, with success stories scaled up and strategies shared across national boundaries.”

A combination of political will and the right policies can capitalize on these achievements and get the world on track to mitigate climate change in the near term while also meeting rising demand for energy services, creating new jobs and boosting the global economy, providing energy access for the world’s poorest people, and improving the natural environment and human health, the report concludes.

Renewable Revolution recommends three policy elements that must be implemented in parallel to achieve these goals:

Put a price on carbon that increases over time. This can be achieved through a cap-and-trade system, or through a “bottom tax” that sets a floor under fossil fuel prices and that increases each year.

Enact policies that overcome institutional and regulatory barriers to renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements and that drive the required revolution. For example, Germany’s feed-in tariff has made the nation a renewable energy powerhouse. Over the past decade, electricity generation from wind power has increased by a factor of 10, and from solar photovoltaics (PV) by a factor of more than 100. Germany now generates more than 15 percent of its electricity with renewables and aims for 30 percent by 2020.

Develop a strategy for phasing out existing inefficient carbon-emitting capital stock, including old coal-fired power plants, that includes the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

The report concludes that this transition to a highly efficient economy utilizing renewable energy is essential for both developed and developing countries. Co-authors Sawin and Moomaw find that this is the only way that degradation of the climate system can be halted and is the only real option for raising billions of people out of poverty.

“We have a once-in-a-century opportunity to make a transformation from an unsustainable economy fueled by poorly distributed fossil fuels to an enduring and secure economy that runs on renewable energy and lasts forever,” the authors write. “The energy choices made by policymakers and negotiators, and those made by all people during the next few years, will determine the energy future of much of the world for decades to come-and the future of the global climate and human civilization for centuries.”

Janet Sawin is a Senior Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute and William Moomaw is Professor of International Environmental Policy at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, where he is founding director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy. Both are Coordinating Lead Authors of the forthcoming IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy and Climate Change Mitigation. The report also includes contributions from other international experts.

Renewable Revolution was released at an official UNFCC side event in Copenhagen on Wednesday, December 16, 2009.

Source: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6342

I think everyone agrees that Global Warming is happening but how much is actually man made is open to question. Me personally think that Global Warming happens every few thousands or millions of years it’s just that this time we, man that is, is making it happen quicker with our reliance on fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. We do need to do something to either stop or at least greatly reduce our carbon emissions and addiction to fossil fuels, but what can we do?

Everybody to Agree

We need everyone to agree to make changes in the way they rely and use fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions but when we have one country blaming another for poluting the air then other countries wanting more than the Billions of dollars the developed world has promised (if they stopped fighting each other and got of their arses then they wouldn’t need our money) then we are fighting a losing battle.

Stop, Think and Act Now

I think Copenhagen has been a waste of time but I bet the Politicians don’t say that. They need to stop, think and all act together now not next year otherwise the 6th mass extinction our planet has had could involve us.

TBC…….

Every January 1^st, the Pope issues a message on Roman Catholics’ World Day of Peace. This year, the Pope’s remarks were issued early in an attempt to influence the high-profile climate talks in Copenhagen. In his message the Pope called for urgent action to protect the environment, saying Tuesday (Dec. 15^th) that climate change and natural catastrophes threaten the rights to life, food, health — and ultimately peace.

The 82-year old Pope is no intellectual slouch, and his call for mankind to rethink its way of living is a view that is based on his concern for the future of the planet and its 6 billion-plus inhabitants.

If you listen to conservatives in the U.S., the Pope’s message seems more in tune with Al Gore than with the recent climate-gate hubbub. Although I am a conservative, I am not persuaded that climate change is a hoax. I don’t believe that we are headed toward a future Venus, because there are solar cycles and the regular 11,000 year change in tilt in the earth’s axis that have cooled the earth dramatically for eons. Yet, we don’t exactly have thousands of years to wait for such events. We do have to deal with the here and now. Furthermore, an idea that I have always thought was neglected in the debate was touched on by the pontiff.

A partial solution to carbon dioxide emissions is to plant more trees. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. Trees also reduce the greenhouse effect by shading our homes and office buildings. This reduces air conditioning needs up to 30%, thereby reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned to produce electricity. This combination of CO₂ removal from the atmosphere, carbon storage in wood, and the cooling effect makes trees a very efficient tool in fighting the greenhouse effect.

Three major ideas contained in the Pope’s message are: Research ways to exploit solar energy, to manage forests better, and to improve waste disposal. Noting that climate change, and resulting desertification, could push millions into poverty, hunger, conflict and displacement, the pope said: “All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.”

Benedict said industrialized countries should recognize their responsibility for the current environmental crisis and show solidarity toward developing nations. However, emerging countries are not exempt from their own responsibility and there is a need for internationally-coordinated action, he said.

However, here in the U.S., I am not convinced that imposing upon ourselves an economy-crippling monetary cap and trade policy at this time is good either for us or the world. If we are unable to sustain increased borrowing and spending, the dollar’s value will continue to shrink and, as the old saying goes, “as GM goes, so goes the economy.” GM has already been bailed out more than once. Who will bail out the U.S.? China is stepping away from its commitment. A global economy without the foundational dollar would be catastrophic.

So, the Pope’s message, seen from his unique global perspective, is sound and I applaud him for entering the debate. Everyone, conservative and progressive alike, is for less reliance on fossil fuels.

Incremental steps to reduce carbon emissions are imperative. Cap and trade will not be the panacea if India and China ignore steps to reduce their own ever-expanding carbon emissions.

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

Media Release 14th of December 2009

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 03 9354 0544 Fax: 03 9354 0166
Email: cec@cecaust.com.au
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au

British admit: Copenhagen intends genocide‚ World Government

The official British two-pronged policy for the Copenhagen Conference is now out‚ in explicit language. It consists of: 1) massive population genocide‚ on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush‚ and 2) the establishment of a world government with policing powers to cap carbon emissions‚ to tax every advanced sector nation to the extent of two per cent of GDP per year‚ and to impose a global levy on all global financial transactions‚ among other draconian provisions.

Regarding the genocide‚ the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics‚ the anchor of the Fabian Gordon Brown government (the chief organiser of the Copenhagen Conference)‚ has produced a study for Copenhagen‚ released by the British government-backed Optimum Population Trust (OPT)‚ calling for the reduction of world population by between three to five billion people between now and 2050. This flagrant call for mass extermination is based on the argument that the single greatest cause of (non-existent) global warming is overpopulation‚ and that the most “cost-effective” cure for global warming is radical population reduction. This is not just the “opinion” of one way-out nutty group: The Copenhagen conference is itself being sponsored by the U.N.‚ and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) tapped the OPT’s director‚ Roger Martin‚ to present the UNFPA’s own State of World Population 2009 report on the 16th November‚ in the lead-up to Copenhagen.

Former Thatcher government adviser Lord Christopher Monckton blew the whistle on the proposed World Government on the Alex Jones radio show on 9th December. Monckton‚ who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit‚ said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the 180-page current draft of the negotiating text agreement‚ he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming. “I insisted‚ and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it—none of them would produce the document … I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about‚” said Monckton.

Monckton went on to elaborate precisely how the 180-page treaty draft would establish a world government‚ replete with around 700 separate bureaucracies‚ and powers of taxation‚ inspection and enforcement over individual nation-states. Developed nations‚ for instance‚ will be taxed to pay the World Bank to fund developing nations‚ but such funds will only be forthcoming for those developing nations if they meet stringent criteria. The treaty also outlines‚ said Monckton‚ “penalties or fines for non-compliance”‚ in developed countries‚ and the creation of an international police force to “enforce its will by imposing unlimited financial penalties on any countries whose performance under this treaty they don’t like”‚ adding that that it amounted to a total global government takeover on an “unimaginable scale”.

Briefed on Monckton’s findings‚ American statesman and physical economist Lyndon LaRouche charged‚ “What this 180-page document represents is a policy worse than Hitler‚ which is the policy behind the Copenhagen summit. And the people who are proposing this‚ therefore‚ are subject to trial for genocide. Anybody who proposes this‚ becomes subject to a subsequent trial for genocide‚ by a future Nuremberg proceeding. Beware! Do not propose this; you may be subject to a future Nuremberg proceeding!”

