Drill Baby Drill?: Oil vs. Alternative Energy
From YouProduce
Contents |
How To Use This Page
When a Brian Lehrer Show producer works on a segment, there are a number of steps. You'll see some basic ones below on which you can collaborate. You may also want to look at this sample "prep" to get a feel for what the final product will look like. Here are a few tips for using this wiki:
1) Keep it focused. The final prep needs to be easily read on the air and facilitate discussion by the guests.
2) Put your name (or, if you'd prefer, just your initials) next to your contributions so that we can credit you on the air!
And, a reminder from Brian Lehrer: "A wiki is a collaboration, not a debate. Work together with people you agree with and people you don’t to shape a segment that addresses the questions and concerns of all interested parties and the public at large. This is pretty experimental for talk radio. But we believe that the wisdom of the crowd can help produce more thorough, more balanced coverage than any professional journalists can do without you!"
Angles
What are the basic angles to explore in this segment, from left, right or other? We'll at least include whether the central goal now should be to get off foreign oil or any oil, and an exploration of how feasible various alternative fuels are now.
We see how disastrous deregulation in the banking/investing services has been. During the Bush Administration, environmental laws were equally relaxed. In 2005, under pressure from the Bush Administration, oil and gas companies were given exemptions from the regulations of the Clean Air and Water Act. Since then natural gas companies have been drilling throughout Colorado, Wyoming and Texas, causing many people to experience major health problems. In some cases almost entire communities have fled. Now natural gas companies are beginning to drill in Pennsylvanian and Upstate NY. They plan to drill in the Marcellus Shale formation where the 2000 square mile watershed supplies NYC with its one and only source of unfiltered drinking water. The 2005 changes to EPA regulations exempt energy companies from revealing over 250 chemicals they use to fracture the subterranean shale to release the gas. These chemicals are known to cause cancer, neurological and respiratory illnesses, organ damage and birth defects. With little public discussion, gas prospectors are quickly and quietly signing leases with landowners before the truth comes out. They plan to drill over 25,000 gas wells, potentially contaminating the watershed and risking NYC losing its federal waiver from having to build a $12 billion filtration system. Both candidates seem to believe drilling for natural gas will help solve our energy problems, but do either of them address the need to repeal the oil and gas companies' exemptions from the Clean Air and Water Act? Do either of them believe that because of grave potential environmental damage, some areas should simply be off-limits to drilling? -- Alice Z.
There is a lot of talk about "clean coal." My understanding is that the process of "cleaning" coal is so energy intensive that it ends up being a wash in terms of saving any energy and may end up wasting it. The other problem is the extraction. In OH and WVA the mining companies practice strip mining and in the worst cases, mountaintop removal, dumping the waste in nearby valleys and streams. Not only does this wreck the countryside and pollute the water, but the deforestation is counter-productive in terms of global warming. Can anyone weigh in on this? Neither candidate seems to take it on. Martha
Scott Tillitt in Beacon, NY
At the Clinton Global Initiative on Sept. 24 in NYC Al Gore called for civil disobedience as a means of fighting new conventional coal-burning power plants (and other new carbon sources, presumably like oil drills). Michael Brune and his group, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), have been doing this successfully for years -- including earlier that week at a Dominion Power plant in Virginia. (Brune blogged about it in his regular column at HuffPost - http://snurl.com/brune923.) For years, politicians have pledged to fight climate change and/or oil dependency, yet oil consumption grows and greenhouse gas emissions increase every year. Why? What role do individuals and activism play in transitioning to alternative fuels/clean energy?
How can the Democrats GIVE up on the PRINCIPAL of "NO DRILLING" since it wont work?
---oo--- Mark Brown in NJ---oo---
I would like to point out two separate points, the latter of which builds on the first:
Oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels takes thousands, if not millions, of years for geological processes to generate. We're using these resources at a much faster rate than that. Admittedly, we don't know exactly how much is left nor do we know how advancing technology will allow us to access previously hidden reserves. My point is that there is a limited amount of fossil fuel and not only are we using it up faster than it can be regenerated, we're doing it blindly because we don't exactly know how long it will last. I would rather play it safe and move away from this unknown by diversifying our energy sources with solar, wind, etc. and by decreasing our energy consumption.
That is my second point. The political Right and Left are locked in a face-off that pits one solution against another solution, but neither seems to be paying attention to a third, neutral solution: lowering the demand for energy. By designing our buildings in a better way, we wouldn't need A/C (I've stayed in such a building that was built 700 years ago, it's not a new idea) or by improving public transportation on the local and national scales, we would have less need for individual cars. True, this is a much more complicated answer, but I feel it is important and can't be ignored.
--Ian Jensen in NJ--
Looking at this issue in a way that touches your listeners. How much will it cost to change, what do we have to give up in the short run and long run to make this happen and what is the first step towards meaningful change. There are the political (domestic and foreign) that are powerful, the domestic oil and gas lobbies are strong, our relationships with a number of royal families are important for regional stability...not easy to just simply turnoff the spigot. Then there is the economic impact, to simply try and change infrastructure that is so embedded on our national structure, from the gas station to the electric light, from the oil tank to the way food is delivered, kept hot or cold...this is a multi-trillion dollar effort and there will be unemployment before there are new jobs created in the numbers needed. Look what a change on Wall Street is doing, this is even bigger. Lastly, are we, Americans willing to suffer in order to make change happen? We have not been asked to share in the pain since JFK asked us to do something for our country, now most of us only think of ourselves...not a nation ready to take on such a big transformation, at least not yet. Robert Kesten Washington, DC
Another possible angle of how energy policy touches peoples’ lives: exploring alternative or diversified energy sources as something that could potentially empower individuals and communities. Scaling back energy consumption is tough, sure, but are there immediate benefits as well? Would people save money? Would families gain a better sense of control and ownership over energy policies if they were rooted in the community? What kind of decisions would we, as communities, make if the decision were to drill for oil (or not) in a community lake, or if our homes bordered the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge? Would we still want to drill, baby, drill, or would we, as a society, be more interested in exploring other options to keep things like our view, our water sources, and other (harder to quantify) natural resources a better-managed part of our communities? --Loren Drummond, Washington, D.C.
Robert Keston asks a key question -- "what will it cost to change?" -- which leads to a basic angle: What exactly needs to be done to successfully transition from oil and coal to clean alternatives? And what is the time line? We'll need factories (for wind turbines/ solar equipment/ vehicles); a technical solution and then updating for old plants, if we want to use coal; a new smart-grid (which Tom Friedman writes about at length in his recent book); retrofitting buildings for efficiency, etc. etc. The interesting thing is that -- if all goes well -- AFTER the transition most people will perceive no difference between then and now and go back to taking energy for granted: a switch will turn a light on; a car will drive us around; a house will be comfortable in the winter. The transition away from oil (and dirty coal) will take time, money and great effort but we need to commit to it sooner rather than later if we want to make it a smooth one. -- Patricia Taylor, NYC
It is important to consider that there are two entirely different issues at play in the Drill Baby Drill issue. One is the petroleum the US consumes which, as I understand, comes mostly from North American sources, and electrical energy which is produced primarily from American coal and produces CO2 and other gasses. In my experience the public confuses the two issues. Presently the multi-national energy corporations are adding to the confusion with advertising campaigns touting wind energy, compressed natural gas powered vehicles, clean coal and electric cars to the discussion. The facts are that there is no shortage of energy in America, but in order to clean up our act we will all have to make changes in our life styles. It would be useful to discuss the down side of each of the alternative energy sources. Wind power is an unsightly, sporadic producer of electricity which depends on federal subsidies to be economically feasible. Hydro electric can damage free flowing rivers. Natural gas, from deep wells like the Marcellus formation in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, endangers water resources and disrupts large portions of forest and farmland. Both electricity and natural gas require new transmission infrastructure which in turn disrupts even more private and public land. We should be questioning whether our reluctance to scale back our consumption and reliance on the grid to deliver more energy on demand is at the root of our problem. John Terry NJ/WV
//Myriam F. in Ithaca, NY// I think it is important to focus on the question of infrastructure or any new energy system, and how much effort, time and resources are needed to create this over a period of time (not a year or two or five). For instance, switching to motor fuels other than gasoline and diesel will require new delivery systems (pipeline, trucking, etc.), service stations with new equipment, different types of vehicles, and more. These are transitions that need strong government involvement as well as cooperation from the private sector. Do we as a nation have the institutions, the resources and the will to do this? The logic of the market alone will never deliver new energy systems due to the upfront costs and the risks involved. Will the Dept. of Energy be capable of such a huge project? What current policies/initiatives (from govt. and others) seem to be working right now? What else is needed in terms of policy? //Myriam F. in Ithaca, NY//
--Carmen M in NYC-- US policies that affect oil consumption: Our country's farming technologies rely heavily on petroleum-based fertilizers and these technologies are heavily subsidized by the US Farm Bill (subsidies for corn, wheat, and soy). This means that ethanol based fuel does not actually use less petroleum b/c of the amt required to grow the corn. US tariff's on sugar mean that a more efficient bio-fuel made from sugar can is not feasible here.
Please give consideration to decentralized sources of energy such as the following in which old fossil fuel paradigm of centralized generation sources become less necessary. Here are two simple examples in which large infrastructure projects such as power plants and transmission systems could be reduced to be replaced by fabrication, installation and maintenance services. *Solar electric/heat for individual dwellings, offices (homes, businesses, public buildings). *Fuel Cell technology for electric generation for buildings as above and transport. For interesting open source fuel cell project please see http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell For context, can a reasonable comparison be made between the successful deployment of mobile phones deep in rural areas worldwide obviating the need to bring wired infrastructure into these places? Who are the interests arrayed for and against this power generation paradigm (if any)? In what types of locations might this work best, and where might it not be a good idea? Eric M./Huntington, NY
John Terry points out that wind power is dependent on federal subsidies but not that the fossil fuel industries are already heavily subsidized. If the new administration & the legislature could resist industry lobbying--admittedly a big "if"--and reduce (or preferably eliminate) those subsidies, they could be redirected to renewable energy, especially solar and wind power, whose upfront costs will be repaid many times over by the free energy supplies they use.
--Amy from Manhattan
Candidate Positions
What have McCain and Obama said or done on this issue? Do their actions match their words?
McCain has called for a $300 million prize for developing a next generation car battery. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24campaign.html)
McCain has consistently opposed ethanol subsidies and has maintained that position throughout this election cycle.
Both McCain (enthusiastically) and Obama (reluctantly) have become recent converts to offshore drilling.
---oo--- How is Obama being pro offshore drilling --oo--- how does he support this change Markbnj
Obama's not necessarily "pro offshore drilling", but views it as a compromise with drilling advocates in a grander energy plan.
Obama's initial "shift" towards supporting a lift on the offshore drilling ban came in June when he told the Palm Beach Post as much [1]
On the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Obama previously opposed using it, but recently proposed selling 70 million barrels from it. [2]
Don't know McCain's position on this. Anyone?
AND... hasn't it been proven that the DRILL now is a subterfuge since the OIL won't be available for the next 10-15 years? I think this is a disingenous (sp) topic.
Both candidates understand that something must be done, but at this point neither are asking Americans to pay a price for it. No one is asking anyone to share the costs, so it is hard to say that either candidate is as serious, or brave, as need be to take this on in a big way. Robert Kesten
Washington, DC
Patricia Taylor, NYC
Obama includes a carefully conceived and truly comprehensive New Energy for America plan on his website (go to issues: energy & environment). He supports an "economy-wide cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." He links "a new economy that is powered by clean secure energy" with the creation of "five million new jobs." He's obviously been consulting with the leaders in the field (like Apollo Alliance, etc.) His position is strong. He states that "our country cannot afford politics as usual -- not at a moment when the energy challenge we face is so great the consequences of inaction are so dangerous." There's a lot of detail here; and it seems to be a genuine priority for his presidency.
Has either candidate considered a national building code that would require commercial and residential buildings to create (or offset) a given percentage of the energy they consume? The percentage could increase year by year, stimulating development of new technology while creating a market for that technology at the same time. John Terry NJ/WV
The nation's energy transmission grid reflects a 20th Century model of electricity produced at big, centralized power plants. What is the most important change the next President should seek to make the grid open and friendly to decentralized, alternative energy like wind, tide or solar?
Possible Guests
Who would help guide this discussion? This could be reporters familiar with the topic; academics or think-tankers who know the issue; people to talk on behalf of the candidates; or more "outside-the-box" guests who may have an interesting perspective.
Barry Katz, Westport, CT
Thomas L. Friedman, Pullitzer Prize winning author and NY Times Collumnist, whose new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - And How it Can Renew America, offers a clear and comprehensive look at the disastrous consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels, and offers a plan for how we can achieve energy independence.
Friedman argues persuasively that a massive shift to clean, renewable energy will avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, create millions of jobs, revitalize our economy, restore our international standing, weaken petrodictators around the globe, and inspire the rest of the world to follow our lead into a more sustainable future.
He explains that the way to achieve all that is for the government to create a "price signal," that would level the playing field so that clean energy becomes competitive with fossil fuel. In large part, that would entail recognizing the true cost of burning fossil fuels, including the damage that does to our health, our air and our water, deforestation, erosion, loss of biodiversity, and many other factors including the massive military expenditure involved in protecting sources and supply lines for imported fossil fuels. [One way to accomplish this is with "market-based, mandatory cap-and-trade programs" like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative recent CO2 allowance auction. See What Else? section below. -- Patricia Taylor, NYC]
This leveling of the playing field would immediately stimulate massive private investment in research and development, and all of the economies of scale that the market would then provide.
Mike Treder in Brooklyn, NY
I strongly recommend Joseph Romm as a guest on this show. Romm, editor of the Climate Progress blog, is a leading voice in climate change and alternative energy debates. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration.
Scott Tillitt in Beacon, NY
Michael Brune, the executive director of environmental group Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and a founding board member of Oil Change International, an organization working to dissolve the political barriers to a clean energy transition. He recently wrote Coming Clean: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal, an engaging, hopeful, do-it-yourself guide to solving the climate and energy crises. It differs from other books in that it stresses ways that motivated citizens can collectively challenge corporate America and political leaders to bring about change. RAN has been called “some of the savviest environmental agitators in the business” by The Wall Street Journal, “a lean, green, fighting machine” by the San Francisco Chronicle, and “mosquitoes in the tent” of corporate America by Fortune. Brune joined RAN at age 26 to direct its successful campaign to convince Home Depot to stop selling wood from endangered forests. A year later, Time called the victory the top environmental story of 1999.
He'll be in NYC Oct. 7-8 and is available to come in the studio, but is also available by phone for this show. I can set it up: scott @ antidotecollective.org, 917-449-6356. [Obvious disclosure: I'm doing publicity for the book.]
Myriam F. in Ithaca, NY
The Union of Concerned Scientists has done great policy and advocacy work over the years on energy and sustainability issues. Their website is: www.ucsusa.org.
Also, it would be interesting to have Klaus Lackner and David Walker (both professors at the Dept.of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia U. in NYC). They are experts on nuclear energy petrologyrespectively, and have been teaching a course on alternative energy at Columbia. They know about both conventional and alternative sources of energy--in this definition they include natural gas and nuclear. My impression is that they have a sober perspectives on the options for future energy policy, and can offer some hard science pointers that policy makers ought to consider. It would be interesting to listen to a conversation between them and the guys at the UCS. I tend to agree more with the folks at UCS who stress the need for renewable energy sources.
Here's a segment from Prof. Lackner's bio: "Presently he is developing innovative approaches to energy issues of the future. He has been instrumental in forming ZECA, the Zero Emission Coal Alliance, which is an industry-led effort to develop coal power with zero emissions to the atmosphere. His recent work is on environmentally acceptable technologies for the use of fossil fuels." (You can look for more info. about them at www.columbia.edu)
Anthony Carlucci, Brooklyn
James Howard Kunstler is a facinating and informed author (The Long Emergency, and Geography of Nowhere) and speaker on the issues surrounding OIL in America. I would love toy hear his perspective on the issue in this political forum. His perspective for me is one of a comprehensive vision that does not overlook the importance of our transportation and shipping infrastructure plays in our overall energy use.
Lecture Agent: Miriam Feurele 503- 577-6361 miriam@lyceumagency.com
Patricia Taylor, NYC
David G. Victor -- Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies and Professor of Law, Stanford University -- spoke at the State of the Planet 08 Conference last spring at Columbia's Earth Institute. He was brilliant but amazingly down-to-earth and entertaining. It would be interesting to hear his current take on Oil vs. Alternative Energy. His bio notes that his "Program focuses on power sector reform,...and the role of state-controlled oil and gas companies in the world's hydrocarbon markets." He might be a good person to ask to explain the impact of the newly unveiled cap-and-trade auction system.
And -- one of today's guests on the Lopate show would be an excellent choice. Antonia Juhasz spoke about her new book THE TYRANNY OF OIL. She has done the research on big oil and its stranglehold on our government leaders. She suggested that maybe the only way to get rid of the powerful oil lobby (and be able to move on to more support for alternatives) would be for people to only vote for leaders who "renounce all oil companies" (the same as, she said, happened with tobacco companies way back when). She made it clear that the time of peak oil has passed and we had better start working on alternatives while we still have some gas to power the change.
And -- yes -- Thomas Friedman's new book, and his weekly op-ed pieces, are excellent. I'd like to hear him talk about Obama's plan -- because people need to hear more about it. And, okay, if McCain has a plan he can talk about that too...
And -- if you want to talk to someone about energy efficient buildings -- I heard Henry Gifford (an engineer who designs mechanical systems for NY architect Chris Benedict) speak last Sunday as part of Open House NY. At a new apartment house they've built at 228 East Third Street in Manhattan, they used "solid building science to make a healthy, safe, durable efficient apartment building that uses [ONLY] 15% of the average energy of heat and hot water." One way they accomplish this is by reversing normal wall design and putting the thermal boundary outside the structural walls to make an airtight (but correctly ventilated) structure. According to Mr. Gifford this is quite radical; but it actually works. He says that most LEED rated buildings are not being designed to save much energy. Sounds like a potential green scandal to me!
Opening Copy
How should Brian frame the issue at the beginning of the segment?
Not to repeat myself, but Brian might ask the question "Are we ready to pay for this?" If we are not willing to pay the huge costs involved in making these changes, than we are not ready to have a real discussion. When business pays, we pay, when utilities pay, we pay and in order to get our own homes in order, we will have to pay. New cars, new electronic gadgets, new electronic components for our homes...the list is endless and costly...are we ready? Robert Kesten, Washington, DC
Questions
What are the key questions? What order should they be asked in?
(Jay from Highland Park, NJ) While many sober minded shoppers in NYC have embraced "buy local," why is there such a disdain for "buying local" with our fossil fuels? It seems like such a logical step to use our resources for ourselves. Instead, we pass on our money and the environmental impact (which is far less regulated in many oil producing countries) to other parts of the world.
//Myriam F. in Ithaca, NY// What policies have produced results so far? Can we develop a research/public consultation effort to scale these "good" policies up (that is, to apply them at the national level). For instance, there is some evidence in policy research that Renewable Portfolio Standards can increase the levels of clean energy generation. Could this work nationally? Could CA serve as a model for the country, given what they have accomplished using RPS? //Myriam F. in Ithaca, NY//
//Phil Henshaw, NYC// -- Would increasing the use of energy sources that have been renewable on a small scale still be as renewable if used to replace oil on the scale that we use it? What if we then continued to regularly double the scale of energy uses as proposed by all the publically discussed energy plans? -- -- If we replaced the current US energy consumption with solar panels near our energy uses, current best technology would take around 28,000 square miles of panels to create an equal electric current, ~.8% of the land area. Would that or a substitute on the same scale have any environmental impacts? Would it have more impacts if we kept doubling that energy demand as is generally planned? Ref: DollarShadow.htm
-- Are there alternatives to continually doubling energy use that still allow continually doubling wealth? Ref:Learning Curves
Thomas Seely, Brooklyn
In his September 27th column Tom Friedman suggests we must, “green the bailout” by encouraging private sector investment in building our country’s Green infrastructure. “Indeed, when this bailout is over,” Friedman writes, “we need the next president… to launch an E.T., energy technology, revolution with the same urgency as this bailout….let’s commit right now that any bailout profits will be invested in infrastructure — smart transmission grids or mass transit — for a green revolution.” Do the candidates support this assessment? If so, what will each of the candidates do to usher in what could be called a “Green New Deal”?
These kinds of massive changes do not come easily. What tough actions will be required of the private sector, and what kind of day-to-day sacrifices will be required of all Americans to help us convert our country to Green energy?
'Patricia Taylor, NYC
My question is: Do people REALLY understand how important it is that we ACTUALLY MOVE AWAY from oil and TOWARD alternative fuels? There's a lot of green-washing and green lip-service happening out there. People SEEM to know about this issue and the pressing need.... and thanks to high oil and gas prices we're starting to think about efficiency more. If Obama wins and follows through on his Energy Plan and motivates the public to cooperate and supports the effort with government incentives and carbon-auction funds...and, if we keep pushing from the grassroots -- then maybe it will happen and in time...things will change. So maybe the real question is: Does it matter if people (the public) REALLY understands how important this issue is?
There are many questions we don't know regarding the dangers associated with natural gas drilling. Some of these questions are the following: • Chemicals used, their quantity - concentrations & combinations • How much fluid is recovered • What is in the drill spoils, evaporation and condensate pits • The amount and source of the water used and where and how it is disposed of • The frequency and absolute (not on a weighted scale) decibel level of the noise of the drilling and compressor stations the amount and contents of the air emissions produced by the drilling, pipelines, compressors, evaporation pits. • NORM - Normally Occurring Radioactive Materials - accumulates on equipment - where it occurs. • H2S - Hydrogen Sulfide - “sour” gas - poisonous, where it occurs is a major air pollutant and can also get into water. Both of these can be anywhere - predictions aside it is NOT known where either NORM or H2S will actually occur. • Baseline levels of water, air and soil to gauge potential changes in quality • Structure and connectivity of aquifers in the several major Watersheds. • New Jersey has special danger in this regard as its aquifers are recharged from both direct water movement from the Upper Delaware Basin and from seepage recharge directly from the Delaware River -- Alice Z.
(Jay from Highland Park, NJ) Is there natural gas or oil off the coasts of NJ or NY?
We know offshore drilling wouldn't bring gasoline prices down significantly for 10-15 years. For comparison, what's the timeline for research into more efficient solar panels? Could it be accelerated if the money for offshore drilling were put into solar power research instead?
And please, let's question the idea of having energy consumption double on a regular basis! There's no Moore's Law for energy use--conservation and efficiency need to be a major part of the solution, and many aspects of this approach don't have to be difficult or expensive.--Amy from Manhattan
Geothermal has some attractive advantages but much of related technology is associated with the oil industry. How can oil companies be encouraged to pursue this? --ef
How is time to market of innovations such as celulosic ethanol and bio-engineered oil likely to be affected by the current financial crisis? Will lack of investment capital delay alternatives? --ef
Audio Clips to Use
Are there any audio clips out there that we should include? Or particular music we should include? Be specific.
Links to Research Materials
Do you have any readings, videos or any other relevant material to recommend?
- North American Oil Fields - Research by Robert L Pritchett about what is currently known about petroleum in and under the North American Continent at PESWiki.
For information about natural gas drilling in Upstate NY and PA, go to the following websites: Damascus Citizens and Water Under Attack.
For understanding the land area needed for alternative energy sources (agricultural or solar) to collect the same amount of energy as other energy sources or to replace the 'embodied energy' of a $1 share of any modern economy, there are some general estmating tools Ref: DollarShadow.htm--Pfhenshaw
For understanding approaching natural limits to the marginal usefulness of resources experienced as increasingly difficult learning tasks due to complications or barriers to perfection you can begin with Ref: Learning Curves--Pfhenshaw
"Green the Bailout" Tom Friedman, NY Times Op-Ed Ref: [3]
What Else?
Use this space to offer any other suggestions or ideas that may not fit into the above categories.
Tom Friedman's Sept 14th op-ed piece "Making America Stupid" Tom-Friedman Op-ED frames the oil versus alternative energy issue well. For a deeper analysis/view, Friedman's new book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" goes to great lengths to describe the energy/climate nexus, the challenges, benefits, and consequences of inaction.
Patricia Taylor, NYC
Last week, on 9/25/08, six states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) held the first-in-the nation CO2 allowance auction. According to the RGGI press release, demand was four times the available supply and the $38.5 million in auction proceeds will be distributed to the states to be invested "in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, and programs to benefit energy consumers." With a void in federal leadership, the ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states participating in RGGI have "designed the first market-based, mandatory cap-and-trade program in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." "Under the RGGI process, participating states will stabilize power sector CO2 emissions at the capped level through 2014. The cap will then be reduced by 2.5 percent in each of the four years through 2018, for a total reduction of 10 percent."
This seems like a big deal to me, but it received remarkably little press attention. (Of course we were in bail-out mode and multi-tasking IS difficult, but still...)
In the future we will have to replace dirty oil (and coal) with electricity produced from clean alternative sources (wind, solar, nuclear perhaps, clean coal maybe). This transition will take time and the fact that some states (including NY) are starting the process now should have been big news!
Patricia Taylor, NYC
Another way to push the transition from oil and coal to clean alternatives is as consumers. For quite awhile now, New Yorkers have been able to choose to buy certified green electricity (generated from solar, wind, small hydro) through Con Edison Solutions for only a few extra dollars per month. If more green power were demanded by consumers, then more electricity on the regional grid would have to come from clean sources to satisfy the need. (Go to www.ConEdisonSolutions.com and ask for "Green Power")
Finally -- although I dislike the idea of nuclear power and think nothing new should be built before there's a solution to the storage issue -- a speaker at State of the Planet 08 at Columbia last spring made a good point. She noted that one of the reasons the nuclear plants in France have been so safe and successful is that -- unlike in the U.S. -- they used a standard design model. That way, all parts are interchangeable and continue to be manufactured; and an employee at one plant there can easily switch to a different plant without any extra training. Here we have all different designs, with different operating procedures, and sometimes no factories to produce new parts and obvious staff continuity problems throughout the industry. SO -- if we do build new nuke plants, we must follow the French model and standardize!
---YourGo, Astoria, NYC---
One of my big concerns, when it comes to Oil companies, is the extremely large amount of power they have. They have influenced American politics for the past 40 years and seem to have had an extreme influence on the Bush administration. How does the next President of the United States diminish the power of Oil companies? How does he limit their influence on the American government? We cannot have another Presidency, such as Bush Presidency, which places Oil above the American Poeple. What benefits Oil does not benefit the American People.
Oil has accumulated so much power and gran amounts of money over the past 8 years that i am afraid that they might start using their power as they wish through mercinary groups such as Blackwater. Is this a possibility we should be even considering? That a Corporation will start using aggressive actions to promote their agenda? Haliburton and Blackwater have increased their cooperation over the past 6 years working together in Iraq. We all know who the former CEO of Haliburton is and how his influence has affected our government.
Some Concrete Energy-Saving Proposals
Barry Katz, Westport, CT
Single family homes are responsible for 21% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. If you consider all buildings, that figure rises to 40%. Making buildings more energy efficient would have an enormous impact on our climate and our economy. There is a lot of information on energy efficient green design and construction on my web site, www.katzhome.com along with a list of 51 simple things you can do to make your home greener, conserve energy, and help save our planet.
---oo---markbnj at Excite says ---oo---
(quick explanation:) I have a blog with 11 inter-connected things I think need to be fixed in our society. you can easily find the link below... One subject I discuss is energy (and will also paste the text here...) link: (by the way, written last year! marks-energy-proposals
At least HERE we can begin talking about energy proposals. This will discuss specific energy proposals I believe that will help re-invent our society.
Proposal E-0: Intro to WVO
Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) (the stuff your fries are made in) can be recycled into usable fuel in ANY Diesel car.
It's been proven that ANY diesel engine can take a 30% mixture of Vegetable oil to Diesel fuel... Imagine if EVERY truck used 3 gallons of WVO for every 7 gallons of diesel.. We've just increased fuel efficiency by 30%!
Now. If you MODIFY a diesel engine you can run 100% WVO. It requires heating the WVO so it doesn't coagulate.
Imagine that we take ALL of the Wasted Vegetable Oil, and set up co-operative non-profits to distribute it!
Proposal E-1: Mileage
Car mileage "CAFE" standards will rise automatically every year by a minimum of five percent from the previous year's standards. Companies or groups disputing or challenging these regulations will pay:
1. Legal fees (prepaid in advance) for both sides in advance of any challenges in the form of a secured bond(?).
2. Companies not found in favor of will receive a penalty of double legal fees, (payable to the new government research fund),
and a ten percent performance increase (for that year) over the previous year, in required mileage.
These two measures are designed to get faster, more enthusiastic participation and buy-in from the automobile manufacturers and their lobbyists, who have delayed twenty years of previous progress.
Proposal E-2: Energy Research
A new national research program (similar to the Manhattan project of World War II, which produced the Atomic Bomb), will be established and paid for by the federal government, to fund energy research, development AND manufacture of current and future energy technologies for transportation/home/commercial uses.
Proposal E-3: Institution
A new national institution that will support this research program, with ties and links to various existing educational institutions.
Proposal E-4: Lighting
All decorative lighting fixtures (christmas, christmas trees, halloween lights) must be energy efficient (LED) and all existing displays must be replaced within (public,commercial=five years; home/personal=ten years). Existing stocks of (unsold) non LED lighting MUST be sold by Year end 2010, and may not be sold (or even given away) starting 1/1/2011. Sale (or use) of non LED lighting items will be subject to surcharges payable to (??non-profit educational institution explaining energy use?) starting in 2011.
Proposal E-5: LEDs
The energy research program will work to develop a fast, feasible, cost effective (inexpensive) method of manufacturing LED light bulbs that can be manufactured in the United States.
Proposal E-6: WasteOil
A fund to promote Waste Vegetable Oil will be established to help promote new local non-profit diesel engine conversion and filtering projects. To encourage WVO usage, no taxes will be levvied on WVO [either federal,state or local](except in case of adoption of a nationwide Value-Added Tax (VAT).
Funds will be used to help research and reduce costs of converting diesels to automatic operation with WVO, as well as helping start commercial filtering plants.
Proposal E-7: WVO/Diesel availability.
A new infrastructure to support a thirty-fifty percent WVO to diesel fuel for ALL diesel cars will be implement. These local non-profits will also start to develop a presence at local truck-stops too.
Proposal E-8: MonopolyExclusions
Existing fast food, and national food chains will not be allowed to require their franchisees to use a specific pre-determined contractor for waste oil management.
Proposal E-9: Refurbish our freight and passenger rail system, as well as our shipping ports
Proposal E-10: Install a light rail system down the central median of major roads and highways through suburban areas. Use a similar approach in major cities.
Proposal E-11: Regulate the building code at a federal level to employ green and efficiency technologies. This would include but not be limited to Daylighting, Passive heat and cooling, and Green roofing on commercial buildings.
Proposal E-12: Establish a special income tax fund targeting the top 5% salary earners in the country and use this money EXCLUSIVELY as a base for creating our new energy system. I am sure we can get at least several billion dollars per year in this manner. This would be in addition to the regular taxes they pay. After all, wealthy families consume much more than the rest of us, thus contributing disproportionately to GHG emissions. As the candidates said in the debate tonight "we all need to sacrifice."
Proposal T-1:
Transportation proposals here: http://sos-newdeal.blogspot.com/2008/02/proposal-transportation-and-energy.html
A total rebuilding and re-dedication of our workers using a Work projects administration type group will be required to re-do the roads and infrastructure in our country. The effective Energy savings would be from removing and redirecting a great deal of today's Diesel truck distribution system into facilitating delivery via a new system using the existing roads, and a TRAIN transit system.
Dwight Eisenhower did a great job in the 1950's, but we need to revisit the national highway system and do fresh investment incorporating freight (train) transportation, as well as commuter or light rail lines, along ALL existing roads.
All existing highways will be retrofitted by the new infrastructure corps, to have a freight rail line and a commuter or light rail line.
The freight line will be capable of loading trucks at the beginning of the highway, and delivering them without any diesel gas used to the end of the highway (or anywhere in between)
Commuter lines will (eventually) interconnect and interchange.
The jobs and positions for these construction jobs will be from training/draft, as well from infrastucture agency, and will also serve as on the job training/job training for unemployed (at living wages!)
(T2 and T3 are not ENERGY related:)
Radical proposal T-4 (Transport-4) New Commercial Construction
All new industrial/freight/OFFICE centers will be built with access to RR tracks to re-encourage rail transportation.
Radical proposal T-5 (Transport-5)New Offices
All new industrial /Freight/Office centers and ALL commercial construction over (initally over 5 million dollars, and eventually down to 1.5 million) certain price point will require green energy, construction, ingress to Rail lines, and if possible energy regeneration technologies.
Radical proposal T-6 (Transport-6)New Homes/energy
within 5 years, Multiple Residential units over three units will require green construction. A twenty year goal will be to have all new residential construction become green.
Notes: proposals T1 T4, T5 and T6 ARE also energy related:
T1: Proposes a new Rail construction system for transporting freight (instead of via trucks). T4: All new commercial construction nationwide will require access to RR tracks, to facilitate this. T5: All New offices will require Green energy, regeneration techniques. T6: Push T5 down to the residential level for multi-unit homes.
PS: I have 11 inter-related goals, that all need to be balanced (go to the sos-newdeal.blogspot.com blog to see them...
---oo---markbnj at Excite says ---oo---
My home on Long Island produces more electricity than we use each year. We installed solar panels in 2002 and
each year we get a check from LIPA for the excess we produce. We are also super insulated with a high efficiency
heating system--99.9% in my half of the home and 85% in my mother's apartment. We installed 23 SEER "central"
air conditioning in 2007 and still we produce more electricity than we use. I have driven a Prius since 2004.
Our lighting is all high efficiency flourescent and LED (which are not yet ready for general consumption.)
We can move this country out of energy dependancy in 5 years, if we approached the problem with the kind of effort it demands.
Tim Kunz, D. Min.
We know offshore drilling wouldn't bring gasoline prices down significantly for 10-15 years. For comparison, what's the timeline for research into more efficient solar panels? Could it be accelerated if the money for offshore drilling were put into solar power research instead?
And please, let's question the idea of having energy consumption double on a regular basis! There's no Moore's Law for energy use--conservation and efficiency need to be a major part of the solution, and many aspects of this approach don't have to be difficult or expensive. --Amy from Manhattan
