Archive for the ‘Energy Conservation’ Category

23 Apr

Are “Green” Cars Really Green?

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Corporate Ecology, Energy Conservation, Fossil Fuels. Tagged: , , , , .

The electric car's dirty little secret

The electric car’s dirty little secret

Car manufacturers are busy jumping on the “green” bandwagon coming up with a variety of new initiatives. While there certainly some new developments that have reduced fuel consumption, some of the most dramatic are misnomers. One such example is the electric car.

According to Bjorn Lomborg of the Wall Street Journal, electric cars “have a dirty little secret”. He goes on to explain that before an electric car leaves the showroom, it has produced 30,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, mostly in lithium battery production- about 16,000 pounds more CO2 than a conventional car.

In addition, electric cars require recharging, and of course that means using electricity powered overwhelmingly by fossil fuels.

He goes on to explain that to emit less overall CO2, the electric car must be driven at least 80,000 miles. But because electric cars need frequent recharging, their owners tend to only use them over short distances. So most electric-car owners don’t rack up that much mileage, and even if they did, we would still have to deal with the matter of disposal.

Once again we find that things are not always as they might seem, or what we would like them to be. While it’s good to see manufacturers developing battery technologies that may one day reduce our carbon imprint, there is no doubt we have not yet arrived.

Someday electric cars may actually replace gas vehicles, but as a means of tackling global warming right now, it accomplishes very little.

18 Apr

China’s Green Revolution

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , .

A power plant in Pinghu, China. A cap-and-trade system would help China to reduce carbon emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images

A power plant in Pinghu, China. A cap-and-trade system would help China to reduce carbon emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images

The following article comes from a recent report by the Guardian Newspaper. The truth is that reports of similar green initiatives coming from China are becoming more and more frequent.

While typically viewed as the “bad boys” on the environmental stage, it seems that the “Johnny-come-lately” communist party is capable of agreeing and acting with greater ease on environmental issues than our democratically elected congress. Perhaps making decisions based on scientific evidence is more effective than the democratic process that bends to the wishes of an uninformed and opinionated populace and congressmen whose election campaigns are funded by the very corporations guilty of perpetuating the problem.

Quoted by the World Economic Forum, Victor L. L. Chu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, First Eastern Investment Group, Hong Kong SAR, states “In terms of energy intensity, which is the amount of energy required to generate one unit of GDP, China has dropped 75% over the last 20 years and is still looking very aggressively to achieve more efficiency. Nearly 40% of China’s 4 trillion renminbi stimulus package is green project related.”

I’m not suggesting we become a communist nation, nor am I pleased that China burns more coal than any other nation in the world. China has a number of hurtles to overcome, but at least they are on the track and making their way forward.

Here is the article entitled: China’s green progress leaves US red-faced, from the Guardian dated April 12, 2013:

When it comes to responding to climate change, the contrast between China and the United States is stark.

It has been clear for some time that the Asian powerhouse is moving more rapidly on renewable technologies. A recent report by Pew Charitable Trusts shows China led the world last year with a $54.4bn investment in clean technology, about 40% higher than third-placed America.

More surprisingly, the Communist government in Beijing is also showing a greater willingness to adopt market-based approaches that were once considered preferable only by capitalist economies.

On Monday, a senior Chinese official said mandatory emissions trading systems will be rolled out in six of the country’s most advanced regions by 2013. After the pilot schemes in Guangdong, Hubei, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing, the government has promised to ramp up the use of carbon-based financial instruments to a nationwide level by 2015.

It is a sign that China is both desperate and ambitious enough to try almost anything. The widely trailed move towards a cap-and-trade system will provide an extra tool for China to achieve its Copenhagen commitment to reduce carbon emissions relative to economic growth by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020.

Cap-and-trade initiatives in Washington started much earlier, but have sunk in Congressional quicksand. The first US experiment in emissions trading came to an end four months ago with the closure of the Chicago Climate Exchange, though California’s scheme (the world’s second largest) is reportedly in talks to expand by joining with Europe’s.

Critics of emissions trading will undoubtedly say the US is better off without it. Europe currently has the world’s biggest carbon market, which has channelled billions of dollars towards projects in developing nations that are designed to reduce emissions. China has been a major beneficiary, accounting for about 60% of the world’s carbon credits.

