Energy Experts Unveil Plan to Reduce Global Warming Emissions

PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Ellen Hawkey Carmichael, OH Sierra Club, William Spratley, Green Energy Ohio

Energy Experts Unveil Plan to Reduce Global Warming Emissions

Roadmap Details Plan for Tackling U.S. Global Warming Emissions by 2050 Using Efficiency, Renewables


Today on Capitol Hill the Sierra Club joined with the American Solar Energy Society (ASES), key Members of Congress, and preeminent NASA climate scientist James Hansen, to unveil a new report authored by ASES that lays out a plan for dramatically reducing the nation’s global warming emissions. The roadmap—now the official Sierra Club global warming strategy—details how an aggressive, yet achievable increase in the use of energy efficiency and renewables alone can achieve a 60-80% reduction in U.S. global warming emissions by 2050.

“This report shows that we can achieve the necessary reductions in global warming emissions using efficiency and renewables,” said Ellen Hawkey Carmichael, Conservation Program Manager for the Sierra Club Ohio Chapter. “Dollar for dollar, these clean energy solutions are the best choices for Ohio. An investment in efficiency and renewable technologies will bring much needed manufacturing jobs to Ohio, reduce our global warming emissions and spur the economy. There is no reason to invest tens of billions more in the outdated, environmentally and economically irresponsible technologies of yesterday like coal and nuclear when we can have efficient, clean energy at a reasonable cost.”

As the Ohio Chapter of ASES, Green Energy Ohio (GEO)’s Executive Director Bill Spratley noted that “As a scientific and credible yardstick, this report shows how readily commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy can stabilize global warming.” Spratley also noted that ASES, GEO and the Ohio Dept. of Development will build on the this climate impact report as part of an Ohio-specific study of the potential jobs created from a larger state commitment to efficiency and renewables as part of SOLAR 2007, the 36th National Solar Conference set for Cleveland on July 7-12, 2007. “Ohio’s industrial muscle can lead the nation by making clean energy products that put Ohioans to work,” Spratley said.

Climate scientists agree that in order to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming we need to halt the growth of our emissions immediately and begin reducing them within the decade. The peer-reviewed report, “Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.,” is authored by scientists from the American Solar Energy Society, many of whom are employed by our nation’s national research laboratories. It identifies the renewable energy resources available across the U.S. that can be used to transition away from the dirty, fossil fuel-based energy economy of yesterday toward the clean energy technologies that will fuel the economy of tomorrow. The report brings together detailed analyses of various smart energy solutions, including energy efficiency solar (both photovoltaic and concentrating), wind, biofuels, biomass, and geothermal.

“This report moves the discussion from whether we can achieve the necessary reductions in global warming pollution with energy efficiency and renewable energy in this country to exactly how we should do it,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “Fully three-quarters of the reductions in global warming pollution called for by Dr. Hansen and other scientists can be realized using energy efficiency, wind, and solar—all technologies we have today. The rest can be made with geothermal, biofuels, biomass, and other renewables. We already have the best, cheapest, and cleanest solutions at our disposal; now we just need the market and our political leaders to put them to work.”

Key findings of the report:

We can reduce carbon emissions by 1,100-1,200 million metric tons annually by 2030 with aggressive deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy alone;
82% of necessary reductions in carbon emissions can come from wind, solar, and increased energy efficiency. Biomass, biofuels, and geothermal could comprise the rest;
This plan would achieve the U.S. share of reductions required to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels at 450-500 parts per million and limit additional average temperature rise to 1°C above 2000 levels.

Consumers, business, and industry alike can benefit from the money-saving reductions in

energy use that will come from increasing the efficiency of our cars, homes, offices, and factories. Most places in the country are also able to take advantage of low-intensity solar energy for powering and heating homes and offices. What’s more, the clean energy economy of tomorrow will allow each region of the country to take advantage of the renewable energy resources most abundant in that area. For example, here in the Midwest we have extremely plentiful solar, wind and biomass/biofuels resources offering significant economic benefits that are only beginning to be reaped

The full report can be downloaded at: www.ases.org/climatechange/

the question always on my mind is, how much is all this "energy-efficiency" going to cost businesses and home-owners, and where is that money going to come from?

eom!!!!111111

These investments rapidly pay for themselves...

Father of energy efficiency to get Fermi Award

http://news.com.com/Father+of+energy+efficiency+to+get+Fermi+Award/2100-11395_3-6083437.html?tag=sas.email

During the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil crisis of the 1970s, Rosenfeld, a veteran researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a member of the California Energy Commission, began to study the amount of energy consumed by appliances, air conditioning systems and buildings.

The findings were surprising. New refrigerators, which had consumed 400 kilowatt-hours a year on average in 1959, were consuming 800 kilowatt-hours a year. To gain extra storage space, manufacturers removed insulation and gunned the refrigeration motor.

Buildings weren't designed for energy efficiency either. They were often heated with electricity, rather than gas--an approach that's far less efficient--and came with huge lighting systems that caused air conditioners to work even harder.

<snip>

Overall, the regulations, and technological achievements of manufacturers, have put a significant crimp in energy consumption. By Rosenfeld's own estimates, efficiency technologies cut energy spending in the U.S. by $700 billion in 2005 alone. (In other words, had such technologies not existed, the U.S. would have spent $1.7 trillion, rather than $1 trillion, to power appliances, cars and buildings last year.) The Department of Energy has said the changes have saved more than $100 billion over the past 30-plus years.

<more>

Efficiency is the cheapest fastest bestest way to reduce GHG emissions!!!!11111

And it has those numbers for refrigerators. I am trying to imagine a reflective roof that still looks brown. I bought an 80% reflective membrane roof and it is brilliant white (and a great cooling success for that room of the house).

Consumer appliances sell by price point, not by operating costs. Hence, we need federal regulations to mandate high efficiency. Refrigerators have been a fantastic efficiency success already. It appears to me that automobiles don't "sell" on operating costs unless the price of gasoline stays well above $2.00/gallon.

There is another efficiency program that is funded by a surcharge on everybody's electricity bill. This generates a fund that is used to refit homes of the elderly, low income, and disabled people. That could cost you 3% additional on your electric bill. However, that 3% "rate hike" would be cheaper than the rate hike of the generating company building a new power plant using coal or nuclear fuel.

They cost the average household ~$1 a month...

but questioning energy efficiency is like questioning motherhood...

:evilgrin:

tax credits, rebates and accelerated depreciation can "pay" for these things.

A 1 mill per kWh tax on fossil-fuel generated electricity could also generate ~$2.75 billion per year in revenue to pay for tax credits etc.

A 5 mill per kWh carbon tax would generate $13.8 billion per year.

I think there are some issues that should be kept in mind.

1) The costs are front-loaded, and often not affordable to those who need them most. As you and others have pointed out, there are solutions to that, in principle. I think tax-credits are not the way to go, because they do not solve the problem of having money available up-front. Loans, subsidies directly to manufacturers, instant-rebates, etc, would be solutions. Anything that reduces or eliminates the up-front barrier to entry: the cost at the check-out line.

2) Retrofitting can be more expensive than just upgraded materials. I have this issue with my very own house. Upgrading the roof insulation was relatively easy. But none of our walls are insulated either. That's harder. I can't add insulation there without taking the drywall off. The cost of removing and replacing the drywall is likely more exensive than the cost of the actual insulation. To say nothing of the disruption. These are block-wall construction, so we're talking about 1/2-inch panels. Blown-in for the walls is impossible for a 1/2-inch ferring gap (to my knowledge). None of my doors seal quite right, because they are 30 years old and probably weren't put in quite right to begin with. Their geometry is, charitably speaking, non-Euclidean. I've made some improvements, but fundamentally the solution here is new doors. Rather more than just the cost of additional weather stripping.

3) Appliance efficiency bang/buck is a moving target. Those figures about refrigerators from the 1970s are interesting, but what would it cost to improve the efficiency of a refrigerator purchased in the 1990s, or 2000s? They already have efficiency improvements.

None of these things are show-stoppers, but they aren't insignificant either. And pointing out the dark lining of every silver cloud is the destiny I was born for.

Alaska and things are melting. 2050 will be 70 years too late. Thank god I'm old. I never learned to swim. Float on your back, you little youngin's out there. :(

If we do anything on a large enough scale, won't we still alter the environment somehow?

Yet another 40+ year plan too. That's great, if nothing goes wrong before then.

I'm also sure we'll have to give nothing up. Nope, this is the one thing that will come for free. We can all live lives of luxury this time. Not only will we not have to give something to get something, we'll get even more without having to give something. What a wonderful paradise this will be. Everyone traveling and communicating distances large and small, everyone making good money, everyone living lives of perfect health. Our last obstacle will be our greatest; death. I'm sure we'll cure that too though, with no consequences.

Thank god we have the future. If not for that, life would be pointless.

That there's no point in trying?

That's the beauty of it. As long as we can, we'll continue our process of growth. Nobody is stopping the dominant culture. Nobody ever has. If they tried, they were killed, pushed aside, or forced to join in.

It all depends on what you mean by trying too. Not that we have much choice. We have to try to keep growing, because to do otherwise would be murder on a scale greater than all 20th century dictators combined. There is no other way to do it. At this point it's grow or bust.

No doubt we're going to try. We have no actual destination, but we will try to get there as quickly as we can. There is no endgame. So it's trying to do what exactly? Nobody knows, but we can't stop. Once we get to the point where everything is perfect, we still can't stop, as that would mean a lack of progress. So then we will have to improve on perfection, even though we don't know what that perfct state will be. There is a reason we're all insane and have pills for every possible condition.