LaRouche further called on China and India‚ who are coming under excruciating pressure to capitulate‚ to stick to their positions going into Copenhagen and to walk out if faced with mandatory emissions restrictions: “Stick to what they agreed to; stick to it! Don’t worry about the differences; stick to it! Screw this thing up! Destroy it now‚ and get rid of it!

“The issue here is that some governments are in a sense ducking the issue‚ pretending to accept conditions which they intend to defy in fact. But the point is‚ then they will become targets for destruction on that basis. It’s better to defy than to try to evade. Defiance promotes unity; compromise promotes destruction.”

.photobucket.com/albums/ff234/pmindemann/greenwa.

Don’t be fooled. Hummers and McDonald’s aren’t “green.” Neither are fossil fuels or Fox News, for that matter.

By * Staff, WebEcoist. Dec. 15, 2009

When companies like Exxon-Mobil and McDonalds think “green,” they’re thinking of cash, not the earth. And after all, what matters to unscrupulous marketers isn’t so much the reality of their brand or product, but how the public perceives it – which often results in greenwashing so absurd, it’s almost funny. These 15 examples of extreme greenwashing range from woefully ignorant to downright malicious….
http://www.alternet.org/story/144557/12_hilarious_corporate_attempts_to_look_green

Writing a book about renewable energy has given me a chance to think a lot about non-renewable energy. The more I read and think about solar power and wind and biofuels, the more I find myself thinking in new ways about oil, coal, and gas. Because one of the major justifications for investing in renewable energy is the fact that fossil fuels will eventually be used up. (The other two major arguments/justifications are environmental (global warming) and national and global security.)

But it’s easy to oversimplify and misunderstand the finite nature of fossil fuels and the practical implications of their finiteness. The problem with oil being a finite resource isn’t that we’re about to run out of oil or that any time soon. Same goes for coal and gas. The real problem is that although there’s still a vast amount of oil in the ground, the amount that’s relatively easy to bring to the surface is growing smaller.

Here’s how Vaclac Smil puts it in his excellent book, Energy in World History:

“Fossil fuel reserves are that small part of the resource based whose extraction is clearly profitable: Their spatial distribution and recovery costs (at current prices and with existing techniques) are known in enough detail to justify their commercial exploitation. As we recover higher shares of originally available resources, the best measure of their availability is the cost of producing additional or marginal units of a mineral. … Exhaustion is not thus a matter of actual physical depletion but rather a burden of eventually insupportable cost increases. There are no sudden ends, only prolonged declines, slow exits, and gradual shifts onto new supply planes.”

Well put, no? Now, Smil goes on to say that because oil depletion will be a slow, gradual process, it’s not as crucial an issue as more pressing environmental concerns. But I’m not sure about that. Assuming that there are “new supply planes” onto which the world will shift, perhaps the eventual transition toward other, renewable energy sources will be relatively seamless. But it’s also possible that even gradual declines in cost effective oil reserves will drive up prices in ways that are more like a shock to the system.

I am concerned that the controversy regarding global warming being caused by anthropogenic emissions is making many people miss what is really going on!

In a sense I do not care whether we are in a natural warming cycle or if human activities are causing the problem.

I really would like emissions from burning fossil fuels to be stopped, whether they come from an internal combustion engines or from fossil fuel power station!

These emissions are harming human health. Our kids walk to schools and breathe this poisonous muck. The potential for ill health and cancers in the future is high. So we need to stop poisonous emissions for health reasons and we need to deal with the rising sea levels and the expected climate changes that may affect millions of people across the world.

Lets stop arguing about the causes and start to deal with the symptoms and the threats to lives across the planet.

That way we can all be united in what we are trying to do!

It might sound like a paradox to suggest an All-Electric car strategy to a continent that is suffering from cut-offs, load shedding and where 90% of the rural population and 46% of the urban population is without access to electricity! (Read ‘UNDP-WHO report on energy access in developing countries: review of LDCs & SSAs’)

What we suggest is a combined strategy producing power from biomass and other renewables and All-Electric vehicles!

