Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom
Energy Literacy Advocates (ELA) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public education and advocacy group dedicated to improving the energy literacy of all sectors of our democracy in order to empower a comprehensive national energy policy that is responsible and sustainable. Stay tuned for updated energy news!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Electric Companies to Convert Fleets
Labels: electricity, environment
posted by Amanda Voss at 10:31 AM
0 comments
Friday, September 11, 2009
Renewable Energy Debate Offers Insights
Labels: electricity, energy sources, environment, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:23 PM
0 comments
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Nuclear Included in New Energy Profile
Labels: energy, energy sources, environment, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:12 AM
0 comments
Friday, June 26, 2009
American Clean Energy and Security Act Gets Boost from President
Labels: climate change, environment, global warming, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:30 AM
0 comments
Monday, June 22, 2009
Budget Office Releases Controversial Energy Bill Costs
The CBO calculated average cost to be $175 per household per year. To calculate these expenses, CBO evaluated only the cap and trade legislation portions. Costs will be higher for wealthier households, based on a net cost of $22 billion.
Critics have cited the CBO's estimates as overly optimistic. The costs calculate expenses for only part of the bill, and count benefits like free permits to offset costs. Without these provisions, total cost may reach beyond $110 billion in 2020, or $890 annually per household.
HR 2454 is expected to be put up for full debate in the House by July.
To read more about this issue in The New York Times, click here.
Labels: climate change, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 1:32 PM
0 comments
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Energy Secretary Pushes Climate Bill
Labels: climate change, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:50 AM
0 comments
Monday, June 15, 2009
"Clean" Coal Again in America's Energy Portfolio?
The government will offer 2 to 1 funding alongside private investors to create a prototype coal plant which captures the carbon dioxide it produces. Initial government funding estimates are over $1 billion for the joint research effort.
To read an opinion article about this policy reversal, click here.
Labels: energy sources, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:02 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
House Floor Vote Looms for 'Cash for Clunkers' Measure
Two similar versions of this legislation exist in the House and Senate, and most predict that some form of compromise bill will pass Congress before fall. Debate has centered on whether the bill can provide incentives and stimulus for carmakers while also raising the average mileage performance of America's fleet.
To read the full Associated Press report, click here.
Labels: automakers, economy, efficiency, environment, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 10:12 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
EIA Releases Extended Energy, Pollution Outlook
While substantial growth is expected in the use of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind and solar, the EIA maintains that overall growth in demand will require continued reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil and coal.
The biggest increases in energy use will come from economically developing countries such as China and India.
To read more, click here.
Labels: energy, energy policy, energy sources, environment, global warming
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:37 PM
0 comments
Thursday, May 21, 2009
2008 Data Reveals Record Drop in U.S. Carbon Emissions
Much of this decrease may be attributed to the drop in travel caused by soaring gasoline and diesel costs last summer and the general economic decline later in the year, which added up to a 2.2 percent drop in energy consumption. The largest previous drop in travel related emissions was 1.3 percent in 1991.
Overall, the government reported Wednesday that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined by 2.8 percent last year compared to 2007, the largest annual drop since the government began regular reporting of greenhouse gas pollution.
To read more, click here.
Labels: climate change, energy, environment, global warming
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:26 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
House Democrats Seek Party Consensus for American Clean Energy and Security Act
This legislation will have to please both environmental and industry groups and have the support of moderate Democrats on the House Energy Committee.
The bill, which includes "Cash for Clunkers" and other environmental provisions, is slated for a Memorial Day release from Committee. To help ensure its survival, Democrats have lowered targets for renewable energy, will require a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming, and will give away valuable permits to release pollution to electricity distribution companies and auto manufacturers.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:29 AM
0 comments
Monday, May 11, 2009
Energy Legislation Draft Possible This Week
The subcomittee has pledged to maintain its Memorial Day deadline for release.
