CHANGEpartner’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Either/Or or Both/And Thinking

  It's not Either/Or

  You'd said "Should we spend money and time researching and developing technology to make coal less awful? Or is this a stupid misdirection of human capital, better spent on solar, wind, hydro, ocean power, and conservation? Within these basic choices lie multitudes of questions about global responsibility, costs per kilowatt, the potential of technology, the role of corporate money in government policy, and the will of the people."  

  We need to move beyond this either/or thinking.  We need to accelerate development of renewables, AND make coal cleaner.  

  Given that coal currently fuels about 50% of US electricity production and 25% of our total energy, and the fact that significant scale-up of renewable energy sources will take years under best-case scenarios, we can't afford NOT to make coal cleaner.  That said, we do have to identify the right balance of investment in both accelerating market-viable renewables and cleaning up coal.  On Umbra on clean coal posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Response to Common Wealth article

  There are some underlying points in Sachs' comments that are key:
  

  • We need to consider how the myriad issues we face are interrelated, and collect data/experiment to determine root causes.
    
  • Make decisions based on data, not beliefs (which relates to Sachs' comments about not dismissing any energy source out of hand.  
    
  • While not addressed directly, absolutely essential is to be clear-eyed about our current growth trajectory, to understand the implications of this trajectory, and to identify the MULTIPLE actions that will be needed to put us on a different path.

  CHANGEpartnerOn Jeffrey Sachs, economist and eco-problem solver, chats about his plans to save the world posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Early Warning Signs @ Global Warming Cafe

  Ken:

  Your post reminded me of Werbach's recent Blue speech.  You're both saying that we've been working on "saving" the environment for 30+ years, and we're worse off now than when we started.  We have to change, and fast, if we're going to get to 350 or 450 ppm.

  At heart, I think you're talking about leverage and scale.  If we have to take significant action soon to avoid the climate change "tipping point" then we need to focus on those few actions that will produce the most meaningful change in the shortest time...leverage.  And we need to figure out how to engage a critical mass of key people who can facilitate true change...scale.

  Experts and laypeople both have thoughts about how to achieve leverage and scale.  For example, Vinod Khosla, a green VC guru, says we've got to address "Oil, Coal, Cement and Steel" . And the US Energy Information Administration has reams of data about the largest (US) sources of greenhouse gases.  We know the technical aspects of the climate change problem we have to address to get leverage.

  What we need to do a much better job of, as you point out, is identifying the how to gain leverage on the social side, i.e. how we can cause massive, quick behavior and attitude change.

  The good news is that we in the Organizational Development community have been doing this for years in organizations. And there are many fields of research and practice, such as Community Based Social Marketing, which can inform our efforts to go to scale with consumers, business people, politicians, etc.,  What's needed is a focus on these factors, as opposed to the technical aspects of climate change.  

  Your post is starting to point us in the right direction, in focusing on these non-technical aspects of the environmental movement. I think the real question is, how to we get some key organizations/people to work on this stuff?  

  CHANGEpartner

  On The Climate Policy Paradigm has reached its endgame posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses