Tell them about the dream, Al!
October 18, 2007 |
The most quoted part of our essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," was that Martin Luther King didn't give the "I have a nightmare" speech for a reason. The "I have a dream" speech worked because people knew about the nightmare. What America needed was a positive vision of the future. It's time for Al Gore to tell the world about the dream.
Last week, Al Gore justly won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work demanding that we take a good hard look at the nightmare of global warming. It is, in his words, "a planetary emergency."
The problem is that knowing about the nightmare isn't enough. Fear is as apt to paralyze as motivate. Fear is like sugar for a four year-old: it produces a burst of energy that ends as quickly as it begins. Hope, by contrast, is sustainable. It can motivate whole lifetimes of action.
Today, in an extraordinary column in the New York Daily News, Errol Lewis makes the argument that Gore needs to leap from the nightmare to the dream.
"According to activists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, authors of the new book "Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility," Gore's "scare 'em" approach illustrates a crisis of imagination in the environmental movement. . . With his well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize firmly in hand, former Vice President Al Gore should perform one final, monumental deed to advance his cause: Declare the environmental movement dead, and begin rebuilding it from scratch.
It's time for Al Gore to tell the world about the dream. There is room on this planet for all seven billion of us to live prosperous, free, and sustainable lives. We can accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. And by doing so, we can bring the world together not by through sacrifice and suffering but rather through overcoming.
Right now we are on the road giving talks about our book. It's been an incredible experience. Hundreds of people are turning out for our book readings - 350 in Minneapolis alone. People are excited and passionate about this moment in history. They want to hear about the dream - and want to take action to make it real.
What we need to do is hard, not easy -- expensive, not cheap. There's no use beating around the bush about it. Big challenges demand big solutions. But in doing it we will test the best of our abilities.
It's time for America to dream again
Comments
After some simulation, I think the real problem with the reserve is not that it violates the cap, but that it fails to address volatility. It turns out to be hard to generate price trajectories that release many allowances, and those that are released are self-defeating because they compete with open-market stabilizing operations. See http://blog.metasd.com/2009/07/07/strategic-excess-breakthroughs-nightmare/ and preceding entries.
By Tom Fiddaman on 2009 07 08
Thanks for this informative post..........
By Solar Power Installation on 2009 06 22
Another motive behind Waxman-Markey may have been to strip the EPA of jurisdiction to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, so big emitters like coal-fired power plants can continue business as usual without being hassled by the EPA. Even for the paltry fraction of CO2 emissions not covered by free indulgences, tree offsets are allowed to substitute for actual emission cuts.
The US Supreme Court recently upheld the jurisdiction of the EPA over CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Rulemaking is underway. This major victory for climate protection will be surrendered by Waxman-Markey, which is a legislative end run around regulation. Depending on this new law, instead of the Clean Air Act, means another round of time-consuming challenges by the polluters, resulting in more time with no curtailment of emissions as the appeals drag on.
Given what we saw in the recent Wall Street crash, where risk packages spun out of fantasy enriched a few and bankrupted America, the green offset market will be another orgy of greed and fraud. I agree with Bill Hansen�s opinion that the guys in alligator shoes wrote this bill. Does anyone seriously believe, given our experience with regulation of Wall Street, that green offsets will be understood and effectively controlled? Round Two of the decline and fall, coming up.
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 05 28
Here is a quote from Patrick McCully published in the San Francisco Chronicle op-ed page A13 from Tuesday May 26, 2009:
"The bill's offset component ... is modeled after the world's largest carbon credit system, the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. The Kyoto mechanism has allowed polluters in Europe and Japan to avoid cutting off their own emissions by buying offsets from project developers elsewhere, mainly in China and India. Many of the Waxman-Markey credits are likely to come from this or whatever global offsetting scheme replaces it after Kyoto expires in 2012. After a decade of closely monitoring the mechanism, I have found it to be ineffective in combatting climate change, and at worst, to have aided increased carbon emissions."
It is general knowledge that cap-and-trade has failed to reduce emissions. So I don't think it is unfair to speculate on the real motives behind Waxman-Markey.
Maybe it's another Wall Street bailout, creating a market in a junk commodity: tree offsets. Power companies will be forced to speculate in forestry futures or the like, since there will be little support for making a transition to clean power. The coal states and utility customers will take a hit so the subprime swindlers can get back in business with an imaginary commodity.
Of course, to fool the credulous Democrats, the pitch is dressed in pious posturing about saving the environment and funding clean tech development, but these pretexts are not well-grounded in fact, as your careful examination of W-M proves. The size of the bill now (1000 pages and counting) means few who will vote on it will read it, so your summary and questions about the "trade" part are more important than ever. Good work.
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 05 28
The initiative is good! A candidate should not wait for a particular time specifically before election in insisting this kind of proposal. Build America Bonds are tipped to be hot sellers. Build America Bonds, part of President Obama's infrastructure overhaul, are high interest government bonds that are issued by state and municipal departments. It's an investment in American infrastructure, and therefore American commerce; it would be worth short term loans to pick a few up. The series of bonds issued by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has only about $250 million worth left, out of about $3.5 billion worth of bonds they had to begin with. They are selling like hotcakes, and investors are scrambling to get their hands on safe investments and debt relief through wise trades like Build America Bonds.
By Payday Loan on 2009 05 19
Any two increasing trends will always correlate. We could plot the number of blogs vs GDP (or CO2 emissions) and prove what Pielke "proved", nothing.
By Eli Rabett on 2009 04 07
One of the most talked issues today is about financial crisis. Everything is affected by this not only the situation of every citizen but also the situation of the environment. When the drift was first spotted in the early 1980s, it stirred only academic interest. But this year, as more economists and politicians began to take note of it. The great American middle class is no longer so great. It is shrinking steadily, goes the theory, and shedding its members into the economic extremes of wealth and poverty. Borrowers of payday loans just don't live up to the stereotype of them
By NicolasI on 2009 02 05
Not according to our new Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu. Please see his presentation below at the National Clean Energy Summit on why investments in energy efficiency and carbon reduction are "good" for business, economies, standard of living, GDP growth, health care, education, and such (despite your claims above).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfLaQUD86Mw
A few things stand out ... GDP growth from 1990 to 2006 is an odd time frame to draw on. Most of the growth during this period has to do with a series of bubbles: technology, finance, housing, and the like. We've seen the bursting of these bubbles and significant volatility in these markets. It's time to take a pro-growth look at new energy development (a primary mover and base condition for business development), and work to promote new industries at home that can become the source of jobs, manufacturing, wealth redistribution (to middle class), and overall and sustainable long term GDP growth.
By EL on 2009 01 13
One of the biggest targets for politicians, as far as economics are concerned, is becoming the payday loan industry. Governors across the country are trying to rid their states of the industry altogether, and so far, Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon have succeeded. The result was that bankruptcies, foreclosures, and also the number of overdraft fees due to bouncing checks went through the roof, which doesn
By Payday Loan Advocate on 2008 10 07
Peter, The public has spoken fairly loud and clear that they don't want Congress raising energy prices. And, as you know, there is a lot of evidence that voters don't trust that they will ever get the "dividend" back from the government. Indeed, cap and dividend is the least popular policy proposal of the three tested in a survey by EMC Research and American Environics. Even cap and trade was more popular.
Yes, if we spend $50 billion per year building transmission lines, investing in RD&D, and financing a National Energy Education Act the money will have to come from somewhere. But it's a relatively small amount of money per person -- about $150 per year -- compared to the thousands of dollars per year that cap and dividend would cost the average American.
And at a time of recession, there's a good argument for making those infrastructure, technology, and education investments through deficit spending, or using the money from oil drilling. Raising energy prices during a recession is not good politics.
Michael
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 10 06
Doug, your instincts of course are correct: Democrats could be out front, pushing for the creation of new jobs, new industries and new technology through clean energy - all at a time of economic meltdown and insecurity. Instead, they seem content to say No to Republican plans and push for renewable energy incentives that are meager in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't seem to be a winning strategy...
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 09 25
Of course, along the lines of my first post, one can out-source the production of those machines ... unless, of course, our govt. decided to provide incentives to domestic producers of those pieces of equipment in order to encourage them to keep those factories here. Oh yeah, might that also reduce, rather than increase, our trade deficit as well?
Nah, that's crazy talk, we should out-source and increase our trade deficit as much as possible....
By Doug on 2008 09 25
As I always like to say, "You can't out-source the installation of solar panel, wind towers, or geothermal heat-pumps to China."
By Doug on 2008 09 25
Carbon pricing with revenue recycling isn't dead; on the contrary, it's gaining support. See http://www.carbontax.org/blog/ and http://www.capanddividend.org.
Frankly, I don't understand why Michael Shellenberger spends so much time attacking carbon pricing (whether with a tax or cap and auction). It's not incompatible with public investment in R&D; in fact, it would make such investment more urgent. To be sure, carbon pricing is politically challenging because it does raise prices, but revenue recycling addresses that liability by giving the money back.
