All,
I admit to being a bit of a pragmatist but I read this thread and often it
seems to devolve to either/or options.
A sound energy policy CAN include current oil, and other less sustainable,
sources IN conjunction with "alternative fuels" as clearly the US public
needs more time, education, and what they perceive as viable options in
order to make any transitions. Sound energy policy with short term, mid
term and long term options moving from predominately petroleum based energy
sources to something diverse and sustainable in the future. To me there are
a series of steps that need to be laid out before we'll see real change -
this would resemble something like (and not be limited to)...
Short Term Examples? There are many that are immediately available...
- Reduce our consumption of oil by mandating higher efficiency vehicles
routinely
- Use less MidEast oil (too destabilizing in so many ways) and make sure we
can still preserve our wild areas (like ANWR)
- Actively start better public educational campaigns
- Provide incentives as necessary to homeowners for purchasing homes and
appliance or making retrofitting their homes (therefore increasing demand
for these items spurring economic response)
- Begin greater amount of research on alternative fuels, sources, etc
- Perhaps first we have to admit (politically - finally) that we're a part
of the problem!
Mid-Term
- Integration of wind and solar into greater percentage of national energy
use
- Use greater amount of alternative fuels (biofuels, hydrogen, etc) in all
areas (vehicles, industry, homes, etc)
- Incentives to phase out and/or transition industry to more sustainable
energy sources and facilities
- Evaluate long term options coming from research for energy sources for
all sectors of society
Long Term
- Implement and continue to support research into efficient and sustainable
energy sources
At some level, given the types of industrial needs we have, we may have
oil, natural gas, and even nuclear for quite some time but the obvious
intent is to reduce and transition over time as facilities need replacement
and viable options become more common. (And by viable, I intend this to
mean at every level - a viable energy option for a car is not necessarily a
viable energy source for industry.) Vehicles should be able to transition
much quicker given the shorter lifespan, and homes can be retrofitted over
time and new ones built more efficiently.
Personal changes make some difference but the way to change is either
- have a WW2 level "get behind the effort" unity...which frankly we just
don't have today, or
- work thru a well thought out and even handed plan for transition that
brings EVERYONE to the table and works thru each sectors issues.
Mandating change rarely succeeds and more frequently creates a backlash
that is worse than the original problem. There are no silver bullets to
these questions nor should we expect immediacy. However, we should expect
our government to provide leadership by stepping up, recognizing that
change is incumbent, and help effectively map a more sustainable route to
the future. We need to expect this of our leaders and not allow them to get
away with anything less...
I'm sure many of you will have a whole host of ideas that could be added to
the list and I believe it is the diversity of ideas and options that will
win the day in the long run. Let's just not try to change everything in a
day...
mark
Mark Felton
CPSS, PWS, AICP
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
Carrie DeJaco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DU> To
Sent by: [email protected]
"Ecological cc
Society of
America: grants, Subject
jobs, news" Re: Energy use and blaming
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
V.UMD.EDU>
02/04/2007 01:10
PM
Please respond to
Carrie DeJaco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DU>
My own interpretation of "85% feel strongly that the government should
do something about it" is not that it is "Somebody Else's Problem", but
that in order for anything to be done about it, stronger regulations
need to be put in place. Until the government (that we vote into
office) decides to impose stricter regulations on things like emission
standards for automobiles and factories, energy efficiencies of home
appliances, etc., the designers of the products we buy have very little
incentive to put money towards development of more efficient
technologies. Our corporations focus their "development" on providing
bells and whistles to lure in the attentions of the public while
accepting money from "contributors" like Exxon.
What was it that decreased the levels of pollutants in our air and water
in the latter half of the last century? Government regulations. As
long as our government is taking kick-backs from industry and oil gurus,
instead of focusing on the health of our places and people, we'll just
keep slipping backwards. The bottom line for manufacturers is money--
always has been and always will be. We need there to be financial
incentives for developing new, more efficient technologies-- but also to
bring them to market at competitive prices so that consumers will have
the choice. They will NOT do it voluntarily if there's nothing in it
for them.
Has anyone kept track of all of the changes in allowed levels of water
and air pollutants over the tenure of our current administration? I'd
love to see them all listed in one place...
Carrie DeJaco
David Bryant wrote:
> Bill and Maiken,
>
> I recently read an editorial regarding public perception of global
> warming stating that the majority of Americans now believe that
> global warming is real and that 85% feel strongly that the government
> should do something about it.
>
> So this begs the questions: A) Who do we think is responsible for
> fossil fuel consumption? and B) Who do we think the government is?
>
>