Starting on the Road of Independence from Oil

Replacing fossil fuels by biological based fuels is the current approach for most governments to solve the addiction to oil. However limitations in biomass supply, competition with food and limited water supply may within a short horizon of time call for better solutions. Both fossil fuels and bio fuels are based on carbon. The bio fuel value chain suffers from low conversion efficiency at the bio fuel factory (25 – 40%) and even worse conversion efficiency in the vehicle (15 – 25%). This multiplies up to an unacceptable low total efficiency measured from biomass to kilometers. The valuable biological carbon deserves a better faith. By shifting the focus from bio-fuels to sustainable transport more efficient, climate neutral and reliable solutions show up.

Biomass-to-Power vs. Bio Fuels

Even if you compare the most efficient 2^nd generation bio diesel made from biomass with generating power from biomass, the Biomass-to-Power alternative ends up as winner:

Biodiesel from Biomass Replacing Fossil Diesel.

A factory producing biodiesel must be big and handle several hundred thousands tons of biomass yearly to be profitable. Hence huge logistic, transport and investment challenges are introduced. The over all efficiency of a biomass to liquid factory today is about 30 %. This means that the calorific value of the bio diesel is 30 % that of the feedstock. The upper limit is suggested to be about 40 %.

Figure 1: Assume the calorific value of a ton of biomass is about 4000 kWh. At current efficiencies the calorific value of the bio diesel produced will be 1200 kWh, corresponding to about 120 liters. Assuming a vehicle efficiency of 20 km/liter (0.5 liter per 10km) 120 liters will propel the vehicle 2400 km. Achieving plant efficiency of 42 % will propel the vehicle 3400 km. However, as the plants must be big the feedstock and the products must be transported over long distances. As a rough estimate we can assume that the total forest-to-tank efficiency is reduced by 10 – 20 % giving 2000 – 3000 km per ton biomass.

Figure 2: In a small-scale plant, say at a power output of 500 kW_e, the current power generation is about 850 kWh electricity per ton biomass. The electric conversion efficiency for biomass is then about 20 %. An electrical vehicle consumes about 0.18 kWh electricity per km, charging losses included. Hence the electric vehicle can be propelled about 4700 km per ton biomass. The electric efficiency of small scale biomass power plants are expected to reach 30 % as technology develops. This will propel the electric vehicle about 7000 km per ton biomass. In addition the electric car is silent, has no local emissions as particles or NOx or no CO₂ emissions.

The Fuel of the Future is Electricity – Power to the People!

• Best utilisation of the resources, hence lowest CO₂-emissions
• Does not compete with food
• Independence of import, security of supply
• Multiple energy sources: PV, wind, hydro, biomass, waves, waste
• EVs are silent and zero local emissions – good for people
• Potential for local business development
• Makes people responsible
• Local Power Production from Multiple Sources Increases Security of Supply.

Take a look at the December Transition Network Newsletter, including info on Transition videos.

For those who wonder how to convince resistant people we must move away from fossil fuels due to Climate Change, I have one word of advice: Don’t.

There’s actually no need. Not because Global Warming isn’t real – it is, and the overwhelming evidence is that it’s largely fueled by human actions – but because there are other reasons why we should move away from fossil fuel-based energy. The elegant thing about a multi-pronged approach like this is that you can always find some reason to convince someone with. For example, hard-core conservatives may simply refuse to believe anything people do could affect “God’s perfect world” but they are perfectly willing to accept that we should not be sending half a trillion dollars a year to foreign oil producers who mostly hate us, and who export terrorism along with their oil (#s 4-6).

1. Climate Change: Oil and Coal contribute to global warming and will only do so more as China, India etc. emulate American lifestyles. According to many scientists, we may already be past the temperature “tipping point” where runaway synergistic effects will make warming inevitable, even if we could stop all CO2 production today (which we can’t).

2. Balance of Trade: We import 70% of our oil – $500 billion/year – often from countries that hate us, fund terrorists, and buy our businesses (Citigroup) and infrastructure (Chrysler Building). This is an unsustainable transfer of wealth, which will only make America poorer. We are now paying foreign powers both what we earn personally AND what our companies earn, while they sit back and enjoy the results of their geological luck. Take a look at T. Boone Pickens’ presentation for a more realistic assessment of what exporting our wealth will do to us in 10 years. Or, take a look at post-Columbus Spain, which thought having all the gold in the new world would keep them prosperous forever and allow them to import whatever skills and goods they needed. It didn’t and they couldn’t.

3. Green Jobs: Germany has created 250,000 new green jobs in its solar industry, which supplies 13% of its electric needs. We need to replace oil, coal and nuclear producing jobs with wind and solar installation and maintenance jobs. (It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and 2 years to build a solar thermal field).

4. National Security: We must not depend on foreign powers to supply us with vital energy, which is as critical to modern society as food and shelter. Even if we drill the arctic for oil (home to up to 25% of the world’s reserves, according to US Geological Survey), we will have to defend those new wells not only from nature, but from Russia, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), and others with a claim to the high north, leading to unnecessary conflict with these countries. Clearly, ANWR has never been about the tiny bit of land off northern Alaska that would supply just 2 years of oil for America; it’s been about opening up the entire Arctic to exploration. We cannot afford to defend such a large and inhospitable region from other regional players with as large or larger geological claims.

5. The Oil Curse: Countries that depend on natural resources to make money, and not people, are the most corrupt, despotic, self-righteous and anti-human rights regimes on Earth. China does not seem to care where their oil comes from, encouraging rogue states like Sudan, Iran, Burma and Venezuela, where human rights barely exist. This is a naïve and ultimately counter-productive strategy for China but not one we should be encouraging again either (see: the downfall of the Shah of Iran).

6. Military Overreach: America cannot afford to defend oil fields. The Iraq war is, at least partly, a subsidy for Big Oil. Lives are being lost and resources are being spent ($12 Billion/month) so that – maybe, eventually – we can get more oil out of Iraq (estimated to be 2 or 3 largest holder of oil reserves). Meanwhile, Iraq does not even use $79 billion surplus to pay for its own infrastructure needs, while here in the U.S. our bridge collapse from lack of care (Minnesota) and our electrical grid blacks out.

7. Peak Oil: We are probably only seeing peak geopolitical oil, not peak geological oil, now, but it will only get more expensive to drill oil. Most estimates put peak oil within 10 years, and since global demand has exceeded earlier estimates, we may be even closer. The perversion of the OPEC dominated oil market means that they will drill LESS, not MORE, as the price goes up, since they literally collect more money than they know what to do with already, and they want to stretch out their supply. It’s only when the price of oil goes DOWN that OPEC members are tempted to cheat on their quotas because their dysfunctional economies become desperate for cash. Right now, they want to sell oil only a trickle at a time.

8. Local Environmental Damage: If we drill everywhere, we will eventually have oil wells all over the west (instead of wind turbines), and even in the (newly melted) arctic. These high-risk drilling areas will be more likely to see oil spills, soot, and CO2 damage and the further eradication of local animal (Polar Bears) and plant life. Already, regional water tables are being polluted by accidents and poisoness chemicals involved in the drilling industry. This is especially true of the Natural Gas and Coal industries, which use and pollute prodigious amounts of scare water resources. The cost to clean up the toxic coal ash release in Harriman, Tennessee has been estimated to be as high as $800 million higher than President Obama’s entire stimulus bill. This “pond” was merely average out of hundreds of similar ponds located all over the south and west.

9. We eat too much oil: Oil goes into fertilizer, which goes into corn, which goes into EVERYTHING we eat, including meat. Omega 6 fatty acids (the bad kind) are higher in factory-fed beef. Omega 3 fatty acids (the good kind) are higher in grass-fed beef and almost as high as in fish, according to Michael Pollen (the Omnivore’s Dilemma). Oil-based Corn-fed meat is making us fat and raising the national health bill. Cattle, pigs, chickens live a cruel, short life in tight, economical confines because it is cheaper to make them do so than to let them live on the open range. Even an omnivore must realize there is a difference for an animal to be raised humanely and then killed for food then one that is tortured in a CAFO its entire life and then killed. Each wind turbine pays farmers $5,000-$10,000 annually and allows livestock to graze in their shade, making natural grass-fed meat economically competitive again. This synergy could make us healthier AND wean us off imported oil. It would also make our streams, rivers and the Gulf of Mexico healthier by reducing fertilizer runoff.

