During one of our many discussions here at Gristmill around cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, I did some figuring and realized that, if we started in 2008, we would have three "halving" periods between then and 2050 if we could just cut emissions by 5 percent per year -- not an unreachable goal for people who absolutely waste a buttload of energy.
I've been talking up what I've taken to calling "The 5% Solution" here in Springfield (where the Simpsons live), making contact with a local group to propose starting a campaign for it as a project of the organization, with the idea that it would spread to other towns, cities, and states, and then all over America (insert Howard Dean-like scream here).
This morning, the fellow I've been talking to sent me to this link about something I have not heard of, the Sierra Club's "2% Solution." What?! Have I been left at the gate? Did I invent something well after the patent had already been issued to someone else?
Turns out, no.
In a nutshell, what I proposed here at Gristmill is that we need to get everyone in rich countries to cut MORE than 80 percent by 2050 (h/t, Tom A, etc.), but that this is still doable because it only requires about a 5 percent year-to-year cut each year. That means 5 percent this year, and then 5 percent (on the 95 percent remaining) next year, and then 5 percent (on the approx. 90 percent remaining) in the next year, and so on.
In other words, the "5% Solution" requires a smaller and smaller absolute cut in emissions each year but still allows the planet to reach the goal. Moreover, it allows the poorest countries, the ones who have caused essentially none of the problem, room for some additional emissions growth before they have to start making cuts.
The problems with Sierra Club's "2% Solution":
- It calls for equal 2-percent-sized cuts (referenced to todays emission levels) over the next 40 years -- that is, it calls for the same absolute amount of reduction in 2049 as in 2008; that's going to be really, really tough to do, if not impossible. By using 5 percent per year (referenced to the prior year), the absolute cut you have to make keeps dropping each year; by 2036, you have to drop less than 1 percent per year (in absolute terms, referenced to today) from then on out to stay on track.
- Sierra Club's "2% Solution" doesn't go far enough. The "5% Solution" provides for three 50 percent reduction periods (each one about 14 years) between 2008 and 2050. That reduces emissions by 87 percent or so, which gives places like China, India, and smaller poor countries some room for further emissions and development. If the rich countries, who put 99 percent of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, only cut by the amount of the global average cut needed (80 percent, say), then no one else can emit any more than they are today, or else the world misses the target.
- The Sierra Club has to deal with its own conflicts when it comes to reducing emissions by the rich. Consider the "Get Outdoors" link on their page that promotes their trips, including "350 trips around the country and abroad." In other words, promoting international jet flights to exotic locations. Cutting jet flights is one of the easiest reductions available to us.
So, while it's interesting, I wouldn't revise the "5% Solution" because of it. With luck, they'll consider these points, change the "2% Solution" into the "5% Solution," put me out of business, and save the world at the same time.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Kit Stolz Posted 8:33 am
11 Jun 2007
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/big_ask.html
Permalink
naturescene Posted 8:49 am
11 Jun 2007
Good points too, they make a lot of sense.
Your scheme would couple nicely with a global cap-and-trade scheme.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:43 am
11 Jun 2007
its a good proposal that you make in that it does ease the pressure as the decades pass,
while still heading for >80% cut of US GHGs.
Yet there are a couple of points worth considering, which might justify a review of the system.
1/. We need of course to cut global emissions by >80% just to stop adding to the problem of excess atmospheric carbon.
So to start cutting that excess atmospheric carbon we need to go considerably further, which means both swingeing cuts in emissions AND ALSO effective carbon recovery programs.
And given the rates of acceleration of the major feedback loops, it looks highly unlikely that we shall have 43 years, (till 2050) to achieve such changes.
2/. Public, business & political opinion has yet to get really fired up over the issue, as most people have yet to face the scale of loss & injury that is coming.
When people realize that the problem is one to two orders of magnitude worse than the public now sees it, then the long-term curve of change must be able to utilize that new commitment.
3/. The naturally occurring curve of transitional change is an S-bend or "Sigmoid" curve, : staring gently, turning much steeper, and then completing more gently again.
This is also the curve most practical for both the public and business to accomodate, in that it provides a clear path that includes some preparation time.
