Today I want to follow up a bit on last week's discussion of the BP oil spill and what we can do to help create a world where nothing like it will ever happen again. Griffith wisely re-iterated my point that cutting back on oil consumption and thus choking off the corporate machinery that extracts it is ultimately our responsibility--we use less, they don't have a market any more, and the difficulty inherent in doing this can't be an excuse for not doing it. Of course, people still need energy, and as the decades roll on more and more and more people are going to have access to modern technologies that require energy in some form or another. I touched on a transition to an economy powered by clean fuel technologies last time, and I'd like to return there now.
Probably everyone reading this blog is at the very least familiar with the idea of a clean energy economy by now. It's an idea with enough popular support that for a while there (shortly before the spill) even BP was trying to cash in on it with a heavily-greenwashed TV ad campaign to the effect that a diverse plan including all forms of energy technology (oil and gas being among them) would be necessary to move into the future. Whatever you may believe about the merits of "energy diversity" for its own sake, there's little question that the concept of "the end of an age" where oil and oil alone is concerned is starting to become mainstream. However, in my observation, the idea is still getting a lot more media attention than is actual concrete planning, which is what we need to start seeing (and doing) if we're ever going to make it happen. The fact is, for the time being, that practically all of our energy infrastructure is built around oil. How do we go about redesigning it?
This subject could easily make for weeks worth of discussion, and it is my sincere hope that it does. To get things started, it is my very great pleasure to introduce a public information campaign and plan which I feel has a lot of promise, dubbed "The Energy (R)evolution," to those who may not yet be aware of it. This plan is the work of the venerable Greenpeace, and is a shining example of what they do best: plan (old-school field-work seems largely to have fallen to their energetic bastard child Sea Shepherd). In brief, they try to comprehensively tackle these five goals:
1: Ensure fair energy access for all.
2: Respect natural limits--resources, emissions, etc.
3: Phase out dirty, unsustainable fuels.
4: Use proven renewable solutions and decentralize.
5: Increase human well-being without fossil fuels.
I especially appreciate the inclusiveness that is a major element of this plan--it is global in scope, with a distinct and individually formulated course of action for ten world regions, developed and developing, to bring everyone to the party by 2050. It is also quite practical--a little too slow in places for my liking, in fact, but then I am not the most patient soul when it comes to implementing beneficial change. All in all, I think it's a good start. You can find the report further outlined, as well as available for full download, here. Take a look. Thoughts? Comments? Other suggestions? Remember, it's up to us to pull the plug on Big Oil's iron lung. Let's get it done!
Love, peace, and a better world,
-Ran-Zhen Rui
Hello Ran-Zhen Rui.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank goodness that your sister is alright after her accident. See, our society's transportation choices are dangerous!
Next, I love the new page design and layout. While the earlier format was attractive, this new format is much easier to read. (Old eyes appreciate that.)
Now, to the point: Our society can change energy sources quickly. We have done it before. My grandfather was born in a world where coal powered industry, heated homes and moved people via trains and ships. No one born in the 19th century could have ever guessed how quickly coal (complete with Robber Baron millionaires)would give way to oil. Oil pushed coal out because it was cheaper, more convenient, and promoted personal liberty. It did. No amount of evangelizing will convince people to give that up. Humans make decisions based upon the short term, not the long term. The only way to drive a nail into the coffin of oil's iron lung is to find a cheaper, more convenient alternative that continues to support the personal liberty granted by the automobile. When I peer into my crystal ball I see smaller, lighter fuel cell cars. What do you see?
Hello Griffith,
ReplyDeleteYou said it. I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am that she's okay.
Thank you! I rather like the sunset colors myself.
It's certainly true that we can and have changed energy sources quickly, at least in certain sectors of society, and that we must do so again now. I am not sure, however, whether the example of coal is directly applicable to our current situation. You yourself have already identified one major difference: the previous transition came about largely as a result of technological and economic factors which do not (yet) apply at this moment (an "out of the blue" rogue invention with unexpected popularity creates a demand for a product that coal can't satisfy, and there's more money to be made in oil all of a sudden). While alternative fuels are not as horribly inefficient as opponents tend to portray them, there's little question that they don't (yet) replicate these last turn-of-the-century economic incentives (they likely would very quickly if research and development for these technologies truly got equal funding and consideration, but then, where does that funding come from for the most part?). In the short term, then, I would tend to agree that for personal transportation, the immediate future probably involves greater fuel efficiency in well-established technology. The danger that I see here is that such superficial and preliminary measures on their own have the potential to breed a sense of false accomplishment and dampen incentives for further progress forward. We must hope that we can appeal to people's better natures for that--stark warnings about the certain consequences of widespread environmental degradation don't seem to have been enough so far.
I will also hasten to add that we are not just talking about personal transportation when we talk about transitioning to a clean energy economy. In fact, outside of the automotive industry, it is hardly as though coal has been phased out at all--it continues to be a major fuel source in electric power plants, at least in the United States. Quick, large-scale replacement of this kind of infrastructure with Earth-systems-based power is entirely feasible, if expensive and inconvenient from a start-up perspective, and most consumers would never even noticew the difference if they weren't told (although it may well be cheaper!).
Yes, Ran-Zhen Rui, yes. Coal has never really left us, has it? There is one place where it is no longer a factor, however. Believe it or not, that place is Wales. The land of the coal miner has no active coal mines. Why? Economic factors of course. We don't seem to ever change energy sources because we ought to, but only because we find a cheaper way to go. Did we stop killing whales because we loved them? No. It was only because it was cheaper to pump oil from the ground than it was to harpoon it on the high seas. (I know there is all of the "scientific" harvesting going on by Japan, but you get my point.) I don't think that humanity will change energy sources because we know what is good for us. We will only do it when it is more cost effective. Technology got us into this mess, and I think that it offers the best chance of our getting out again without a major crash. As I said earlier, I'll put my money on the fuel cell.
ReplyDelete