Public investment isn't a free lunch; the money has to come from somewhere. Moreover, it doesn't reduce carbon emissions in the short term, or spur private investment in clean technologies that already exist. Still, I agree we need more of it. But why go on the warpath against other policies that would help solve the climate crisis?
As an aside, no one but you has used the term
By Peter Barnes on 2008 09 24
I agree, c&t is deader than ever. On the VC-green tech side of things, however, things look a little brighter. I saw an article today that said, despite the market fallout, venture capitalists are still bullish about clean technology.
www.eenews.net: A survey of 301 venture capitalists and executives with links to the industry shows the vast majority still expect strong growth for the environmental technology sector. They also anticipate an increasingly active role for venture capital and a bigger market for green investments in 2009.
Ninety-one percent of respondents said venture capital investment in green technology would continue to grow. Participants in the poll said investments would be spread across a diverse array of technologies, but most thought storage technologies like fuel cells and advanced batteries would attract the most funds. Clean coal and wind power were also expected to be big winners next year.
Fully half of those questioned said they predict that investment in the sector will expand by 20 percent or more in 2009 over 2008 levels. Thirty-four percent expect investment growth rates between 10 and 19 percent. One percent expect investment to drop below 2008 levels next year.
So, all looks well and good for the rich guys who are future-oriented. I suppose we'll see soon if the gov't is...
By Alisha on 2008 09 24
From what I have seen in the recent past (i.e., dotcom mess as well as the current fiasco), folks are willing to throw a lot of private sector investment at things as long as they think there is a quick fortune to be made. It would certainly be a good lesson learned if the next wave of investments would be for new infrastructure (energy and otherwise) rather than just some get rich quick scheme.
By R Margolis on 2008 09 24
It's not too boring -- voters love the vision of energy independence and clean energy jobs from investments in technology. The problem is that they have no voice in Washington. Green groups are focused on new regulations. Clean energy companies are focused on getting their tiny little tax credits (which they can't seem to get). And Democrats insist on cutting fossil fuel subsidies to fund clean energy, which makes enemies out of members of Congress who benefit from those subsidies. A straight investment play is needed by Democrats, perhaps tied to this financial bailout.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 09 22
I am always amazed on how there is always money for bailouts (and money for investors to waste in the first place...), but never for infrastructure changes. I guess folks are too often enamored with the prospect of quick and easy money. Energy investment is too boring?
By R Margolis on 2008 09 22
Hi,
my name is Anh and for my BA-Thesis I
By anh on 2008 09 20
Asa,
Thanks for reading. You are right that to achieve anything a "stronger constituency for meaningful change" is necessary. However, I think there is a strong constituency for meaningful change already in America--almost the entire electorate wants a meaningful change in energy prices.
In terms of whether the problem here is the political and economic realities, as you suggest, or whether it is a problem with the solutions that clean energy advocates are proposing, as I suggest, I think it depends on how you think about it. The economic reality in this country is that the economy is not strong and getting weaker--the past few days on Wall Street have been CRAZY. And the political reality is that the public responds and demands action more quickly and strongly to changes in the economy (including energy prices) than to climate change.
I believe that, given all of this, there is a way to garner strong action on clean energy deployment that will revive the economy, create new jobs and renew the American Promise for the 21st century. And I would rather work to advance that solution than try to get voters to act against their immediate self-interest and overcome their innate tendency towards self-preservation by building a constituency for making energy more expensive.
I'll close with a quotation from Roger Pielke, who blogged about RGGI (you can check it out on this blog or here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/tax-and-charade-4576) and wrote this in response to your comment about economic and political realities:
"And this is indeed the problem with cap and trade. Any policy, no matter how theoretically sound, that cannot meet the test of political and economic realities is indeed fatally flawed."
Thanks for weighing in,
Adam
By Adam Zemel on 2008 09 18
It would seem that the problems are with the "political and economic realities", rather than with cap and auction. That is, the problem is that the RGGI cannot go back and lower its cap, or that it wasn't designed with a more flexible/current cap. That is a political problem. If there were great public outcry, it could get fixed; that there isn't says something about where we are.
Using this situation as yet another example of carbon pricing being stupid doesn't quite follow from this -- that we need to build a stronger constituency for meaningful change, of any sort, would make sense as a conclusion to draw, and could then lead to your favorite "investment is key" result by saying that's related to building support (nothing like showing job growth to get people on board).
By Asa on 2008 09 18
Zach,
How are you? We miss you in the office.
Check out this article from the nyt: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/16carbon.html?partner=rssnytandemc=rss&pagewanted=print
And then there are really good sources at the bottom of RGGI's wikipedia page.
And of course, www.rggi.org.
Be well,
Ada,
By Adam Zemel on 2008 09 18
Adam - what sources did you use for this post? I want to read more...
By Zach Arnold on 2008 09 17
Roger,
I readily agree that "thoroughly debunked" was not the right choice of words. I think you should acknowledge that your claim of "us" arguing against any R&D is a strawman.
Again, I don
By kenlevenson on 2008 08 28
Ken-
Maybe next time rather than using the phrase "thoroughly debunked" to characterize our work, you might consider instead using the fine nuanced prose you wrote above.
By Roger Pielke, Jr. on 2008 08 27
Roger,
No one is arguing against R&D and innovation, nor deployment - it's simply a matter of emphasis and priorities.
You say you're for deployment but make R&D breakthroughs a prerequisite for success.
From my perspective R&D is acknowledged as an absolute must but would argue that deployment of existing technology is the key to success.
And because R&D is used as a crutch for many to argue against taking action now - I believe the emphasis is rightly placed on deployment.
By kenlevenson on 2008 08 27
Well Ken, while I appreciate the olive branch in the form of pleading "no contest" the technical arguments, if you have a look at what I was arguing at The Economist and that you were suggesting has been "debunked" it was exactly the technical analysis that you now seem to accept (indeed the links to Joe's work that you provided also critique the technical arguments):
"We published a paper on this subject in Nature earlier this year. We found that the energy technology challenge has likely been grossly underestimated by the IPCC and most analyses that assume large amounts of spontaneous decarbonization of the global economy.
You can see our paper online here:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., Wigley, T., and Green, C., 2008. Dangerous assumptions. Nature, Vol. 452, No. 3, pp. 531-532.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2593-2008.08.pdf
To provide the world with vastly more energy, while at the same time limiting carbon accumulation in the atmosphere will require every tool at out disposal, and almost certainly a few not yet in existence. To argue against further R&D is just a bad idea.
Roger Pielke, Jr.
Professor, University of Colorado"
http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?debate_id=11&action=comments
I don't see the work "breakthrough" in there anywhere, and I clearly distinguished what we found from what I conclude from that analysis.
Increasingly, it looks like Romm and his followers are simply anti-R&D, whereas the folks you find at this site are all for aggressive deployment of existing technologies AND R&D. As I said at The Economist, to argue against further R&D is just a bad idea.
By Roger Pielke, Jr. on 2008 08 27
Roger,
Perhaps my use of the word "thoroughly" in exuberance is the problem.
What Joe was debunking, as I referred to it in the context of the Economist debate was the central conclusion of your Nature report - that of alleged IPCC assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization, and the resulting need for breakthroughs. The IPCC argues for aggressive policy action and technology deployment - logical enough unless we're all insane. So by thoroughly I merely meant the central point.
However, even with your central point debunked, I don't think that excludes the possibility of your report containing useful analysis.
Therefore, on the other hand, at Cato, Joe seems to be referring to your Nature report in regards to the rates of energy intensity and CO2 levels. Joe may or may not be right - that detailed scientific discussion, I readily admit, is way above my pay grade.
Yet it seems plausible that your paper in Nature while being wrong about the need for breakthroughs may still be correct regarding potential emissions projections.
The two takes on your Nature report don't seem mutually exclusive to me.
By kenlevenson on 2008 08 27
Ken-
You guys at Climate Progress have an interesting gig. Joe says two different/opposing things at different times and you cherry pick the one most convenient for the argument that you are in, while disavowing responsibility for what Joe has said. Clever. To bad the Bush administration is over, you guys might have helped in their PR machine
But seriously, how about a direct question for you (since you aren
By Roger Pielke, Jr. on 2008 08 27
Roger,
A simple point: I don
By kenlevenson on 2008 08 27
Could part of it be a desire for oneness? And unity? To be part of a community, defined however you'd like (for me, most often ecologically)?
I don't just mean that sense of teamwork and solidarity I get from working together with others towards a progressive goal--especially 'environmental' ones. I also mean the broader feeling of kinda being on the same page as the planet. Being able to look out my window at the woods and knowing that advocating for clean energy legislation is ultimately what that tree and those squirrels would want, too.
I think that oneness and immediate connection to the life/landscape around me and a related sense of equality keep me excited and invested in certain goals.
(And then I go hug the tree.)
By C. Littlefield on 2008 06 14
What draws me to this blog? That is a good question, although I imagine my answer will be quite different from the ones offered here. For one thing, I am not a progressive- or at least, I am not a progressive in the traditional sense of the word. Theodore Roosevelt was the last "progressive" who I identify with. Likewise, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of an Obama candidacy. But really, I digress. I should probably answer your question before I go off on tangents. ^_^
First and foremost, I am a humanist. I do not mean this as the atheist does- quite the opposite, as my religious convictions only strengthen my humanist beliefs. Bluntly said, I revel in all that humanity has accomplished, all that separates man from beast. This is in turn the reason Breakthrough appeals to me- unlike every other Environmental institute out there Breakthrough does not think of humanity as the world's worst problem, but as the world's greatest treasure. I firmly believe that every human being, every individual personality, is something as great as Yosemite, Yellowstone, or any other natural treasure. Likewise, every death is a tragedy of as great as the extinction of a species. This is not to say that we should not try and preserve the formations of Yosemite, or stop the extinction of a species, but that we need to learn the true value of every human being on this planet. In sum, it is this realization of the inherit value of every human being on this planet that drives both my personal and political philosophy.
By T. Greer on 2008 06 11
Bummer that there's a connection to youthfulness, don't you think? Too bad experience and wisdom don't add to adventurousness and cravings for a better world. They should. I think. Though maybe I'm crazy NOT to love the status quo.
I'm excited to read more about Willer and Jost.
By Jake de Grazia on 2008 06 11
"adventurousness that craves change. Maybe call it a recklessness. "
I would certainly call myself adventurous, but do not consider myself reckless. As for the crave for change, I think I would call it a crave for better. But it's important to recognize what's already good. Not everything has to be different.
I think all these things are cross-partisan, but mainly found in youth or youthful people.
Lindsey: I'd love to learn more about John Jost and Rob Willer and how their work relates to Breakthrough. I'll be keeping a close eye on this blog!
By Meryn Stol on 2008 06 10
Funny, Jake, that you should mention the idea of change as a shared progressive ideology. While it seems like a simple point, we've heard some really interesting findings these past few days at Breakthrough from great work being done by John Jost, a political psychologist out of NYU and Robb Willer, a sociologist out of Berkeley. While I think I may delve more deeply into this in a post tomorrow, basically both have looked in depth at the psychological and sociological factors in political views. It turns out our views are not as rational as we thought, but have strong sociological and psychological underpinnnings. According to Jost, for instance, there is strong evidence that progressives generally advocate social change and reject inequality. On the other hand, conservatives generally are more likely to defend the status quo and accept inequality.
I also really love your imagery of a progressive impatience for change. Yet this election is certainly turning the notion of "change" as solely a progressive ideal on its head.
And thanks for the point, Meryn, about just reacting to what you feel is wrong and right. Sometimes we do get too cerebral. Perhaps my personal ideology shouldn't revolve around some dead white guys.
By Lindsey Franklin on 2008 06 10
I wonder if one thing that binds progressives (or pushes us to the fringes of conservative communities) is an adventurousness that craves change. Maybe call it a recklessness. Maybe a perfectionism. An optimism. Hope.
I think it's sad to see people hold onto old, imperfect ideas. Sad for the world that has to endure them, but also sad for those people, people that can't imagine anything better.
One of the things I dig most about the Breakthrough perspective is your relentless push to try new things, your refusal to accept that we have the technology we need.
I sense in you guys the attitude that we can be better and do better, that we MUST be better and do better. It's an important attitude to share and to spread.
By Jake de Grazia on 2008 06 10
I think many people who feel drawn to this movement don't have any ideology to speak of. They're just quite informed about the happenings in their community and in the world - and importantly - dare to follow their hearts. You don't need an ideology to have trouble with ecosystem destruction, social injustice or whatever. It just feels wrong, for everyone.
I read lots of books, and even more blogs, but I've never read Singer, Mill, Locke or Hobbes, nor do I plan to. It may sound harsh, but I don't really care what they said. They were probably right, to some extend.
I'm a practical guy. I want to know what's happening, what's good, what's bad, and how we can get more of the good and less of the bad. By the time all the non-ideological issues are gone we're almost in utopia.
Just for example: Abortion... sucks. I can understand both pro-life and pro-choice arguments. It may be a question we'll never resolve, but I would thank heaven on my knees if abortion would be the only issue we'd have to talk about.