While agreement exists over provisions like "Cash for Clunkers," dissension remains over climate policy. Lawmakers have focused on four critical areas: targets and timetables for domestic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, distribution of valuable emission allowances; use of offsets to ease industrial compliance costs; and a nationwide renewable electricity standard.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: automakers, energy policy, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:33 AM
0 comments
Friday, April 24, 2009
Weighing the Cost of Proposed Energy Legislation
These higher prices would come as the result of proposed cap and trade legislation, currently under consideration in Congress. The proposed plan puts a price on the gases linked to global warming, and establishes a paid permit system for emissions.
While energy providers proposed that initial permits be offered free of charge, the president's budget assumes that allowances will be sold and uses the projected $650 billion in revenue to help people pay for higher energy costs and to develop new, more climate friendly energy sources.
"It should not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue. ... It should be something that is trying to achieve its objective of reducing carbon emissions in the country and that alone," said Glenn English, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents 42 million consumers in 47 states.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: climate change, energy, environment, gas tax, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:48 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Iconic Empire State Building to "Go Green"
The building is beginning a $500 million renovation, with $100 million specifically aimed at making it more energy efficient. In all, the project is expected to save about $4.4 million a year on energy.
Project coordinators aim to make the famous skyscraper, once the tallest in the world, a model of energy efficiency and conservation.
Labels: efficiency, energy, environment
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:55 AM
0 comments
Thursday, April 2, 2009
New Google Tool Maps Out Renewable Energy Conflict
The tool, available on Google Earth, shows renewable-power developers areas which are amenable or not recommended by pulling together maps of endangered species habitats, national parks and other forms of protected land. Areas not recommended for development are highlighted.
Find the new ecological Google Earth mapping tool at www.nrdc.org/PathtoGreenEnergy.
Labels: environment, renewables
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:31 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Global Warming & Energy Bill Released by House Democrats
Sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the bill would establish a cap-and-trade program curbing U.S. emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. It also creates a nationwide renewable electricity standard that reaches 25 percent by 2025, new energy efficiency programs and limits on the carbon content of motor fuels, and requires greenhouse gas standards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines.
To read the full article and learn more details about the bill draft, click here.
Labels: energy policy, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:46 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Interior Secretary Salazar Reveals Department's Energy Agenda
Salazar cited offshore wind projects on the Atlantic coast as a key to meeting renewable energy goals in America.
Additionally, Salazar promised to review oil and gas exploration leases on public lands. So far this year, proposed tests to explore oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have been sidelined by Interior Department rulings.
To read the full Associate Press release, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy, energy sources, environment, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 10:34 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
EPA Issues Most Energy Efficient City Rankings
Los Angeles currently has 262 Energy Star ranked buildings. To be awarded the Energy Star designation, buildings must use at least 35% less energy than average buildings and emit 35% less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
San Francisco came in second in the country. Rounding out the top 10 in 2008 were Houston; Washington; Dallas-Fort Worth; Chicago; Denver; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Atlanta; and Seattle.
Labels: environment, renewables
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:36 AM
0 comments
Monday, February 9, 2009
New Chair of House Energy Subcommittee Reveals Policy Goals
Citing staunch agreement with T. Boone Pickens, Markey is well-known as a champion for tougher vehicle fuel efficiency standards, a foe of nuclear power plants and has called for less generous royalty terms for oil production on federal lands. He has also supported a windfall tax for oil companies since the 1980s.
While Markey focused on energy-related parts of Congress’ economic stimulus package at CERA, he also indicated that massive climate change law is expected out of his committee this spring.
To read the full article and hear more about Markey and proposed energy policy, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy, energy policy, environment, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 11:29 AM
0 comments
Monday, January 26, 2009
Executive Order to Allow Tougher Emissions Standards
The ruling will effect 14 states, including California. California has been mired in attempts to raise emissions and efficiency standards for several years, a move that the Environmental Protection Agency rejected, as it was an alteration from the federal standard. Obama’s presidential memorandum is expected to reverse this stance.
Beyond acting on the California emissions law, officials predict that Obama will direct the Transportation Department to finalize interim nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards to comply with a 2007 law.
