How about markedly de-emphasizing fossil fuels as the PRIMARY source of energy, starting now. Among other things, that would mean giving serious incentives to corporations to switch to other, RENEWABLE, non-fossil fuels. We are not talking about either an ALL FOSSIL FUEL economy or else NO FOSSIL FUEL economy. This need not be viewed as an all or nothing situation. We could make what indeed would be a substantial, if not radical, shift away from the predominant use of fossils fuels to other fuels.

Let us consider, just for a moment, that climate change is the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction which we have to acknowledge, address and overcome. Is there any doubt in your mind that much could done, starting now, to respond ably to this global threat to life as we know it which is inadvertently precipitated by humanity?

Always,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

As for climate, it depends on solar cost.  If the cost is cut in half then the climate can be 50% clouds and still have the same return on investment.  Seattle could be 100% solar heated with seasonal heat storage connected to district heating.

The market is low-carbon energy.   Electricity is a subset of that market.

"In a world awash with pollution and waste caused by the overproduction of energy and overconsumption, how much more energy can the planet handle? Perhaps the 'google twins' ought to pay a visit to Naples, Italy (by boat preferably) for a close encounter of the best kind!"

Naples: The Triangle of Death

Kill the World to Save the World!

Is humanity soon to be confronted with million dollar global challenges or billion dollar global challenges, or even trillion dollar ones?

If the daunting global challenges posed to humanity by the astounding growth of the human population overspreading Earth are as huge as they appear in these early years of Century XXI, then 25 million dollars is a pitiful pittance.

Afterall, in 2006 Goldman Sachs awarded year-end bonuses to certain employees totalling more than 16 billion dollars.

How many trillion dollars will the USA alone pay for the fiasco in Iraq?

If we can spend billions of dollars to reward one corporation's economic powerbrokers for underwriting another year of unsustainable economic growth and throw away trillions of dollars to protect access to, and to control, a supply of mid-East oil, surely we can find adequate funds to deal with climate change.  

As things now stand, the funds given to preserve Earth as a fit place for human habitation by our children amount literally to nothing more than "drops in the bucket."

For a moment, let's us consider that climate change is the size and has the shape of a weapon of mass destruction which has to be acknowledged, addressed and overcome.  That is to say, dealing reasonably and sensibly with climate change is a the equivalent of a categorical imperative.

In the light of such circumstances, current leaders can be seen failing to respond ably to what people everywhere can see as somehow real.  Current leadership appears to be primarily engaged in fools' errands, while refusing to so much as openly acknowledge, much less begin to address, the ominously looming global challenges visible, even now, on the far horizon.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

what, pray tell, is "marginal land?"  i have to assume that you are referring to previously undeveloped, pristine wilderness, even if you don't find it visually appealing?

in a word, UNCOOL.  leave wilderness alone, Google!  who needs a bunch more "utility scale" choke-hold power nowadays, especially that which will obliterate hundreds of thousands of acres of important desert habitat?

if these guys cared one bit about the planet, they would only support LOCAL, DECENTRALIZED RENEWABLE POWER ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND, and not dynamiting, bulldozing, scraping and destroying the desert.  if you want to empower people, you don't do it by keeping them enslaved to utilities, either.  don't give them a fish or even just teach them to fish - give them a damned fish pond and some rods!

put your money where your mouth is and DO NO EVIL, including to the desert - let the people have power on their own roofs.  you have the money, you have the intention, now do the right thing.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

Have you been to Nevada?  I'd say there's a bit of extra space for mega-solar farms out there.  I would daresay a few more windfarms in the Dakotas would do a helluva lot of good, too, and compensate farmers who could still farm, to boot.

Local solutions are great (I have solar panels at my house) -- but we're not going to convert to renewables fast enough to avoid a global meltdown unless power companies start moving away from coal on a large enough scale -- and damned fast.

Let's do everything we can -- locally included.  But local solutions alone won't do it in the short term.

By placing solar like this on devestated land, revenue can be generated to rehabilitate it.

But right up on the roof, there's more than enough solar space to power the country, along with other renewable sources in a distributed smart grid.

No wilderness land need be destroyed for solar.  Wind is great because it only has a small footprint on the prairie, the rest can be farm or restored prairie conservation/carbon sink land.  Plenty of depleted, drought stricken farm land that can be rehabiliated on the northern great plains.  A big wind machine every aquare mile or so would pay for it.

We all need a Prairie Natinal Park and wind farm.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The time has come for people to whom so much has been given to give something back, rather than continue to senselessly hoard resources and to endlessly accumulate wealth.

Thank you, Green Mom,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Wouldn't it be great if everyone already thought the way we do on this blog.  :-)

Not ideal for wildlife habitat.

Though I think decentralized and personal power would be the ultimate solution, for right now we'll probably haveta settle for a mixture of the two if we want to change things before we run outta time.  Too much politics and economics involved (not to mention social and cultural issues) to switch over to decentralized use immediately.

In an age when the adage "see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth" rules, the family of humanity cannot do without people like you and others speaking out loudly and clearly in blogs like this one, Earth & Sky, Orion and Dot Earth.

Always,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

if the government (and google) truly dedicated themselves to SERIOUSLY getting local, decentralized power online and to R & D into storage and increased efficiency, while using ONLY PREVIOUSLY DEVLOPED LAND for larger-scale projects, we would never, ever need to kill wilderness, because the difference we could make in 8 years would far more than offset these plants, which use enormous swathes of land for very little power.

just because you and i are too ignorant to understand what role desert ecosystems play (and our government prefers not to study it in case they will be forced to stop covering it with military bases), i am certainly not arrogant enough to destroy them!  we didn't understand the role of wetlands until the oceans became poisoned and hurricanes destroyed the gulf - can't we EVER learn from our mistakes?

why not fight for something we can do NOW, TODAY, and try to get our government to help us get all our own wind and solar systems at home?  isn't it high time WE got some benefits from our tax dollars, instead of just the utilities??  they get our public land almost free then bottle the wind and sun and sell it back to us at enormous profits.

time for A NEW PARADIGM - local, decentralized power generation on previously developed land for ALL NEW POWER.  phasing out coal is going to take over 50 years, no matter how hard all of us fight, so there is NO reason to kill more nature now.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.