10. Loss of American’s position as Innovation Leader: The oil and automotive industries were born here over 100 years ago. It is time for America to lead the world into the renewable era with Zero Emission Vehicles and renewable energy. If not us, then China or some other countries will take our place and America will become a second-rate power dependent on others for everything.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support Energy Independence

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Climate change doesn’t matter because people are worried about keeping their jobs.

Climate change doesn’t matter because people are scared that the government is trying to control them.

Climate change doesn’t matter because developing countries are trying to punish the West.

Climate change doesn’t matter because there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

Climate change doesn’t matter because scientists are human and make mistakes.

The truth is, as much as we progressive types like to talk about climate change, and as much as we all seem to spout off about Kyoto and Copenhagen and renewable energy, climate change doesn’t matter to most North Americans, and that’s not going to change if we keep using tired old talking points.

Emissions reduction is a term that means one thing to most people: reduction of productivity.  It’s a logical point of view; how can we reduce emissions while increasing output?  We need output for economic growth, and reducing output will hurt the economy.  Green collar jobs sound appealing, but it’s hard to visualize unemployed workers in Youngstown, Flint, or Oshawa smiling in front of a new “green widget factory”.

Rather than being a new Apollo Project to energize society, climate change is on its way to becoming the next H1N1, a serious issue that loses the public’s attention.  People are starting to tune out, feeling as though the whole concept is overblown, or perhaps completely made up.  Even governments in Europe will soon feel the sting of climate change backlash, if they haven’t felt it already.

So those of us who do believe in climate change, who have read about the changes in the Arctic and in Australia, and who understand that declining glaciers will cause catastrophic drought in South Asia… we need to start accepting that talking about reducing emissions is the wrong way to change the world.

What is the right way to combat a climate change that doesn’t matter?  Restoring a proper balance to the atmosphere and the oceans while continually increasing global energy production is a hundred-year strategy, and at this point we haven’t even begun.

A Global Energy Strategy

The goal of this strategy is to increase global energy production as quickly as possible, raising the standard of living for all of humanity without penalizing developed nations.  More energy allows for new technologies in agriculture, electronics, biomedicine, construction, infrastructure and transportation that will lead to reductions in poverty and disease and an increase in opportunities for the people of all nations.

We need to expand our current energy production from 15 TW to approximately 35 TW by 2050, while replacing fossil fuels before supply dwindles to the point of being uneconomical.  By 2100, the world economy will require almost 100 TW of energy.

The declining supply in available fossil fuels, combined with ocean acidification caused by uncontrolled carbon emissions and changes to weather patterns based on changing atmospheric content, are the first issues to be resolved by this strategy.  Energy production based on oil, whether for electricity or for gasoline, must be phased out first (by 2050), followed by coal and natural gas by 2100.

This phase-out can be achieved only if all viable alternatives are pursued, including increases to efficiency in production and consumption, investment in renewable energy, construction of next generation nuclear fission reactors, sequestration of carbon emissions (to safeguard our fisheries and agricultural industries) and space-based solar power.

Meanwhile, research into nuclear fusion reactors must be maintained and increased when possible, as fusion energy will be required after 2050 in order to maintain economic growth at the desired pace.  In addition, innovation in space flight must also continue, both for space-based solar power to be economically sustainable and for new raw materials and fuel sources for the Earth.

Continued economic growth depends on new energy technologies, and not on continued stagnation with fossil fuel exploitation in its current state.  All agreements on energy policy must keep long-term economic growth as the ultimate goal, and this growth will only be possible if we prevent catastrophes caused by an overreliance on fossil fuels (or any one source) for energy production.  Such catastrophes can include the destruction of fisheries, a massive decline in agricultural yields due either to changing weather patterns or to a lack of fuel for equipment, or economic depression caused by rising energy costs.