To read the full article in the New York Times, click here.
Labels: automakers, efficiency, environment, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:20 AM
0 comments
Friday, January 23, 2009
Energy Attachment to Stimulus Bill Clears House Panel
Other measures, like spending for power lines, efficiency projects, and a program to insulate low-income homes, are also included. Additionally, the measure would provide $8.4 billion in renewable energy loan guarantees, renewing and extending some existing programs.
The energy provision is a portion of the $825 billion economic stimulus measure. The broader legislation includes $550 billion in new government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: efficiency, energy policy, energy sources, environment, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:25 AM
0 comments
Friday, January 16, 2009
Nominee Salazar Touts Energy Agenda as Secretary of the Interior
Salazar emphasized the need for a balanced yet innovative approach to energy issues, promising to consider numerous options for energy independence, including offshore oil drilling and, under the right conditions, oil shale development on government lands.
While offering moderation on points like offshore drilling, Salazar emphasized his aggressive stance on energy independence for America. Renewable energy development -- a cause he championed as senator -- remains a main goal for Salazar, who also promised a balanced approach to energy and land-use policy.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, energy sources, environment, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:29 AM
0 comments
Thursday, November 13, 2008
International Energy Agency Releases World Energy Report
The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2008 World Energy Report. The Report stressed that world energy systems face a crossroads, and must combat patently unsustainable behaviors. Despite the recent economic downturns which have lessened demand on oil, the Report states that "Oil is the world’s vital source of energy and will remain so for many years to come, even under the most optimistic of assumptions about the pace of development
and deployment of alternative technology."
Given the world's reliance on oil, the IEA calls for radical and coordinated policy action from national and international authorities in order to both decarbonize energy sources while speeding up the transition to alternative energy forms. The IEA promoted increasing financial incentives and regulatory frameworks, and removing existing conventional energy subsidies, as viable policy paths. The Report stresses that any policy choice must support both energy-security andclimate-policy goals in an integrated way.
While the IEA holds that world oil has yet to reach a peak, the fact that oil field declines are accelerating should prompt government actors, despite the fall in oil prices, to continue aggressively investing in alternative energy paths.
To read the IEA World Energy Report, and access other IEA materials, click here.
Labels: energy policy, environment, oil price, oil supply
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:48 AM
0 comments
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tipping Point for Consciousness is Economic
Columnist Jeffrey Ball attributes Europe's energy consumption patterns - where the average resident consumes less than half as much oil each year as the average American - to high energy taxes, rather than environmental awareness. These economic penalties make conservation rational and not just virtuous.
For the full text of this article, click here.
Labels: economy, energy sources, environment, oil price, oil supply/demand
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:51 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Winds of Change: Corporations Lend Names to Wind Farms
For the full article on this green corporate trend, click here.
Labels: economy, energy sources, environment
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:30 PM
0 comments
Friday, March 14, 2008
EPA Expands Diesel Emission Standards
This article further describes the EPA's new standards, which aim to aid communities in achieving better ozone standards.
Labels: energy policy, environment
posted by Amanda Voss at 10:17 AM
0 comments
Thursday, February 7, 2008
What Washington Can Learn From Montana
Read the article here.
Labels: energy policy, environment, oil prices, renewables
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:47 PM
0 comments
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Biofuels May Threaten Environment, UN Warns
Read the article here.
Labels: biofuels, environment
posted by Jamie Lang at 6:09 AM
0 comments
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Environmental Field Guide to the Presidential Candidates
Friday, Nov. 02, 2007
The Eco Vote
By Jeffrey Kluger
The most remarkable thing about the environmental debates taking place in this year's presidential campaign is that they're occurring at all. Once the stuff of a few hug-the-planet bromides in green states like Vermont and Oregon, the environment is one of the hot topics of the 2008 campaign. Yes, there are some candidates who haven't gotten the message (witness Fred Thompson's loopy joke that global warming is taking place on Mars and Jupiter too). But for voters shopping for a green Prez, it's all at once a buyer's market. Here's how the Big Six candidates shape up.
[Energy Literacy note - Each candidate provides their views on each of the following categories, in this order: 1)Carbon Caps, 2)Energy Efficiency, 3)Mileage, 4)Nuclear Energy, 5)Drilling]
HILLARY CLINTON
1) Supports cap-and-trade, allowing businesses to swap carbon credits. Seeks an 80% carbon cut by 2050
2) Seeks a 10% reduction in national energy use by 2020. Wants new federal buildings to be “zero emission” by 2030
3) Calls for raising gas-mileage (CAFE) standards to 35 m.p.g. within 10 years. Will use administrative power if Congress declines to act
4) Has not taken a strong position on nuclear power; calls herself “agnostic” on the topic
5) Has opposed drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in the Atlantic
JOHN EDWARDS
1) Supports cap-and-trade beginning in 2010 and 80% reduction in carbon output by 2050
2) Wants 15% cut in energy use by 2018. Seeks efficiency standards for federal buildings and vehicles
3) Wants 40-m.p.g. national average to be achieved by 2016. Proposes $1 billion per year fund to stimulate innovations in fuel efficiency
4) Opposes expanded use of nuclear power. Worries about safety
5) Opposes drilling in ANWR and offshore. Voted against both while in the Senate
RUDY GIULIANI
1) Acknowledges global warming but rejects cap-and-trade. Has not proposed any specific carbon-reduction targets
2) Broadly approves of alternative-energy sources and improved efficiency, but has no specific proposals
3) Hasn’t called for specific changes in auto-mileage requirements. Not seen as likely to do so
4) Supports increased use of nuclear energy. His private firm has conducted security work for the nuclear industry
5) Supports drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as well as in ANWR. Has received heavy campaign contributions from oil and gas industries
JOHN MCCAIN
1) Co-sponsor of Senate cap-and-trade bill; seen as a bipartisan leader on the issue. Wants 65% reduction in carbon by 2050
2) Generally supports increased energy efficiency but has not announced specific targets
3) Calls generally for raising CAFE standards. In past has advocated 35 m.p.g.
4) Supports expanded use of nuclear energy. Advocates including it as part of a broad mix of nonpetroleum power sources
5) Opposes drilling in ANWR. Has consistently voted against it despite party pressure favoring expanded exploration
MITT ROMNEY
1) Would consider cap-and-trade only if part of a larger global plan
2) Generally supports improved efficiency but does not address the issue regularly and offers no targets
3) Would not support mileage goals as a stand-alone measure. Would consider them only if they were part of a comprehensive energy plan
4) Supports more use of nuclear power as part of energy mix
5) Supports drilling in ANWR and offshore and stresses the point in video on his campaign website
BARACK OBAMA
1) Supports cap-and-trade legislation and calls for an 80% carbon reduction by 2050
2) Stresses innovation as a means to improve efficiency. Calls for a 50% improvement by 2030
3) Has alternately called for 50 m.p.g. within 18 years or 1-m.p.g.-improvement per year rule. To ease transition, wants tax credits for automakers
4) Is willing to explore expanded use of nuclear power. Not an enthusiast
5) Opposes ANWR drilling. Missed 2007 Senate vote on drilling off the coast of Virginia
Conclusion
So who's the greenest in this red-blue scrum? For the GOP, it's McCain. For the Dems, a toss-up. But beyond the Big Six, there's a surprise seventh: Bill Richardson. The New Mexico Guv sets higher targets than the rest: a 90% cut in carbon by 2050; 50 m.p.g. by 2020. He would also slash oil imports 85% by 2025. Being a second-tier candidate may free him to take chances. Among green voters, that's a way to make it to the top tier.
Labels: election 2008, environment
posted by Jamie Lang at 2:38 PM
0 comments
Friday, December 14, 2007
U.N. report: Urgent action needed on 'severe' climate change
"Climate change is 'severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action' can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday. The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis."
Read the full article here.