If nothing else, one thing is a simple black and white issue; we're going to try, no matter what the cost may be. That's the one thing nobody has to worry about.

That's the culture we live in.

I just didn't really follow that is all, and so I was trying to express that...

I should have thought of a better way to acknowledge your response. Sorry.

A simple :hi: might have worked better... so

:hi:

Doesn't change the fact that I may be nuts :hug:

is your preconceptions.

Dick Cheney would like nothing better than to
keep you convinced that ecological survival
requires us all to become monks. It's one of the
great triumphs of the Oil industry PR campaign.
Keeps greenies separate from the average person
by a wall of moral superiority.

If I get my light from a 15 watt CFC, vs
a 60 watt bulb, the only thing
I "give up" is paying for the extra 45 watts.
MOST of what we have to do is analogous to
that.

:thumbsup:

On the flip side, Dick Cheney and the rest of the dominant culture would like nothing better than to convince everyone that we can have our cake, eat it, throw it back up, repackage it, and sell it at 17x its value.

Like I said in the post above, we have no destination, and we're making everything up as we go.

"Keeps greenies separate from the average person by a wall of moral superiority."

Thanks for the high opinion of me, but I'm as average as it gets. I may have my thoughts on this and that, but I haven't stopped anyone from doing anything. I couldn't if I wanted to, nor would I really want to. That's too much power. I have yet to stop anyone from buying a 15 watt CFC, a 60 watt bulb, and SUV, air conditioners, and who knows what else. I'm as guilty as anyone. I take advantage of the system too. I'm sure the clothes I wear everyday are made my some 7 year old somewhere, or by some machine that pushed a father or mother off to the side for the sake of efficiency. So what I say is directed at myself as much as anyone. I'm part of the problem.

The USA goes on an renewables and efficiency binge. They save a ton of money and stop putting CO2 into the air. Cool.

But, um, what happens to all the fossil fuel the USA doesn't burn as a result? Does it stay in the ground, or does somebody else get to buy it and burn it? Somebody in China or India (or even in the UK or Poland - let's not forget Poland). While some American coal may stay in the ground, the oil is simply going to flow to other buyers.

This may be a good idea from a number of points of view like economics or energy independence, but selling it as a cure for climate change is the rankest marketeering bullshit.

It's not like the US has some minor role in emissions - Reliant Energy's WH Parish plant in TX produces as much CO₂ on it's as Kenya, Ghana and the Sudan combined (total population ~93 million).

While it won't help with Global Warming, once Peak Oil starts scything the globe any nation that has put a ton of investment into renewables will be able to maintain a better quality of life than those that haven't. That's a pretty good thing from the point of view of species survival.

But as long as fossil fuels remain abundant, I still claim that as a Global Warming prophylactic this is a pointless measure. The combustion will simply shift to other nations. I have yet to hear anyone explain convincingly why that would not happen, and planet-wide combustion would decline instead.

Especially if peak oil leads into FT fuels. If the US grows some moral backbone and starts leaning on people via trade tarrifs and aid to clean up, there's a bit of hope: That's a damn big if, though... :(

As best I can tell, everyone will be dead before this load of crap plays out as another excuse for doing nothing. This is just as well, because no one will really want to look in the eyes of their children and confess that they did nothing but talk about their children's responsibility for their own laziness and poor thinking.

There is nothing more incredibly stupid and frankly, irresponsible than immoral than offering another set of empty promises - each worse than the previous generation's - load of horse shit (and let's be sure to add pig shit and cow shit) - about the wonders of renewable energy.

Renewable energy is a failure and has been a failure for more than half a century. There is no rational reason to expect a sow's ear (or sow's shit) to turn into emperor's suit of clothing.

do you think a politician in a competitive district
is going to pass legislation that, 30 percent of the voters
think is kinda nice, 50% don't care, and 20% are fiercely opposed?

some politicians will be less opposed,
if some unwanted-by-some legislation takes effect
in years when they will likely not be in office

consider Kyoto.
Kyoto convention,late 1997.
limits take effect 2008, that is ten years.
ten years, apparently wasn't long enuf.

no national legislation,
any country, anywhere.
has been adopted to enact Kyoto.
The only thing close, is the EU's carbon limits.
however, the limits only apply to the energy sector,
and on top of that, so far, the arrangement does not work.

ten years elapsed, for the world to do essentially nothing

sixty years, seems about right.

Ohio is not going to accomplish carbon reductions by building ten times as many nuclear plants nor is the country going to accomplish reductions by building four times as many nuclear plants to supplant the electricity generated by coal.

Did you miss the part in the report about demand side reductions? Last week, you were all hot for Efficiency Vermont. The report calls for the same methods.

So many posts get stuck at 4.
I guess Edward's house is much more important.

wait for the population to get the idea that climate change could be coming to their house even if they don't live in Florida. Soon enough the former residents of Florida will come to you preaching climate change and renewables.

Then pull out the file and dust it off. Better get a printout so you can use it on no power days.