Nevertheless, it's good to discuss what binds us. I don't think it are age-old philosophers though.
I think it's something far more tacit, intangible. I think people are moved emotionally, and this can't be captured in words. We just want a better world.
I thought the Breakthrough book cited Nietzsche at some point. I guess you could call me an existentialist. If you don't accept any external meaning, you have to make meaning yourself, and I find this meaning in both living and care for life. But I think that's only human.
So could the progressive movement be bound just by our common humanity?
By Meryn Stol on 2008 06 09
Most of what I have read on compressed air storage indicates that natural gas is used to heat the air (i.e., we cannot yet blow the air through a turbine directly). Is there any effort to design a compressed air system that does not use natural gas?
By R Margolis on 2008 04 16
Al Gore has been offering solutions for years.
Anyone can easily find evidence of his work online. Every time Al Gore advances his work, the current of negativity begins flowing, don't let it shock you.
By Teresa Darmody on 2007 10 21
Not really a comment on your blog, but primarily a question. First, I was at the Policy and a Pint discussion in Minneapolis this week. I had a great time listening, and due to the number of people who surrounded you at the end, I was unable to ask the following: Is your desire in creating this new way to address environmental health a top-down or bottom up approach? And second, what are your ideas on the never ending conflict where a large percentage of the population believes that any environment exists solely for utilization, and the other belief that we are simply on this earth as stewards? Lastly, I just read an article in the WSJ by Daniel Botkin where he is stating that Global Warming proponents may be exaggerating the impacts in order to get society to change. What do you think?
By Danny on 2007 10 19
Heard about Breakthrough on Canadian CBC radio.
Googled *Breakthrough* and there you were, only five or six down from the top. = TG
By TG on 2007 10 18
While hybrids and biofuel vehicles are stop-gap measures for North America, battery operated cars [PEVs], and trucks are the enviro answer.
Government collects road taxes today as a cut of pumped gas and diesel.
To speed the wide use of EVs a new road tax collection method is required.
The government could collect that tax bi-monthly buy reading EV odomometers and charging only for miles travelled.
Low overhead drive through kiosks could be all that is required. = TG
By TG on 2007 10 18
Forget Al Gore, IPPC and Nobel
What could be better than tripping along Vancouver*s Robson street with great shops, coffee bars and friends Chevron and Exxon near by on a crystal clear sunny day?
After the fun on Robson and Denman in the west end one could drive over the Lionsgate bridge and take the gondola up Grouse mountain. Be a tourist for a day.
Looking down on Vancouver we can see the city is under a nicotine colored dome cloud. That seems odd. We just came from downtown and could swear the blue sky sunny day was crystal clear.
We know the pollution cloud that cities live under around the world cause massive pressure on health care costs. But what the heck; life is sure great today while the sun shines. Where does one start to reduce pollution anyway? Why bother?
One would have to work against the world*s richest and most powerful corporations, Exxon, Chevron and GM for electric and compressed air transportation.
One would have to convince friends that a range of 250 kilometers between fill-ups rather than 500 km is not an impossible hardship. Hybrids and bio fuels are helpful intrim solutions and they do reduce the demand for oil. The real solution though is the electric or compressed air car.
We often see a 1993 Honda Insight driving around town here in Courtenay BC. The driver is always smiling. He NEVER has to buy, pump or even smell gasoline. The Insight gets an estimated 80 to 120 mpg. Seems like magic, when it uses no gas at all.
Uh, OK, so that must be the pro-rated consumption taking materials and manufacture into account.
Big Oil and Government can dial in any oil/gas price they wish while bombs go off over Mid-East oil reserves. GM will make and sell hybrids as long as it keeps old-fashioned ICE engines on the highways. They do not want to give in to the simple, [ one moving part ], electric motor.
Guess the nicotine colored cloud enveloping cities around the world will remain. Too bad. = TG
PS: Tata motors [India],makes cars that run on compressed air. Taxis in Paris run on compessed air.
By TG on 2007 10 18
I liked Obama's energy plan, and I hear you did as well. He almost gets it, and even some on the right almost get it. But it is still just an issue on the tic list. I think you were saying in your book that it is THE issue. If so, I agree. But no one has yet made a convincing case for that. Your book was only a start. Maybe the next one. Below is the URL for my review of "Breakthrough" in RenewableEnergyAcess.com
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story;jsessionid=D3CF6D4C656ED136B091B3A1734E3220?id=50262
By Mark Braly on 2007 10 18