With these factors in mind, I'd suggest graphing out the Sierra Club's straight line fantasy,
the JMG (1) somewhat cliff-like exponential curve,
and the Billhook (1) sigmoid curve of transition.
With these curves in view I hope that you might find time to reconsider the structural detail of your proposal.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:51 am
11 Jun 2007
Not to bash to concept, this smack of social and political engineering on many levels that is probably never going to work unless there are regulations that can help get you there. Oh I forgot, you also need "models" that can give folks two to ten times the credit for offsets and vehicle inspection / maintainence. I've played this game for for twenty years and I know better.
Paper credit thrive without any real-world reductions. Can you imaging what happens when pollutant concentrations go down and the outcome is worse? Well that exactly what happened to San Francisco when they reduce major amounts of VOC and NOX but the was MORE ozone. Gee, what a concept: less CO2 could continue to elevate ambient global temperatures.
Now that's a "feed-back loop" if I ever saw one.
So the trick is energy policy, New Source Performance Standards, building efficiency standards, mobile source fuel economy standards, monetary incentives for non-combustion energy, and hey how about all those international ships?
My point is you can't sit there and dictate a certain rate of progress unless you also have the tools for people to achieve it. It is like an "Emporer without any clothes."
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:44 pm
11 Jun 2007
I agree completely.
My intention, should The 5% Solution become a program in reality rather than just in possibility, would be that people would sign up to make the 5% commitment and then someone from that person's community would visit with them, help them figure out and analyze their own carbon footprint, and devise a realistic plan to cut 5% -- a detailed plan with dates and figures for the first three years, and a slightly less detailed plan for for years four through ten, and then provide for as much monitoring and feedback as the person wants, and update the plan every year as we go.
The behavior change model I have in mind is the one used in Joe Dominguez/Vicki Robin's book "Your Money or Your Life," which (in essence) boils down to asking people to keep track of their spending and income and then, every month, to review all the money inflows and outflows and to ask themselves if they would get more fulfillment from more or less spending (income) of that type --- that is, at the end of the month, people ask themselves "Did I get $200 worth of fulfillment from the money I spent on coffees and snacks at work? Would I be more fulfilled if I spent more than that?"
It's quite powerful -- people tend to spend dramatically less when they become conscious of it and consider whether the spending is providing the fulfillment appropriate for something that cost that much in terms of life energy.
I think that a little bit of education can go a long way in America, and giving people the tools to decide for themselves what things give them the greatest fulfillment per lb. CO2e is a powerful tool.
As for "this won't work without regulations," my response is that the regulations will be a lot easier to get when you can approach elected officials with the fact that their constituents are already enacting this change, so the politicians better get on board if they want to be seen as "leading" anything (where the people lead, the leaders will follow and all that).
I fully support renewable energy standards, carbon caps (maybe not cap and trades, but caps), carbon taxes, etc. All of which are well beyond many peoples' sphere of influence. But I think I can get more cities/towns/companies/states/nations to adopt The 5% Solution by showing that people are willing to do so than I can get people to adopt it by waiting for the cities/towns/companies/states or nations.
I'm concerned with helping people see that they CAN reduce their greenhouse footprint a little at a time, do their bit for the planet, and not have a lower quality of life while they do it.
So, no, I'm not about dictating anything.
I'm about getting out of the clouds (80% by 2050! 90% by 2030!) and getting into practical things like caulk, attic fans, mass transit, car sharing, local food, power strips to combat power vampires, careful tree selection and siting for cooling, solar design, etc. etc.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:19 pm
11 Jun 2007
The sad thing is that if America pursued its huge lead in building fission plants back in the 1960s we already would be at half the CO2 emissions we are at now -- just like France is in 2007!
I remember going to the New York City Hall of Science, which was part of the detritus of the the 1964-1965 World's Fair. Unfunded during the 70s and 80s, it operated on back up, barely running a few of the old exhibits from the fair.
One of those was the ConEd flying saucer...a UFO shaped theater extolling the benefits of nuclear energy. The best part was that after the show they gave you an LP recording of the show, complete with a sky blue album cover and some inserts. I used to play that all the time...they had a picture of a family with a nuke in its backyard. Since I grew up in South Ozone Park in the shadow of Kennedy Airport, listening to 727s, and 747s screeching overhead once every 5 minutes (on a cloudy night), living next to a nuke seemed like step up in social status.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
bcohen Posted 2:24 pm
11 Jun 2007
I have 2 thoughts to add:
1.) There is so much incredible low hanging fruit for individuals, especially in North America that a 20% reduction in the first year is not only within reach, it is actually fairly easy to achieve.
For example, depending on which GHG calculator you use, you could get there by a combination of many of the following:
Transportation: carpool, rideshare, or buy a hybrid or less polluting vehicle
In your home: allow the temperature to rise a few degress in your home in the summer and go down a few degrees in the winter (and consider getting rid of A/C in favor of natural ventilation, ceiling fans, etc.; increase the insulation in your home, install CFL light bulbs, etc. Consider buying green energy certficates for your home
Lifestyle: get your groceries from local producers/farmers markets; fly less; buy less
2.) The other point I want to make is that cities, especially in North America have a huge role to play in this too-building codes, renewable energy quotas (especially with distributed energy solutions), land use/zoning which discourages sprawl in favor of mixed-use live, work and play communites, etc.
If we individually put our minds to it and also forced our politicians and city leadership to stand up and take the lead (as they are starting to do while they get tired of waiting for the federal government-in Canada and the U.S.) we will get there.
Boyd Cohen, Ph.D., LEED AP
regenerativecities.blogspot.com
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:24 pm
11 Jun 2007
I'm not wedded to 5%--that simply happens to be the minimum rate that makes the math work to reach the goal (>85% by 2050) -- but it does have a number of virtues as applied to large numbers of people:
1) It's low enough that it's difficult for anyone to pick it apart by saying "but what about (group x)--they can't possibly meet the goal." More aggressive goals seem to trigger a justification/ rationalization reflex, even among people who are supposedly on your side. People committed to the status quo (not consciously, but psychically invested in it nevertheless) are willing to spend a lot of energy up front to avoid accepting an overly-ambitious goal for change. 5% undercuts this reflexive, destructive response pretty well. Very few people in rich countries would not live just as well next year as this one while still cutting their emissions by 5%.
2) It's high enough to matter--millions of people reducing 5% per year vastly outweigh the effect of the handful that would, today, be willing to go for 20%.
3) It sets an attainable goal that likely avoids having anyone who is committed to the program fail to succeed. Failure is especially destructive---anyone who has tried dieting knows that the toughest time to stick on a diet is when you've suddenly shot upward for whatever reason.
The best research today says that the most sustained long term weight loss is so gradual that it's barely perceptible-- about a net 100 calories per day deficit (through increased activity or decreased consumption, or both). What seems to happen is that the more aggressive the diet goal, the less likely is the dieter to succeed.
To continue the analogy, I'm about promoting small lifestyle changes by a LOT of people who can, therefore, stick with them; I don't want to be seen as promoting a strict diet/radical lifestyle change because then we'll get only a few adopters.
Obviously some people will exuberantly embrace the 20% --- they will run around finding low-hanging fruit all over the place, and eagerly take steps to capture it, and that's great.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:55 pm
11 Jun 2007
With these factors in mind, I'd suggest graphing out
--the Sierra Club's straight line fantasy,
--the JMG (1) somewhat cliff-like exponential curve,and
--the Billhook (1) sigmoid curve of transition.
Bill, the same curve describes technology adoption and a number of other phenomenon, as you note. I suggest that we have actually been at the "flat part" for some time, only the efficiency gains have been swamped by a number of other factors which will not pertain much longer (cheap energy being the most important one).
Thus, I think we're actually at the first knee in the curve now, ready for a sharply accelerating response as commitment to reductions combines with rising energy costs to promote sharp gains in efficiency and in conservation.
The 5% Solution already has the second knee of your S curve embedded in it--it shows up on the plot of annual emissions (that is, The 5% Solution only looks like an exponential if you plot the % reduction rather than total emissions).
If you plot total GHG emissions, we're going to see emissions flatten out; then the sharp drop as people get the hang of it (after the first knee), then the tapering down (the second knee of the curve) to the final level.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:12 pm
11 Jun 2007
Frisbees for instance.
Or solar, wind, and biogas powered homes and plugin cars. Or conservation devices for heating/cooling that use underground heat sink temperature with direct circulation or heat pumps.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:03 pm
11 Jun 2007
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/loginMembersO ...
A new report from the U.K. Office of Government Commerce about Open Source Software Trials in Government, has found that servers running Linux could combat the rising problem of e-waste because they last up to twice as long as machines running Windows. E-waste is any refuse created by discarded electronic devices and components as well as substances involved in their manufacture or use. According to estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than four million tons of ...
Oh, wait...Grist is probably funded by Paul Allen and other Seattle Insiders...sorry, Grist, didn't mean to break your rice bowl.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:36 pm
11 Jun 2007
(Did I wet my pants just then? Well, pretend you did not notice.)
As the post-modern culture critic W.J.T. Mitchell writes in his fascinating study of dinosaurs in popular culture, "The Last Dinosaur Book":
<<
The Sinclair Corporation chose the dinosaur as its logo for its easy recognizability and its associations with giantism and great age. Sinclair promoted its higher-priced "premium" gasoline as if its quality depended on the aging process, a kind of crossing of gasoline and whiskey advertising strategies. The Brontosaurus expressed Harry Sinclair's philosophy of corporate giantism. The company's aim was to control the entire process of exploration, drilling, shipping, and retailing, from the wellhead to the pump. This strategy has itself become something of a dinosaur in the age of corporate downsizing.
>>
Michelangelo's Pieta` in the Vatican pavilion was OK too. True to the Fair's philosophy of "Why Fail to Expend Energy When You Can Be Expending Energy?!," everybody slid by on a motorized conveyer belt. Thank God they have not installed one of those things outside the chapel in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome, where that statue usually resides.
To JMG: I like what you are saying, but it is not clear what you mean by "we." All of us, individually, taken together? Or, our nation, state, union, collectivity, commonwealth, etc.?
If the former, it would be useful to write up and publish a few recommended schedules of reduction, dependent on how different individuals with their own respective lifestyles tend to use energy most. E.g., I do not have a car, and do not have a free-standing house; and the energy policies of the building in which I live are not in my direct control.
On the Sierra Club: Sorry, but I am not renewing my membership. I already belong to other organizations, and like their styles and emphases better. (E.g. Oceana: Did you catch that recent bit in the news, about Jellyfish off the eastern coast of Spain, with a comment by Oceana's person-in-charge over there?) Also, the "Get Outdoors!" thing is so totally irrelevant and unhelpful, no?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:27 pm
11 Jun 2007
Bankers and others use the term "compounded".
JMG wrote in the original post: The "5% Solution" provides for three 50 percent reduction periods (each one about 14 years) between 2008 and 2050. That reduces emissions by 87 percent or so
2008 through 2049 inclusive would be 42 years. The result of compounding 5% reductions per year would be .95 to the 42nd power = 0.11598. The emissions-reduction would therefore be 88.4%. If we include the year 2050, for a total of 43 whole years of reduction, the result would be .95 to the 43rd power = 0.11018, or an emissions-reduction of 89.0%.
By the way, why are we planning on reducing emissions when they might prove to deliver healthy stress, and when carbon might prove to be easy to filter from the atmosphere?
Permalink
Billhook Posted 11:13 pm
11 Jun 2007
when you wrote
>In a nutshell, what I proposed here at Gristmill is that we need to get everyone in rich countries to cut MORE than 80 percent by 2050 (h/t, Tom A, etc.), but that this is still doable because it only requires about a 5 percent year-to-year cut each year.<
I read it as a general policy proposal, as opposed to a voluntary conduct campaign -
My mistake.
No doubt the Sigmoid Curve will come into UNFCCC negotiations
as a factor in agreeing the optimum transition pathway under Contraction & Convergence.
Maybe in Bali ?
Meanwhile, best of luck with the 5% Solution campaign.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 11:53 pm
11 Jun 2007
"Healthy stress"? I don't see how it's healthy for those on whom it is imposed willy-nilly while the benefits go to others.