Only if the focus of government investment and a healthy dose of private money are put towards various energy solutions will we see continued economic growth over the next century.  The future progress of humanity depends on a course of positive actions towards technological improvement.

The Same Actions, A Different Point of View

Defenders of a status quo in energy production will continue to oppose technological innovation that could affect their bottom line, but the vast majority of the population, including business owners and investors, are only concerned about changes in energy policy that could affect their ability to earn a living, consume products, and maintain a lifestyle to which they’ve grown accustomed.  By focusing on increasing energy production in order to foster economic growth, rather than simply pushing for reductions in emissions, we can send a message that changes in energy policy are to replace antiquated fuels with new technologies, and that curtailing economic growth is counter to the mainstream progressive agenda.

As long as the solution touted by Al Gore and others consists mainly of emission reduction, it will be forever tied to the notion of economic reduction; the emphasis needs to be placed on better energy and more of it, and our real-life policies and solutions need to reflect that point of view.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I am sure you have all heard about the commotion coming from the capital city of Denmark, where the the Copenhagen Climate Conference is taking place. This conference, and the role many hope that the United States will play in the potential passage of major, global climate change legislation, could finally help rein in greenhouse gas emissions. When he joins the conference in a few days, President Obama will propose to slash carbon dioxide emissions by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and pledge an 83 percent reduction by 2050 in the United States. Agreement on a global protocol on climate change will succeed those outlined in the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases – largely a result of human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

Click here to learn how Global Warming works.

In 1997, the United States (and China) infamously refused to enter a legally binding agreement with other nations around the world to cut emissions at Kyoto. Only three dozen industrialized nations agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol. In 2007, the Bali Road Map was born, to “chart the course for a new negotiating process designed to tackle climate change, with the aim of completing this by 2009.” (Source) Well folks, it’s 2009, and now we’re in Copenhagen. Will the United States finally sign on?

Since Kyoto, there has been a strong push for the United States to become a more active participant in the fight against global warming – especially since we are responsible for so much of the world’s emissions – while the U.S composes only 4% of the earth’s population, we emit about 25% of the total global greenhouse gases – Not good. (Source)

Click here for an inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Obama has had his work cut out for him since he entered office, and this is no exception. Much is expected of the President – in short, setting the stage for passage of a comprehensive international treaty to slow global warming. (Source)

The world is watching! Let’s hope that December 18th will begin a new chapter on climate change, as promised by President Obama.

-Elise

There has been a lot of talk about the recent leak of British scientists’ emails, which discussed frustration over a slowdown in global warming… The theme of these talks: global warming is bogus. Well, I don’t believe that. While I am sure catastrophes like Katrina and other hurricanes have been going on for millenia, the overarching issue is that we are polluting our environment with poisonous toxins every day, which has been proven to lead to asthma and other lung-related diseases. I lived in one of the poorest air quality cities in the country–Fresno–and there was no doubt my neighbors’ kids’ asthma was due, in part, to bad air… as well as numerous other children who came down with the disease.

I know many people want to just forget about global warming–that we shouldn’t look for alternatives to the limited supply of fossil fuels, that we should skip gingerly down the road as we pay upwards of $3 a gallon for gas… but as we come back down to planet Earth–there is a serious issue you. Fossil fuels pollute, hurt our delicate organs and don’t econically make sense.

While I am certain none of us are too stoked about buying new vehicles, and I am certain none of us will see global climate change so severe that we will see the end of the world, we as a civilized society must do our due diligence and think of our children, think of our future and think of our wallets. Fossil fuels will only bury us, whether or not we see catastrophic weather changes.

Originally posted on RedGreenandBlue.org on 9/24/09
Mean Joe Green #74: Old King Coal’s New Nursery Rhyme.
Will we be able to move away from dirty fossil fuels to new clean energy sources in the near future? Not if Old King Coal has his way…

Related Articles

UN Speeches Ramp Up Rhetoric in US – China Climate Change Arms Race
Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf clean energy subsidies; Obama wants to eliminate them
U.S. pushes G20 to cut fossil-fuel subsidies
Ten Dirty Things About Big King Coal
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Talks Dirty Coal at Bonnaroo, and More (audio)