Letters to the Editor
-
Xanthro
The problem with satire is you have to aim it at people who understand it. Sadly Saloniks would actually embrace most of what you propose. During the years of Stalin, it was a small cadre of devoted Party Members who actively pursued all of the persecutions and atrocities that killed millions and plummeted the country into anarchy and famine for the sake of ideology and personal affect. Even when they themselves were harmed.
It takes a village to raise a child, also, it takes one to build and operate a deathcamp.
-
Horse shit!
"No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China's current fuel-efficiency standard. -- zzz05
Most of the cars sold China are the same cars being sold in the U.S. The one major exception being pick-up truck. MB, BMW and Land Rover all sell very well to the nouveau rich in the People's Republic. GM and Ford both sell mid-sized cars there.
http://www.gmchina.com/english/index.jsp
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-12/04/content_6296588.htm
-
What can I say...
I was really disturbed by the snarky tone of so many responses--but maybe that followed from the flip headline.
The reality is that solving the global warming crisis will take exactly the sort's of solutions that Romm suggests. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, the supply of oil will decrease and the cost will increase...somewhat in step with (or ahead of) the reductions in demand that are absolutely necessary to reduce CO2 emissions.
There isn't a magic bullet to solve the problem of increasing demand and increasing emissions, but the problem can be attacked in "wedges" that are achievable with current technology and reasonably predicted technology improvements. It's not just about more efficient vehicles, it's also about about energy efficiency, alternative fuels, solar power, nuclear power, wind power, ethanol, reforestation, carbon sequestration, etc. etc. etc.. It will cost money, and people will find it inconvenient.
I guess what bothers me about the snarkiness is the realization that there is so little time to solve the problem...and if we fail, the consequences are dire.
-
@Xanthro
Because we all lived in caves before ADM came along to feed us, I guess? And obviously we're far better off with shopping malls and endless acres of McMansions where there used to be farms.
Your knowledge of technology is pretty lacking, from what I can see.
-
Nuclear makes the problem worse
Many CO2-reduction strategies actually have negative or near-zero costs, as the author and several commenters have noted. But some require substantial investment. The upside to this is that in return for that investment, they contribute to the CO2 balance sheet *much* more per dollar invested than a nuclear power system will.
Since every dollar can only be spent once, building nukes with them is not strictly rational, it is what's called "crackpot realism."
-
@aveutter
Those who suggest we can live off the electricity from a few solar panels are aging hippies and green freaks. There is no way the average American will keep their quality of life with less electricity.
You should look into what's already been accomplished since the 1970s in terms of $GDP/joule. Despite what the petroleum and electric power conglomerates would tell you, there's no reason to think prosperity and energy consumption are related by a proportionality constant.
Since industrial operations do address energy as a cost factor to some degree, they have reduced the energy input per dollar of output substantially since the 1970s, such that improvements in efficiency can be considered the largest new "source" of energy over that period.
For specifics, I refer you to rmi.org. They've been in the business for a long time, they charge consulting rates for their services to the EPRI and the Pentagon, and antagonists have learned to try to ignore them or sow FUD, because going head to head with them on the numbers is not a win.
-
Free markets...
Much can be said for this article, but let`s look at this statement:
"Increased fuel economy can be achieved either by mandates, such as the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, or by higher prices achieved through higher taxes."
Why ignore the factor which has a long history of bringing demand and supply and prices and efficiency all into balance for any commodity? That factor is the free market. Free means practicing within the established laws but free...unsupervised by Washington know-it-alls, unbiased by politicians and their corporate sponsors. You know...free.
The Clintons, and the Obamas, and the McCains know nothing about energy (or healthcare or education or much else really). Yet there is an overwhelming rush to hand such people the power to regulate, tax, supervise, and above all spend us to prosperity.
Societies where the people are free to invest and succeed or fail on their own initiative prosper handsomely. Where government controls and mandates and micro-manages, only bureaucrats prosper.
Why is it we condemn virtually every act of the government as being grossly inefficient, insensitive, and ill-conceived? Then when there is a problem the first thing we do is call for more government.
-
Peak oil, solved
Excellent article but how will all this electricity used to recharge our hybrids be produced? We all know that replacing coal fired electric plants is crucial to keep CO2 levels down.
-
Hydrogen
No mention of that, other than indirectly? The reality about electricity is nuclear to way too costly and the waste unacceptable, not to mention mining the uranium. Coal is what is used primarily for generation, and there is no real feasible way to keep that going and meet the goal in the time we have. We DO indeed need to have a multi-pronged approach right now. But more needs to be devoted to development of these alternate sources.
The advances in non-photovaltic solar power generation are on track to the capability of supplying one-quarter to one-third of our power needs in the next decade or two, IF we choose to persue it. The the only sustainable and the ultimate power for vehicles and homes will be hydrogen, either compressed or in fuel cells. Generating it via solar power is a closed loop solution, no CO2 generated. Developing it to make it feasible to have a Hydrogen station in every home (like Honda is prototyping), but run on Solar is the only long term solution that is sustainable in the long run.
Let's get going on that. Let's stop wasting time trying to squeeze the last drop of oil so the oil companies can keep their profit margins up.