-- although presumably governments will agree not to be as aggressive in slamming atmospheric [CO2] back to its preindustrial 280 ppm as we all now are being in slamming it towards 400 and beyond.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:52 am
12 Jun 2007
Not to belabor the points I made in "Cutting carbon by 80% by 2050", but I remember suggesting that we extend the "leaps" to a few years at a time so that things that take more than a year to build -- and as I understand it, you are an engineer so you understand that it often takes many years to finish a project -- can be brought in under a step-stair scheme as you suggest. For big instance, light rail systems, which should go a long way to reducing carbon, especially if built in conjunction with wind/solar, take a few years to build, so a program to build the rail/wind/solar systems would have long lead times. In big addition, building neighborhoods that were mixed use/dense to take advantage of light rail and that included passive solar, etc. heating (leed) standards also take a few years to build. I know you are into this stuff, and, I think it can be argued, you wouldn't scare people away with these plans, you'd get overloaded light rail/center city apartment complexes when they were built.
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:21 am
12 Jun 2007
That's why I think that, for most people, an annual goal is better than a three year goal, even though the three-year goal is virtually identical in magnitude: it avoids the last-minute frenzy problem, which causes many projects to fail.
Governments are naturally more likely to have the big projects that won't pay off in a year---on the other hand, governments have many small projects available to them that, if the proper sense of urgency is felt, can be implemented.
What is needed is for governments and other organizations to start enough quick-results responses immediately, so that progress is made even while they work on the longer-term responses. Car sharing, for example, can be implemented with negligible capital investment. Get that underway while the transport planners work on the light rail or, better yet, streetcars and pedestrian blocks, and while the national rail system is being rebuilt. Outlaw idling diesels today; getting the long-haul trucks off the road entirely will take a little longer.
I'm not a huge fan of baseball, but one thing I did carry away from my master's program is that one reason that the Japanese were beating the pants off the West was that they tended to focus on many small technology improvements (singles) whereas we like to focus on "home runs" and "triples."
I note that, here in the West, we even seem to have adopted a new entry for the buzzword bingo set, "Game changer." It seems that we don't go a day without this or that executive touting this or that "game changing" idea. Meanwhile, the Japanese steadily crank out singles.
We need that same attitude in responding to global heating--let's do today what we can, and do some more tomorrow. A little bit here, a little bit there, and it all adds up. We cannot afford to wait for all the wonder toys; if they show up after we've started down the road, fine, but let's not put off responding for even another day.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:45 am
12 Jun 2007
By the way, the Japanese had some huge government-initiated programs -- the most successful probably being their effort that started, I believe, in the 1970s, to construct what is now the world's largest semiconductor machinery industry, certainly a crucial industry. They -- the ministry of international trade and industry, MITI -- brought together all the big firms that were relevant, so that Nikon, which at the time of course was mainly a camera company, now makes about 50% of the world's optical lithography equipment. Once the government-led effort had made a large leap, then, of course, the normal (if you have a competent system) incremental innovations kicked in. So, for instance, say we put together light rail networks form sea to shining sea, then incremental innovations/add-ons would get us even more carbon reductions.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:46 am
12 Jun 2007
I would rather invest in community prototypes of 80% reductions. Then duplicate those community prototypes at 5% growth rates.
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:55 am
12 Jun 2007
If the former, it would be useful to write up and publish a few recommended schedules of reduction, dependent on how different individuals with their own respective lifestyles tend to use energy most. E.g., I do not have a car, and do not have a free-standing house; and the energy policies of the building in which I live are not in my direct control.
Canis, all of the above. The end goal is global reduction--necessarily that will require reductions among nearly all subsets of the global populations. The 5% Solution proposes that the rich countries must reduce the most, in order to allow the poor countries a little additional time for increased emissions (although I think most of them would be happy to skip the carbon intensive development phase if they could afford to ... hmmmm, which countries might have the money to make that possible?)
As for people who are already way down in the carbon production rankings, congratulations! You make the reductions you can personally and then you work outward.
Off the top of my head, for instance, you stop thinking of your building's energy policies as outside your control --- you work on getting consensus among all the stakeholders (owners, tenants, utility companies, etc.) in your building to implement the 5% Solution for your building. You work on making more local goods and foods available, ones made with less energy and shipped lesser distances. You help get rid of the insane culture of "business dress," which is shorthand for "requires intensive heating and cooling of all interior spaces, year round, and lots of dry cleaning." (A city ordinance that buildings could not be cooled below 78 or heated above 68 could have a huge impact.) You work on making transit fareless, safe, and attractive.
But, as I said to someone else, the model I have in mind is distributed/locally directed --- I'm not going to sit here in Springfield and tell people in NYC how to best reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; what we need is agreement that, overall, both Springfield and NYC need to reduce emissions 5% a year, and for the clever people in each city to work together to make that happen.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:05 am
12 Jun 2007
We need as many people as possible who are willing to contemplate dramatic reductions like those you propose to make those reductions.
But as someone once noted, a million people skipping meat one meal a week has a much greater effect than does 10,000 people forswearing meat entirely (21 meals a week).
Obviously, if you can get a million people to give up meat entirely that's even better. I suspect that's not so likely, at least not until they've experienced success giving it up once a week.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
tomrobey Posted 3:08 am
12 Jun 2007
More efficient cars also has essentially the same pattern or maybe even worse as it takes time for cars to be replaced. Perhaps there are some low hanging fruit but we (and even more, China) are still building coal plants.
The reason it is important to realize this is that this is exactly what is happening in Europe. If we expect 5% the first year or 2% the first year and find out as Europe did that there is almost no progress the first year then proponents will become discouraged and critics will argue that fighting global warming is useless. We need to realize progress will be slow at first just like turning around a giant oil tanker.
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:50 am
12 Jun 2007
I think this explains why 5% is plenty ambitious, even though Boyd is right that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit available for immediate reductions.
Meanwhile, Tom, I'm not sure what you mean by this when you say "this is what's happening in Europe." Europe seems to live pretty well on about half the energy per head that we do, so they're about 14 years ahead of us on the 5% plan. If you're referring to the problems they have experienced with the carbon trading scheme, then, like the cat in the Shrek movie, all I can say is "thass nom mine."
Carbon trading is about making helping businesses profit while making the minimum mandated reductions over the longest possible times. Not a useful system for avoiding disaster.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:38 am
12 Jun 2007
Next a community of these homes and businesses that are energy self sufficient in a local grid.
Then all these local autonomous grids forming a regional grid. And so forth.
Exponential growth will kick in and watch the revolution astound everyone, even us pragmatic idealists. We need a clean, green economic boom.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:39 am
12 Jun 2007
Getting the train moving down the rails is tough be it's rolling, baby. The US Congress is going to take back up the Energy Bill and we must be serious in telling them that a diverse program not centered on just bio-fuels is the way to go. A bunch of money goes just to your home costs for energy, such as:
home heating up north, where in some places fuel oil (yuck) is still used
home A/C cooling in the south, where everything is electric and wastes massive amounts of power and energy
I like some of the other concepts, such as congestion pricing for downtoen NY, but again I think that should be pro-rated for fuel efficiency and not per vehicle/driver.
Our country, because it is so blessed with so much energy, manages to waste over 30 percent of it due to bad construction, lack of maintenance (another subject, another day), and poor conservation policies. People don't understand that if they're wasting municipal water, they're also wasting the energy used to pump it. We could go on and on.
The low hanging fruit is really obvious, right in front of our noses. Buy a scooter for those short rides. Jeez, I'm probably preaching to the choir again but you get the picture. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:51 pm
12 Jun 2007
No sign of population stabilization as far as my eye can see. With each new resident, each individual slice of the collective pie grows a little smaller ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:52 pm
12 Jun 2007
Most cooling could be done with direct circulation of cool ground temperatures to the floor of buildings using a circulating fluid in a closed loop, water with a bit of antifreeze (just in case).
Most heating could be done with waste heat from appliances and other energy uses inside buildings. All that is needed is a heat envelope just under the outwer layer of the building created by circulating that same ground temperature with the same closed loop water/antifreeze system.
Circulating pumps for this purpose use very little energy. Solar panels on buildings would easily provide the power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink