A new IPCC report is hot off the press this time focused on the potential of renewable energy sources to solve the climate crisis. Given the UN climate science panel's proclivity for producing scenarios guaranteed to make any thinking person lose sleep at night, the good news take-home message was a welcome cause for celebration.
From a technological standpoint, renewables can more than meet our global energy demands. By 2050, nearly 80 percent of our energy needs can be met by renewables with existing technologies. So it's clear that whatever challenges and difficulties lay ahead, they are entirely within our power to overcome, simply by adopting the right policy incentives.
A myriad of facts about the amazing rise of renewable energy can be found in the press releases of Greenpeace, WWF and the IPCC itself.
This labor of love (IPCC authors contribute on a voluntary, no-pay basis) will undoubtedly become a major source of discussion in the coming days and weeks. Or months -- after all, the report is 900 pages long. Climate deniers will look for conspiracies, and the nuclear and fossil fuel industries will seize on short-term costs and other obstacles to downplay the revolutionary message that shines through the study's conclusions.
But as I've said before there is no getting around one central conclusion -- like it or not we are in the midst of an energy paradigm shift.
This prevailing sense of change was clearly evident at the Creating Climate Wealth Summit last week in Washington DC, which brought together investors and entrepreneurs in the new clean energy economy. It was held at a rather unusual conference venue: the Washington Nationals baseball stadium.
Amidst the hotdog vendors at the top of the stands, there's a VIP area where some of the sessions took place and by some bizarre ironic twist, I accidentally found myself in the Exxon Mobil skybox. It was an honest mistake, cross my heart. I entered the room through a door marked with a 'W' mistaking the Washington Nationals logo for the Women's Room.
Imagine my surprise to suddenly find myself in a posh entertainment suite, replete with a massive Exxon Mobil logo on the wall and an antique Esso oil pump in the corner (the price showing a nostalgic 42 cents per gallon, with room for only a single digit to the left of the decimal point in the total purchase)! It was the epitome of all things anti-climate, anti-renewables, and anti-progress.
Suppressing my instinctive tendencies toward direct action, I contented myself with taking photos, including this framed company editorial hanging on the wall of the restroom:
I presume it was selected because of all the good ol' American baseball metaphors, but its message appeared to be aimed directly at the 112th Congress:
Improving the energy box score means cutting out energy waste. But conservation alone is not enough. To fuel the economy and provide new jobs we also need action to find and develop new supplies of energy within the United States. That means cutting the red tape that's holding back offshore drilling for oil and gas, blocking wider use of coal, and delaying construction of badly needed nuclear power plants.
It all seemed a bit ho-hum until I got to the last line: "Let your elected representatives know how you feel. Your pitch can help make 1975 the Year of Energy Action."
1975! Back then, Mobil ran weekly paid op-eds on the editorial pages of major U.S. newspapers. This one serves as a fascinating reminder of how just how stuck the major oil companies are in an energy paradigm that is so last century. Written more than 35 years ago, it could just as easily have appeared last week. All these years later, and they're still whining about pesky environmentalists holding them back.
What's even more interesting is that oil industry leaders know they are a dying breed. A recent survey of business leaders in major oil and gas companies found that 90 percent of those who responded believed that "by 2025, renewables will be the most substantial energy source."
Let's face it, the end of the fossil fuel era is in sight. Hats off to the IPCC for showing the way forward not just for the climate crisis but for a wide range of other societal ills -- energy poverty, energy insecurity, and respiratory diseases to name just a few. May government policymakers have the wisdom to take the hand being offered to them, allowing us to pull ourselves out of the dirty, dangerous energy hole we've dug for ourselves as fast as we possibly can.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
I do like the idea of dropping the subsidies for energy companies. Maybe you should suggest that in one of your editorials. Take away all the pressure from the government and let the free market determine the best energy solution.
http://1000memories.com/blog/75-number-of-people-who-have-ever-lived
1) "We can't survive without subsidies" -- we can and we must. We can win with a level playing field by getting rid of all $100B+ of production side subsidies for natural gas, coal, and oil
2) "Wind and solar are intermittent, we need baseload" -- this is patently false and if another environmentalist says it I swear I will throw a fastball right at their teeth. German, Japan, and others have proven that with dynamic virtual power plants you can control demand and supply to accommodate these energy sources with very little storage. Still not convinced, then read: http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/directory/LoadMatch.html
Onward!
I have a suggestion. Lets assume that the earth has a finite atmosphere. Lets further assume that you own a garage. Pull your car into your garage and close the door with a full tank of gas, remain seated in it while the engine runs. Report back to us when you think you have sufficiently altered the finite atmosphere in your garage. I think you will be suprised how little time it takes to fill up the air with CO and what the consequences are of fouling a finite air space.
It is beyond scientific fact that CO2 and water vapor are heat trapping gases. You can deny this all you want, but it isn't going to change the science. Does water evaporate faster when the temperature is below freezing or when it is 90 degrees outside. Does water absorb more heat when it is in liquid form or in solid form.? Does asphalt reflect more light into space than concrete. Does bare land reflect more light into space than the ice covered south pole? Does methane ice release more heat trapping gases into the atmosphere than coal burned in a power plant? Do forests absorb more CO2 than deforested land? Have you ever been in a greenhouse in the dead of summer? Do you know why a greenhouse gets hot when the sun shines on it? Do you know the difference between long wave and short wave solar radiation? Please provide detailed answers to these questions.
Hey, dkinton, you look like you've served, you should understand this. You don't believe anything man could do could influence the climate? What effect on the climate do you think all-out Nuclear War would have?
I just love how you deniers spout off about something so technical and complicated with such arrogance without having the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Has the cat got your tongue fella?
Hydrogen is the only viable clean storage method for renewables like solar and wind.
With hydrogen for home and cars we can become 100 percent renewable in 20 years.
throughout my house..
attached to generators!
It is logical economics. The UN makes hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon offset "authentification" schemes, they need the "science" to support the "scam", especially since the UN Oil for Food scheme went defunct.
And by the way, yes, I do put my money where my mouth is.