The problem, as unintentionally identified by Solar John, is that people should not be commuting 64 miles/day or any distance of that sort.  If we want to solve the ecological problems that humans have caused over the past 10,000 years, we need to simplify our lives, beginning with living near work, shopping, and school.  After all, electric cars or any other kind of cars still cause all of the problems caused by roads, one of which was pointed out in a Grist item yesterday.

Unless your home is powered by solar panels or a wind generator and you charge your car from there, the electricity needed to charge the car will still be created by burning fossil fuels, though not as much as internal combustion engines burn to go the same distance.

I don't see why you couldn't hav a foldable "roof panel" with solar cells on it that would extend to the foot print of the car and let you charge while it sits in the parking lot.

I live in a 3rd floor apartment, so running extension cords is not a good option.

Or,

http://www.gizmag.com/researchers-developing-solar-techno ...

January 4, 2008 Idaho National Laboratory (INL) reports that research conducted in conjunction with partners at Microcontinuum Inc. (Cambridge, MA) and Patrick Pinhero of the University of Missouri is promising a method for developing cheap solar energy technology that could be imprinted on flexible materials and still draw energy after the sun has set. The technology uses a special manufacturing process to stamp tiny square spirals, or "nanoantennas", of conduction metal onto a sheet of plastic and the team estimates individual nanoantennas can absorb close to 80 percent of the available energy in comparison to current commercial solar panels which usually transform less that 20 percent of the usable energy that strikes them into electricity - this is even more impressive than the 30% conversion rate offered by the recently discussed development of nano flakes.

anywhere else in the country where the majority of electricity is produced by coal and diesel this is unconscionable to promote electric car as a solution to reducing carbon dioxide.

And I challenge you to find an actual study that says otherwise.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.png
http://pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/20/111715/427
http://greencarcongress.com/2007/12/argonne-assesse.html
http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO65mCdPN5I

Especially in California, which has a grid average comparable to Natural gas.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png

-

And with that fact in mind, we got more than enough existing electricity capacity to power electric cars, far into the forseeable future.
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

This is not to say that a major reordering of our environmentally destructive society is not in order.  Certainly, developers should not be able to destroy another inch of open space, and all communities should be required to have jobs, schools, and shopping within a short enough distance that people don't need to drive, and with good public transit and dedicated bicycle lanes.

But we all also must take some personal responsibility and make some "sacrifices" if we're ever going to have any chance of fixing this mess that humans have created.  And let's face it, Americans are rich compared to everyone else, so giving up a little of that wealth is not really much of a sacrifice.

Money is as good or as evil as what you do with it.

I can't obviously can't speak for what Solar John does with his money; he sounds like he probably makes rather more than I do, so I hope he spends it more wisely than I generally do. That said, if the extra money he's making allows him to donate, say, $50 a month to environmental causes--be they "carbon offsets" if that's his thing, or political action funds, or even supporting some funny environmental Internet rag--the good he could do would far outweigh the harm of the longer commute.

What do you think, John? Is the good you could do with a little piece of that extra money worth the environmental impact of earning it?

Driving is one of the worst things modern humans do to the Earth as individuals.  If Solar John's priorities are things like putting kids through college, which BTW can be done with student loans as I did for myself a short while ago, then his priorities are clearly not the environment, because he's chosen to participate in major environmental destruction in order to put his kids through college.  That's what "priorities" mean; when you have to make a hard choice, which do you choose?

This whole assuaging of environmental guilt by contributing money and "offsets" is nothing but individual greenwashing. Offsets are just another type of B.S. concocted by big business to allow business as usual.  The only thing that will significantly help the environment is for people to reduce human population and consumption, including consumption of all types of fuel and roads. Let's look at John's specific claims:

He supplements his electricity with solar PV.  It's good that he has solar panels on his roof (I hope that's what he means), but it only supplements his use of electricity?  Either he has a very small number of solar panels or he uses too much electricity.  In Berkeley, CA, rooftop solar panels provide enough electricity to power a home, and Berkeley gets almost as much fog as San Francisco, so we're not talking about a very sunny place.  John should either add more solar panels, reduce his electrical use, or both.

He supplements his heating with bio-fuel.  As has been discussed on Grist ad nauseum, biofuels are worse for the environment than petroleum, unless their source is waste material.  For example, tropical rainforests in Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia are being cut down to grow crops for biofuels.  So there's not only no environmental benefit here, there's a serious detriment.

He might minimize his use of gasoline by driving an electric car in the future.  Nice, but first this is speculative, he's not doing it yet.  Second, this doesn't do that much.  It slightly reduces use of fossil fuels, from which electricity is made -- along with hydropower made by destruction of rivers and nukes -- and does nothing to reduce or eliminate the harms caused by roads and high speed vehicular traffic.

He also conserves and recycles.  This can easily be done regardless of one's income or lack thereof, so it it is completely irrelevant.

I did not post this as a personal attack.  But it's baloney that individuals should not be held responsible for their actions.  The only thing one MUST do once born is die; the rest are all choices, albeit some very difficult ones.  While John might be better than the average American in his overall ecological footprint, the fact that he commutes a long distance daily negates the vast majority of good things he tries to do.

1. Unfortunately, Americans have an attitude of entitlement; in this case, my kids have the right to go to the best school so they can be rich, regardless of the environmental and ecological damage I will cause by realizing that goal.

2. Americans have been brainwashed to believe greenwashing.  In other words, they think that they can cause whatever environmental and ecological harm they want, so long as they contribute money or take other actions like recycling.  Sorry, but those actions don't begin to make up for the harms caused.  As I meant to say in my previous post, it's much harder to create something than to destroy it, etc.

While I don't like to discuss my own lifestyle, in answer to John's last sentence, I have no car, kids, cell phone, etc.  The only thing I buy regularly is food.  And I have a fuller, more exciting life than the vast majority of people.  As the movie "Fight Club" stated, you are not your possessions.

But how about a little eco-grace? Environmentalism will never go mainstream, will not go beyond greenwashing, until it is accessible to the masses (the global poor, the American middle & working classes). If not, it will remain a righteous fringe movement. And a depressing one at that, because all it can do is bring other people down instead of bringing them on board. And we need everyone, and we need them heading in the right direction. For those who have just turned the right way, they need a little grace to make the journey. Harsh words may send them packing.

I've seen the same thing in other movements, be they spiritual or social justice related. A few very dedicated, courageous people get so absorbed in it that they turn inward and point outward, instead of being welcoming.

We need strength for the long hall. We need a sustainable sustainability.

Solar John is already doing much more than most. Even if you think it's not enough, have a little grace. Or your words may have the opposite effect.