Another Global Warming Debate...where are are efforts best focused?

Great Debates
1

Ok, so this is yet another Global Warming: What can we do? type debate. I’m watching Green: The new Red, White and Blue and they have talked about some of the things America and American companies are currently doing to fight Global Warming (oh, and save some money in the bargin). They talked about Walmart and its plan to cut 1/3 of the energy usage in every store they have world wide (they currently have 2 model concept stores in use), as well as improve the gas mileage of its entire trucking fleet by 1/2 within (IIRC) 5 years. They talked about companies like Google and Microsoft who have re-located facilities to take advantage of green (and cheap) power sources. They talked about our personal transport options and the rise of the hybrid…and efforts to get car manufacturers to give us a plug-in hybrid option. They talked about hydrogen fuel cells and the options there. And then they talked about America’s dirty energy grid which accounts for a large percentage of our carbon waste (20-30% IIRC).

The question is…where are are efforts, as a nation, best focused? It seems that at least some businesses are already starting to move towards green…not because of Global Warming but because many of the options save money. Ordinary citizens seem to be slowly moving in the same direction, though perhapsn not for the same reason (though many of the options ALSO save the average consummer money…I especially like the new energy saving light bulbs myself).

Should the US invest the mega money needed in upgrading and greening out our energy grid? Would this be our best investment? How about a focus on green personal transport options?

As we realistically have limited funds and can’t possibly do everything, what do YOU think we shoud focus on? And what technologies would you like to see in that focus (for instance, if you think we should focus on the power grid, maybe you feel that nuclear is the way to go…or more of a focus on wind or solar. If personal transport, maybe you feel hybrids, battery technology and plug ins should be the focus…or maybe hydrogen and nuclear/wind/solar).

-XT

2

I think the efforts are best focused in two general areas.

One is reduction in the CO2 emissions created by power generation. Changing that is going to take time and a significant material and financial commitment. However, over time significant change can be made here. Our power grid is responsible for a significant portion of our CO2 emissions, at the same time, power plants are huge and expensive. Closing coal-burning power plants long before their useful life has expired, for example, represents an enormous cost. Power plants also take time to build. All of that being said, since they are a big part of the problem, they have to become a meaningful part of the solution.

The other is in controlling CO2 emissions of heavy industry. By and large I think the growing scarcity of gasoline is going to push the auto market naturally towards different forms of fuel (I’m not sold on the current breed of hybrids being that great for the environment because my understanding is the manufacture and disposal of the fuel cells creates significant pollution as well–but any step away from the traditional, smoke-belching, gasoline-powered automobile is not a bad one.)

So instead of worry about issues such as subsidizing the purchase of hybrids, we should focus most of our efforts on power plants and heavy industry. As I said, it is my belief that the market is going to naturally move us away from gasoline-powered cars to cleaner, less expensive energy sources. Eventually it has to, it will become economic reality by 2050 when many geologists predict the useable sources of petroleum will be so low that it just simply cannot fuel the world’s auto markets.

Some countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia have petroleum release policies designed to have the resource last for 200-300 years. While they may succeed at that, for it to actually last they long by the time it gets to year 2050, the price of petroleum will be high enough to prohibit its use in automobiles.

I think Al Gore’s proposals before the Senate were good ones, although I worry about the political feasibility of both proposals.

His first is an immediate freeze on production (ie, put a cap at the current levels of production of the gases) and then institute gradual reductions working towards a 90% reduction by 2050.

His second proposal is one I like quite a lot, but is probably even more difficult politically than the first. His second is to reduce taxes on employment (payroll taxes) and offset the reduction by applying a tax to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. This would have the effect of making it less expensive for employers to hire people, which would be good for the job market. It would likewise make it more expensive to produce greenhouse gases, which would make heavy industry more likely to modernize their facilities and work to reduce emissions.

Currently many heavy industries are in the process of doing it, but are doing it as slow as possible, realizing that since it doesn’t cost them much to pollute, they can more or less get away with slowly modernizing and cleaning up.

3

I think the easiest but still very meaningful effort would be in converting all diesel engines into something greener.

Nothing against diesel, of course, it just that it includes all vehicles with predictable routes and corporate ownership. Think of city buses, construction equipment, delivery trucks. Their use is predictable enough, I think, that it would be less restrictive to them to be tied to specific refuelling points.

Also, being owned by corporations and governmental offices, makes them easier to regulate and push around by legislation and taxation.

They also are more regularly replaced or overhauled, so that a phase out program could take care of them in relatively short time.
(and I won’t mention nuclear power generation because we all know how that derails these threads)

4

Mention it…I intend too later. It won’t derail the thread…its what the thread is about. If you think nuclear is a good way to generate a lot of power with no CO2 then talk about it. If you think its a bad idea, then talk about that. Its not a hijack…its the core of the debate I intended with this thread.

-XT

5

I think we should let the rising price of oil take care of the problem-it is too late to do otherwise. we should be planning instead, to deal with the human consequences of AGW-like:
-moving coastal cities inland (rebuilding New Orleans is stupid!)
-preparing water supplies and desalinization systems for areas facing drouts
-developing hardier food crops 9to deal with warming conditions)
We might also start investing in solar energy-that is one thing that is going to be abundant.

6

With the blessing of the OP,

I do believe that nuclear is a great intermediate step to drop of carbon addiction. We are miles away from any truly clean energy for the masses. Nuclear is fast and clean enough to use for a few years while we figure out better things.

I guess the problem with the whole GW thing is that it is next to impossible for a market economy to do anything about it. It needs to be heavily regulated for change to occur. Carbon energy is Kool-Aid and Spam. Cheap and effective. If you want the world to go organic, it is going to take some intervention.