But the United Nations mechanism for evaluating credits has been plagued by allegations of fraud and misallocation of resources. In the latest scandal, Chinese officials denied this week that the country’s factories were manipulating production of hydrofluorocarbon-23 – a powerful greenhouse gas – to qualify for huge quantities of carbon credits. The European Union is unimpressed and will ban such credits when its new emissions trading system starts in 2013.

Existing schemes are clearly flawed. But by opting out, the US is losing its ability to influence reform, just as China begins to establish what could become a rival trading system. Beijing has positioned itself cleverly.

In the years ahead, its influence will grow in both renewable technology and climate finance. This has prompted the analyst Søren Lütken to talk of an emerging Grand Chinese Climate Scheme.

It is far from certain that this will be successful. Corruption, imprecision and inexperience are major hurdles that China has yet to overcome in establishing a cap-and-trade scheme. Lobby groups could water down plans that will cost industry money. As in the US, the economy will remain dependent on fossil fuels for many decades.

Yet compared to the US, China seems to have a clearer sense of direction, greater flexibility and a willingness to move.

In a testimony last month to a congressional energy committee, Deborah Seligsohn, the Beijing-based representative of the World Resources Institute, spelled out the long-game that is underway:

“Chinese economic strategists recognise that China was late to the industrial revolution and even late to the IT revolution, but it believes it can be a leader in a green revolution.”

Frustration among US environmental groups has been building up for some time, evident in these blog comments last year from Jake Schmidt of the National Resources Defence Council:

“The signals today on clean energy coming from China and the US are pointing in complete opposite directions – one country on hold and the other moving forward. Sad but true.”

Expect more of the same in the coming years. The world’s red and green lights are not where they used to be.

13 Apr

Drop In Demand for Ethanol

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Crops, Eco-Friendly Products, Energy Conservation, Food, Fossil Fuels, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , .

The use of ethanol in fuels is not a new idea. It's been a bad idea for decades.

The use of ethanol in fuels is not a new idea. It’s been a bad idea for decades.

Just ten years ago it was the darling of politicians across the Midwest and held the promise of transforming the fuel and agricultural industries. Or so it seemed. Since 2007, demand for ethanol has dropped from 9.7 million barrels a day to 8.7 million last year.

According to the New York Times, the change is largely a result of more fuel-efficient vehicles. However, consumers have also been less than overwhelmed by the higher cost at the pump and the relative drop in mileage that comes from the so-called “flex fuel”.

According to the same article, one out of every 10 ethanol production facilities in the country has stopped producing in the last year. That means 10 percent of the tax payer investment and incentives in this new technology has been lost – and the trend is expected to continue.

Of course the major flaws in the whole agri-fuel concept lie in the fact that an equal or increased amount of fossil fuel (primarily natural gas) is required to produce ethanol. This means that the net impact of the “green” fuel alternative is actually negative.

According to Cornell University professor of agriculture David Pimentel, producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon (3.7 liters) of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs . And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then, in almost all cases, to ship the product to collection points via fuel-powered transport, the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce this alternative fuel. That ethanol could end up containing less energy than the gasoline consumed to produce it.

In addition, the increased demand for dent corn, or other bio-fuel ingredients used as it’s raw material, has resulted in food crises in countries where escalating food prices were not simply inconvenient, but a matter of life or death. Such food crises are caused by two factors. First, land that previously produced food crops has been transformed to produce fuel crops. These crops may be profitable to the land owners, but do nothing to feed local populations. Secondly, the lack of consumable crops creates a food shortage which leads to skyrocketing prices.

So how should we respond?

Well, I for one am glad to see the decline and hope to see the entire industry disappear. Sure, we’ll experience the loss of some jobs, the potential loss in the price of dent corn and have some expensive production facilities to dispose of, but this was an idea most recognized as being ill-fated from the start.

It’s time to focus on solutions that are in fact solutions for all people and not just one segment of the voter population and the agri-corporations that support politician’s campaigns.

29 Nov

Going Green with a Live Christmas Tree?

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Botany, Creation Care, Eco-Friendly Products, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Trees. Tagged: , , .

I agree. It seems like an oxymoron, but apparently buying a fresh cut Christmas tree is “greener” than an artificial one.

Turns out that, according to the research of St. Joseph’s University (Philadelphia) biology professor Clint Springer, cutting a live Christmas tree each year is more sustainable than using the same artificial tree for six years running.

Springer takes a number of factors (including allergies to tree pollen) into account, but concludes that if only greenhouse gas emissions are considered the series of six individual live trees has a 60% smaller footprint than a single artificial tree.

Which, if my back-of-the-envelope estimates are correct, means that you’d have to use the same tree for fifteen years before it breaks even in terms of carbon footprint.  Maybe some families (you know who you are) are frugal enough to use an artificial tree for fifteen years before replacing it, but I suspect they’re in the minority.

Nevertheless, Springer suggests the following green options if you already own an artificial tree:

  • Consider using LED lights to decorate the house. A typical 50-light strand of C7 bulbs, often used for outdoor lighting, uses approximately 99 percent more energy than an LED strand of the same number of lights.
  • Buy local and sustainably farmed produce for holiday gatherings. This lessens the use of fossil fuels for transportation, cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global climate change.
  • Buy organic produce. Though pricey for some families, buying organic produce is an even better choice for party season. Organic food is not farmed with artificial fertilizers, which require a tremendous amount of fossil fuels to produce.
  • Recycle whenever possible. Consider using wrapping paper or boxes made from recycled material and be sure to recycle them once the gift giving is over.

Well, my wife has already set up our artificial tree (which we replaced last year after 10 years of use), so I guess we won’t be buying a real tree for at least another 10 years.

 

 

 

8 Oct

The Increasing Problem of Light Pollution

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Birds, Creation Care, Ecology, Education, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Film - documentary, Green Construction, Spirituality in Nature, Wildlife.

Map from NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center, which maps light pollution across the world.

Can we ever have too much light? Generally speaking, we prefer to have light available during the night hours in order to protect us from crime, permit us to remain mobile and to enjoy some hours of entertainment before we go to bed. Light is good.

In fact, Jesus often discussed the matter of light versus darkness. Here are just two statements recorded in John’s gospel:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

However, Jesus wasn’t referring to physical light, but was using light as a metaphor for truth. When we follow truth, we live in the “light”. When we hide our “wickedness” or more away from God, we chose to live in darkness.

In The City Dark, an independent documentary film by Ian Cheney, this growing phenomenon is examined by ecologists, cancer researchers, astrophysicists, philosophers and designers. Concerns include sleep deprivation, the habits of animals and birds, even Boy Scouts living in the Bronx who have never seen the night sky and the myriads of stars in our galaxy.

However, what I appreciate about the documentary are the practical steps he outlines that are already being put to use, or could with very little effort in order to end what is becoming an increasing disruption to the normal patterns of life for all of nature, including mankind.

So it would seem darkness can be a good thing – although wickedness remains what it is.

 

26 Sep

The Green Thing

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Creation Care, Eco-Friendly Products, Education, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuels, Recycling. Tagged: .

A friend sent me this. Apparently it’s been in circulation for a while, but it’s really worth repeating.

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.

The woman apologized to her and explained, “We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”

The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment.”

She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby’s nappies because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that lady is right; we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right; we didn’t have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?

25 Aug

Solar Panels – Are They Worth the Money?

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Creation Care, Eco-Friendly Products, Energy Conservation, Fossil Fuels. Tagged: , , , .

As you can tell, I’ve been on a bit of an energy kick recently. It seems there is so much being said about the subject these days, but quietly some are taking hold of the technology for themselves. Governments will continue to bicker about the science, usefulness and economic sense, but the truth is we all make our own decisions when it comes to spending, including the government. Some of the largest budget items in most annual governmental budgets are what I would consider an absolute waste of taxpayer money. I guess it’s a matter of priorities.

Just a few weeks ago, I was traveling in Canada with my wife to visit family. Along the way, we kept encountering solar units similar to this one that I photographed in Southwestern Ontario. According to the Siemens Corporation, panels equipped with a moveable mounting and a new control system are able to precisely follow the course of the sun. Thanks to a new algorithm based on astronomical data, the solar panels track the sun in line with not only the time of day but also the time of year and the precise geographical location of the photovoltaic installation. As a result, their energy yield is more than 35 percent higher than fixed systems. This is much higher than some earlier units which yielded an increase of only 15%.

A decisive factor in the efficiency of a photovoltaic system is the angle of incidence at which sunlight strikes the surface of the module. In the case of fixed panels, sunlight hits the solar cells at an oblique angle for most of the day. A maximum yield in terms of energy and therefore electricity is only achieved when sunlight strikes the cells perpendicular to their surface. So the obvious solution is to fit the solar modules to a movable tracking system that precisely follows the course of the sun. The sun’s position depends on not only the time of day but also the time of year and the location of the photovoltaic installation. Some systems even calculate the perfect alignment for the solar modules on the basis of their precise location, anywhere in the world, and the exact time and date.

This calculation is based on what they call the “Simatic Library for Solar Position Algorithm,” which is stored in every control unit. Siemens obtained a license for the very precise algorithm from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the U.S. On this basis, the control system is able to determine the position of the sun to an accuracy of 0.0003° and align the photovoltaic module accordingly. Three-phase AC motors power a dual-axis tracking system: This swivels the module in a semicircle along what is known as the azimuthal axis, thus tracking the sun’s daily course from east to west, and tilts the module along the zenithal axis, tracking the height of the sun according to the time of day and year. In the process, the control system also prevents neighboring modules from overshadowing one another during the morning and evening hours, when shadows are especially long. The software bases its astronomical calculations on parameters such as longitude, latitude, and the exact time.

In addition, the control system can also take weather conditions into account (a common complaint among critics of such systems). When faced with high winds, for example, it moves the modules to a position of least resistance, where they can withstand winds of up to 130 kilometers per hour. In a similar manner, the tracking system can be programmed to react to snow, thunderstorms, fog, and darkness.

In most cases, owners are able to not only supply their own energy needs, but can also contribute to the local electrical grid and in doing so, receive a check from the utilities company on a monthly basis. However, one should not expect to be paying for the cost of one of these units too soon. And I suppose that’s where the criticism begins.

According to a number of sources, including Green Building Advisors, the cost of photovoltaic systems are actually dropping dramatically. In April 2010, a photovoltaic system cost $8 a watt.  Here are the numbers.  A one-kilowatt PV system (about 4 – 5 solar modules in the Midwest) generates about 1,300 kWH per year. If you bought 1,300 kWH of electricity from our local utility (burning natural gas, fuel oil, hydro and coal), they would charge you $0.16 / kWH, or $208 / year.

If you’re conservative with expectations, a PV array (fixed in this case) you would last you 25 years, and make you $5,200 of electricity over its working lifetime, assuming electricity prices never increase. No one believes costs will stay where they are, but it makes the math easier, and we’re being conservative?

So there’s the issue: you pay $8,000 for a system that only makes you $5,200 of electricity over its lifetime, not including tax credits and inflation assumptions and lots of other complicated financial math to make those panels “worth it” to may people.

However, in 2011 prices people were getting for PV were $4,500 per kW before tax credits. It dropped 45% since 2011. So now a system that makes us $5,200 of electricity cost $4,500.

Still not convinced of the potential value. Well than perhaps it is a matter of priorities and what each individual values most. I often read people complaining about the high cost of solar units, the potential for premature obsolescence and the uncertainty of realizing a substantial profit. But let me ask you this: for the person who invests in a motor home, what kind of return do they get on their investment of $200,000 – $300,000? What about the cinema viewing room in the basement, or the motorboat for the lake? No one expects a financial return on any of these items, yet they hand over their money without thought (well, at least some do).

My point is this, people spend there money where they want to. They choose to spend according to their values. Some people value clean energy and self-sufficiency. So they may lose a couple of thousand dollars over 25 years. Tell me how much a 25 year old motorhome is worth and what it did to protect the planet.

14 Aug

New Development in Battery Storage Capacity

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Eco-Friendly Products, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Lithium ion polymer batteries used by the NASA Space Shuttle program may soon be replaced.

Just yesterday I commented on the differing positions of the two presidential candidates in this year’s election. Both positions have merit and reflect one of two thoughts. On the Obama side, green energy holds great potential, if we can continue to develop the technology required to utilize it. Among the Romney camp, energy from fossil fuels is a known quantity for which we already have the systems and technology in place. Therefore the game-changer is new technology.

The storage of electricity poses a continuing challenge to those who would like to promote green sources of energy. It’s all fine to have solar panels and wind turbines, but if we can’t store the power they produce, we remain reliant on coal, gas or nuclear fired generators to supply the instantaneous demands of our power grid. If we have sustained cloudy weather or a lack of wind, a switch can’t be thrown and a nuclear generator suddenly fired up to meet what can often be a sudden surge in use. It takes weeks to shut them down and the same to fire them up again.

However, according to a number of news sources including the BBC, a team of Stanford researchers has found the solution to make lithium-ion batteries hold ten times the charge they currently can. How? By replacing the battery’s anode, usually constructed out of graphite, with silicon. It sounds like a simple fix, but scientists haven’t been able to do so until now because the silicon would be quickly destroyed in a process called decrepitation. Even though silicon atoms would allow more lithium ions to bind than carbon atoms, therefore allowing the battery to store more charge, the silicon would expand and retract as ions flowed through the battery. These expansions and retractions caused cracks in the silicon. Another problem is that the lithium ions would sometimes react with the silicon, removing the battery’s ability to charge.

The Stanford team has developed a technique to strengthen the silicon anodes by making them out of nanowires and hollow nanoparticles. The anode is also coated with an outer layer of silicon oxide, a ceramic material that prevents the silicon from expanding.

For now, these batteries are able to operate for more than 6,000 cycles, ten times beyond current lithium-ion battery cycle life standards.

The team’s given no timetable for when this technology will be commercialized. For now, they’re working on simplifying the process of creating the new silicon anodes and creating better cathodes to match the new silicon anodes on lithium-ion batteries. I can only hope that such technology will trickle down to the consumer level soon.

At present the development seems to be of tremendous benefit to the automotive industry which can expect the new silicon-based battery to replace the graphite-based lithium-ion and increase the distance electric cars can travel by ten times. However, it is hoped that this type of breakthrough result in others and eventually allows for wind and solar energy to be stored and reserved for a longer period of time, thus reducing our dependence on carbon-based energy sources.

13 Aug

Presidential Candidate’s Positions on Energy

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Corporate Ecology, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Fossil Fuels, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

While there are a range of environmental issues on which the two Presidential candidates have expressed their views, perhaps the one that gains the most attention is that of energy. This is due in part to the increasing price of oil and  gasoline, but also due to concerns about global climate change.

So what are the positions taken by the two candidates?

Barack Obama

President Obama entered the White House touting growth in clean energy and promising to reduce U.S. dependence on oil while increasing regulation to protect the environment. In March 2011, Obama released a “blueprint” for a securer energy future  outlining these goals and released a one-year energy progress report in March 2012. The administration says the country is on track to double renewable energy generation, including wind, solar, and geothermal production, above 2008 levels by 2012. In his 2011 State of the Union speech, Obama proposed that 80 percent of electricity production come from clean energy sources–such as nuclear, renewable, “clean coal,” and “efficient” natural gas–by 2035.

A year later in his 2012 State of the Union speech, Obama cited the need for an “all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,”–a mantra often used by Republicans–and announced he would open more than 75 percent of potential offshore oil and gas resources, which drew vocal support from Republicans. He also said he would allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes.

Under Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency has pursued controversial regulation of greenhouse gases emitted by power plants as well as rules targeting improved efficiency of vehicles. His administration accelerated fuel economy standards of 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks–enacted by the 2007 energy bill–and proposed more stringent standards (54 mpg for cars) to be put in place by 2025.

In March 2010, Obama announced opening up more federal lands and coastal areas to oil production, but the Gulf oil spill in April led to stricter adherence to drilling regulations and a restructuring of some oversight agencies. Obama also has continued to call for eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies–including proposing to generate $41 billion in deficit reductions by nixing subsidies. On January 18, 2012, the administration decided to halt plans to build the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline intended to stretch from Canada to Texas. The administration said it made the decision based on its inability to meet a congressional deadline to assess issues raised, rather than on the merits of the project.

In March, Obama announced $1 billion in tax credits and grants for alternative-energy cars and trucks.

In late March 2012, Obama said there is enough oil is being produced worldwide to weather oil sanctions on Iran without suffering unbearable price increases and is reported to be considering releasing oil from strategic reserves to help mitigate prices, as he did following the Libyan uprising in 2011.

While it seems that he has certainly done more than the Republican had during the previous administration, there certainly has been a lot of movement back and forth.

Mitt Romney

Governor Romney’s plan focuses on “significant regulatory reform”, increased domestic production, and research and development. Romney proposes a new regulatory framework for the EPA that would “preserve environmental gains without paralyzing industry.” This, his plan says, would include streamlining air rules for coal plants and reforming regulations for the nuclear industry. Romney supports ethanol subsidies, saying in May 2011 in Iowa, “ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”

Romney also has been critical of the Obama administration’s green jobs strategy. He says the traditional energy sector–oil, gas, coal, and nuclear–has “remarkable job-creating potential.” Romney advocates increasing domestic production of fossil fuels, including shale gas, and partnering with Canada and Mexico to develop these resources. He also said that his administration would help develop shale gas in Europe to help allies reduce dependence on Russian gas.

Romney was critical of the Obama administration’s position on the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada and the moratorium on offshore drilling that followed the 2010 oil spill. He said in his plan, “a Romney administration will pave the way for the construction of additional pipelines that can accommodate the expected growth in Canadian supply of oil and natural gas in the coming years.”

In March, amid an ongoing debate over what to do about high gas prices, Romney blamed a lack of domestic drilling and the failure of the Keystone pipeline deal for the price surge. “Those things affect gasoline prices, long term,” Romney said.

However, what Governor Romney fails to tell us about “those things” like domestic drilling and pipelines, is that they  effectively push back any efforts to develop alternative energy strategies. The other reality is that they do not lower gasoline prices. Petroleum producers are not owned by tax-payers and as we have witnessed on numerous occasions they are not accountable to the government even though we drag to Washington for hearings. More oil will simply mean more profits as oil and gasoline is sold to the highest bidder (which by the way is not the United States).

Geologists believe that there is at least 50 years worth of oil reserves in the tar sands. Even more might be available in the Arctic if they get permission to “drill baby drill”, not to mention oil from shale in Northern British Columbia and closer to home in Pennsylvania. If we have that kind of supply, why bother to invest in alternatives sources of energy?

The time to deal with our energy issues is now. More jobs will not come from further drilling or the approval of pipeline projects. Some temporary employment may occur, but innovation holds more promise for the high-skilled manufacturing jobs that will move us into the next generation.

My scorecard has the president as doing an acceptable, although not outstanding job, of handing the energy issue. But Governor Romney’s position seem about as short sighted as the temporary gains he sought for the share holders of Bain Equity. His “long-term” solution is nothing more than pandering to the petroleum industry’s shareholders and seeking quick fixes for us as a nation.

 

24 Jul

Young Evangelicals Speak Out on Climate Change

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Eco-Friendly Products, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuels, Politics, Recreation, Religion, Spirituality in Nature. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Pollution and climate change have repercussions for many of today’s pressing issues from the health of our children, to global and domestic poverty, to jobs and economic growth. This makes how we care for God’s creation one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. And as Christians, we also know it is a challenge that cuts to the heart of how we promote and cherish life.

The reality of climate change is already being felt here in the U.S. and around the world in the form of extreme weather and health impacts, which most affect the unborn, poor, and powerless. It is time for America to tackle this great moral challenge. Doing so protects life and abides by Christ’s teaching to love one care for the least of these, who will be hit hardest by climate change.

Unfortunately, our country’s leaders are not stepping up to this great challenge.

But our young people are!

The Young Evangelicals for Climate Action’s call to action will give you a good sense of what they’re about. Here’s a quote:

We believe that God is calling us to take action towards overcoming the climate crisis. For us, this means living as good stewards of God’s creation, advocating on behalf of the poor and marginalized, supporting our faith leaders when they stand up for climate action, holding our political leaders accountable for responsible climate policies, and mobilizing our generation and the larger church community to join in. Together, with the LORD’s help, we can overcome the climate crisis.

It’s time for us to listen to our young people and transition away from old, fossil-based energy to clean, future-oriented, climate-friendly, job-creating solutions. Simply put: forget the fossils; embrace the future.

While it’s encouraging to see the under 30 generation showing concern and taking action to deal with creation care, it seems a shame they are being left to clean up the mess their parents have made and prefer to ignore. As with many issues, it appears we prefer to “kick-the-can” so that our children and grandchildren can deal with our disasters, whether it’s the national debt, medicare, depletion of fresh water, social security or climate change.

There’s a problematic sense of entitlement with the “boomer” generation (of which I am a part) that somehow believes it can “eat, drink and be merry” during its life time and leave tomorrow’s problems for someone else to figure out. However, our self-centered mentality fails to take into account its impact on our own children (not some ambiguous future generation of unknowns) and our obligation to honor our Creator and God.

So what action are you taking?

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers