Reply #6: You are correct: conservation is the best and quickest thing we can do. [View All]

I live in a small brick ranch house with double-paned windows; every light in my house is CF. My biggest gas bill this year is about $150 (I keep the thermostat between 66 and 70, depending on the time of day). My eight year old car gets 28-33 mpg (city-highway) but I live 1.6 miles from work (I have the luxury of a permanent position at the college I teach at). These choices of mine were deliberate.

But I should clarify my position on nuclear: I would support a major shift to nuclear (to replace coal), if it were properly engineered. It is now clear, however, that this isn't likely to happen, not for at least two decades. NNadir's skepticism not withstanding, I think solar will gradually begin to become competitive in a 20 year time frame. Meanwhile, we need to hope that global warming doesn't trend to the upper range of the models, or we will be pretty much screwed. (I'm sure you've read the threads about the forthcoming climate report that says the scientific community now is certain that warming is caused mainly by greenhouse gas forcing, and that the big fear now is that a tipping point is coming where the climate changes irrevocably and drastically -- due to positive feedback loops in the climate that will accelerate the warming.) The unfortunate thing is that we need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 50% to prevent calamity, and neither solar nor nuclear will do this. NNadir believes that nuclear is capable of accomplishing this, and I think he is right. But again, I reach the conclusion that this isn't going to happen. I presume you believe that conservation plus solar (and other renewables) will accomplish this. I am a bit more skeptical, in the short run, but more optimistic about that in the long run. But please forgive my impatience: "feel good" projects like the occasional 75 megawatt solar farm, or a few hundred thousand rooftops in the southwest, are not enough. We need the political will to choose then implement a real solution soon. I grow pessimistic, we will just carry on with the suicidal status quo -- as you point out, utilities are building more "modern" coal plants. We do not yet as a nation have the political will to solve the problem.

By the way, have you read Gus Speth's book, Red Sky at Morning? It is an interesting analysis of why the environmental movement isn't able to achieve the success now that it did 35 years ago. According to Speth, 35 years ago the environmental perils were obvious and intolerable, and the sudden surge in public concern and organized activism blindsided the polluters. So Congress was forced to pass good legislation (clean air, clean water) that successfully mitigated the worst of the air and water pollution of the day. But according to Speth, the problem we confront now, global warming, is removed from the public's concern because it seems abstract, distant, theoretical. And industry is a lot better at deflecting concern; they manipulate the public adroitly through the media, and control the politicians. I hope the latest news -- about the damage at high latitudes to global warming, about the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and the rough tropical weather -- will make global warming a higher political priority.