Labels: energy policy, environment
posted by Jamie Lang at 7:42 AM
0 comments
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Carbon's New Math
________________________________________________________
The CO2 from fossil fuels lingers in the atmosphere, so global warming can't be undone. But catastrophe can still be averted.
By Bill McKibben
National Geographic Magazine, October 2007
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/carbon-crisis/carbon-crisis.html
Here's how it works. Before the industrial revolution, the Earth's atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. That was a good amount–"good" defined as "what we were used to." Since the molecular structure of carbon dioxide traps heat near the planet's surface that would otherwise radiate back out to space, civilization grew up in a world whose thermostat was set by that number. It equated to a global average temperature of about 57 degrees Fahrenheit (about 14 degrees Celsius), which in turn equated to all the places we built our cities, all the crops we learned to grow and eat, all the water supplies we learned to depend on, even the passage of the seasons that, at higher latitudes, set our psychological calendars.
Once we started burning coal and gas and oil to power our lives, that 280 number started to rise. When we began measuring in the late 1950s, it had already reached the 315 level. Now it's at 380, and increasing by roughly two parts per million annually. That doesn't sound like very much, but it turns out that the extra heat that CO2 traps, a couple of watts per square meter of the Earth's surface, is enough to warm the planet considerably. We've raised the temperature more than a degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) already. It's impossible to precisely predict the consequences of any further increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. But the warming we've seen so far has started almost everything frozen on Earth to melting; it has changed seasons and rainfall patterns; it's set the sea to rising.
No matter what we do now, that warming will increase some–there's a lag time before the heat fully plays out in the atmosphere. That is, we can't stop global warming. Our task is less inspiring: to contain the damage, to keep things from getting out of control. And even that is not easy. For one thing, until recently there's been no clear data suggesting the point where catastrophe looms. Now we're getting a better picture–the past couple of years have seen a series of reports indicating that 450 parts per million CO2 is a threshold we'd be wise to respect. Beyond that point, scientists believe future centuries will likely face the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and a subsequent rise in sea level of giant proportion. Four hundred fifty parts per million is still a best guess (and it doesn't include the witches' brew of other, lesser, greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide). But it will serve as a target of sorts for the world to aim at. A target that's moving, fast. If concentrations keep increasing by two parts per million per year, we're only three and a half decades away.
So the math isn't complicated–but that doesn't mean it isn't intimidating. So far only the Europeans and Japanese have even begun to trim their carbon emissions, and they may not meet their own modest targets. Meanwhile, U.S. carbon emissions, a quarter of the world's total, continue to rise steadily–earlier this year we told the United Nations we'd be producing 20 percent more carbon in 2020 than we had in 2000. China and India are suddenly starting to produce huge quantities of CO2 as well. On a per capita basis (which is really the only sensible way to think about the morality of the situation), they aren't anywhere close to American figures, but their populations are so huge, and their economic growth so rapid, that they make the prospect of a worldwide decline in emissions seem much more daunting. The Chinese are currently building a coal-fired power plant every week or so. That's a lot of carbon.
Everyone involved knows what the basic outlines of a deal that could avert catastrophe would look like: rapid, sustained, and dramatic cuts in emissions by the technologically advanced countries, coupled with large-scale technology transfer to China, India, and the rest of the developing world so that they can power up their emerging economies without burning up their coal. Everyone knows the big questions, too: Are such rapid cuts even possible? Do we have the political will to make them and to extend them overseas?
The first question–is it even possible?–is usually addressed by fixating on some single new technology (hydrogen! ethanol!) and imagining it will solve our troubles. But the scale of the problem means we'll need many strategies. Three years ago a Princeton team made one of the best assessments of the possibilities. Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science detailing 15 stabilization wedges"–changes big enough to really matter, and for which the technology was already available or clearly on the horizon. Most people have heard of some of them: more fuel-efficient cars, better-built homes, wind turbines, biofuels like ethanol. Others are newer and less sure: plans for building coal-fired power plants that can separate carbon from the exhaust so it can be "sequestered" underground. (See Illustration "How to Cut Emissions.")
These approaches have one thing in common: They're more difficult than simply burning fossil fuel. They force us to realize that we've already had our magic fuel and that what comes next will be more expensive and more difficult. The price tag for the global transition will be in the trillions of dollars. Of course, along the way it will create myriad new jobs, and when it's complete, it may be a much more elegant system. (Once you've built the windmill, the wind is free; you don't need to guard it against terrorists or build a massive army to control the countries from which it blows.) And since we're wasting so much energy now, some of the first tasks would be relatively easy. If we replaced every incandescent bulb that burned out in the next decade anyplace in the world with a compact fluorescent, we'd make an impressive start on one of the 15 wedges. But in that same decade we'd need to build 400,000 large wind turbines–clearly possible, but only with real commitment. We'd need to follow the lead of Germany and Japan and seriously subsidize rooftop solar panels; we'd need to get most of the world's farmers plowing their fields less, to build back the carbon their soils have lost. We'd need to do everything all at once.
As precedents for such collective effort, people sometimes point to the Manhattan Project to build a nuclear weapon or the Apollo Program to put a man on the moon. But those analogies don't really work. They demanded the intense concentration of money and intelligence on a single small niche in our technosphere. Now we need almost the opposite: a commitment to take what we already know how to do and somehow spread it into every corner of our economies, and indeed our most basic activities. It's as if NASA's goal had been to put all of us on the moon.
Not all the answers are technological, of course–maybe not even most of them. Many of the paths to stabilization run straight through our daily lives, and in every case they will demand difficult changes. Air travel is one of the fastest growing sources of carbon emissions around the world, for instance, but even many of us who are noble about changing lightbulbs and happy to drive hybrid cars chafe at the thought of not jetting around the country or the world. By now we're used to ordering take-out food from every corner of the world every night of our lives–according to one study, the average bite of food has traveled nearly 1,500 miles (2,414 kilometers) before it reaches an American's lips, which means it's been marinated in (crude) oil. We drive alone, because it's more convenient than adjusting our schedules for public transit. We build ever bigger homes even as our family sizes shrink, and we watch ever bigger TVs, and–well, enough said. We need to figure out how to change those habits.
Probably the only way that will happen is if fossil fuel costs us considerably more. All the schemes to cut carbon emissions–the so-called cap-and-trade systems, for instance, that would let businesses bid for permission to emit–are ways to make coal and gas and oil progressively more expensive, and thus to change the direction in which economic gravity pulls when it applies to energy. If what we paid for a gallon of gas reflected even a portion of its huge environmental cost, we'd be driving small cars to the train station, just like the Europeans. And we'd be riding bikes when the sun shone.
The most straightforward way to raise the price would be a tax on carbon. But that's not easy. Since everyone needs to use fuel, it would be regressive–you'd have to figure out how to keep from hurting poor people unduly. And we'd need to be grown-up enough to have a real conversation about taxes–say, about switching away from taxes on things we like (employment) to taxes on things we hate (global warming). That may be too much to ask for–but if it is, then what chance is there we'll be able to take on the even more difficult task of persuading the Chinese, the Indians, and all who are lined up behind them to forgo a coal-powered future in favor of something more manageable? We know it's possible–earlier this year a UN panel estimated that the total cost for the energy transition, once all the pluses and minuses were netted out, would be just over 0.1 percent of the world's economy each year for the next quarter century. A small price to pay.
In the end, global warming presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced. Are we ready to change, in dramatic and prolonged ways, in order to offer a workable future to subsequent generations and diverse forms of life? If we are, new technologies and new habits offer some promise. But only if we move quickly and decisively–and with a maturity we've rarely shown as a society or a species. It's our coming-of-age moment, and there are no certainties or guarantees. Only a window of possibility, closing fast but still ajar enough to let in some hope.
Labels: environment, oil supply/demand
posted by Jamie Lang at 8:56 AM
0 comments
