climate change | Andy Arthur.org

Climate Change, DEC, and Cedar River Road

Andy | August 4, 2011

Like thousands of New Yorkers this past year I have been seriously bummed out on how Cedar River-Limekiln Lake Road from Wakely Dam to Lost Ponds was washed out for the first three months of summer season. It probably was the first time Cedar River-Limekiln Lake Road was closed off for such a long period in summer time — due to springtime flooding and severe erosion and bridge scour — combined with a very tight budget for the Environmental Conservation Department.

It seems the list of damaged or still closed roads throughout the Adirondack Park is long this year. Haskell Road is closed. Lester Flow Road and Woodhull Lake Road are rough and badly eroded. Maybe it’s just a bad year, and DEC Division of Lands and Forests is unfunded, and they lack the staff and fuel budget to fix things promptly. Or maybe it’s a more ominous sign — that DEC needs to rethink it’s road construction practices to reflect a changing climate, with heavier rains and more erosion.

As the average temperatures increase in the summer, there is going to be more demand then ever before for recreational access to the Adirondack Park. Yet, the danger is not from increased vehicle traffic, but instead erosion and bridge scour from flooding and increased heavy rains. Simply said, it may come to the point where Adirondack Park back country roads need to be built to a higher standard, with more reinforcement from wash outs.

That does not mean the end to the dirt or gravel truck trail. It does mean, around streams there is going to have to be more riprap and other course rubble rock to prevent erosion and bridge scour. Courser gravel is going to have to be used on steeper slopes, or maybe a mixture of tar and gravel to keep things in place. While blacktop may seem like the anti-thesis to the back country, it might be necessary in limited stretches to keep things in place, on road surfaces most pounded by the forces of erosion.

All of this will escalate the cost of maintenance of back country roads. Yet, the cost of improving back country roads before future cases of erosion, will ultimately save money and improve the public’s experience. Repairing roads to a higher engineering standard makes a lot of sense as the Adirondacks experience increased flooding and erosion from climate change.

Cap and Trade or Performance Standards

Andy | July 29, 2011

After reading “Saving Energy, Growing Jobs” by David Goldstein, I am convienced that Preformance Standards, rather then Cap and Trade is a better way to reduce our greenhouse emissions.

Here is Why…

Cost does not always induce conservation or efficency
People and corporations are willing to pay a lot more for energy without changing behavior or investigating alternatives
Individuals have little choice in buying efficent appliances — most appliances of a certain size consume a certain amount of energy
Information on energy efficency is complex, little understood by the public
Energy taxes will hurt the poor disproptionately

What Cap and Trade is…

A hard national limit on emissions is set.
A tax on emissions is set by a market based on the demand to emit carbon dioxide emissions. The more demand for carbon dioxide emissions, the higher the tax.
Every consumer of energy pays a “tax” related to it’s carbon emissions as a disinsentive to consume energy that produces carbon dioxide emissions.

What Preformance and Efficency Standards Are…

Every electric utility, every oil or gas supplier is required to meet a standard on how much carbon dioxide may be released per average unit of enery produced and distributed.
If they are above that standard, they must buy alternative forms of energy as part of their mix to reduce their average carbon intensity. Failure to comply will lead to substantial fines. This is how Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE works.
Utilities along with oil and gas suppliers will be required buy more renewables and put them into their mix, to reduce the carbon intensity of the energy source they provide to consumers.
Every new appliance, every new car or truck is required to meet a specified level of energy efficency. A televison for example, would be prohibited from consuming more then X watts per square inch.

Why Preformance Standards are Better…

Preformance standards are not a tax or fee. They do not neccessarly raise the price of energy or of a consumer product.
Consumers save money by ensuring the new appliances they buy are energy efficent. Consumers don’t pay an energy tax as with cap and trade.
Preformance standards, per US Energy Law, do not prohibit features, but instead require high standards of efficency for all models. If you want to buy a gas guzzling SUV or big television, that’s your right, but manufacturers will be required to make sure the average of all cars and television sets are efficent.

There Are No Hard Targets for
Greenhouse Gases with Preformance Standards…

Preformance standards are set based on national goals to reduce greenhouse emissions to levels that are demanded by science.
The objection raised by Cap and Trade proponets is that preformance standards do not guarantee a set level of reduction of greenhouse gases by any one year.
If people use a lot of electricity one year, or drive a lot of miles in their cars, then the preformance standards would be canceled out temporarly.
The EPA can compensate by toughening preformance standards for energy generators and new appliances. People (at different times) are constantly replacing cars, television sets, and appliances. This leads to a constant chance at improval in energy efficency and a constant decline in carbon intensity.
It’s better to have a system that has flexibility, so that carbon emissions can rise temporarily in relationship to a hot summer or sudden economic boom.

Why Preformance Standards Will Ultimately Win
in the Climate Change Debate….

Preformance standards are generally allowed under existing law.
The EPA can regulate emissions from smoke stacks, including carbon dioxide at the tonnage level or the per MW/hr level. The EPA would however need Congressional approval for a system that would set carbon dioxide standards public utility-wide level.
Preformance standards for appliances are well established. While tightening of some standards would require Congressional approval, most legislators are far more comfortable with tougher energy efficency standards then an economy wide tax.
Preformance standards are not a tax and do not raise energy prices.
Energy efficency does mean a ban on any appliance or any feature people are used to. It’s the internal redesign of existing appliances, to make them consume less energy for each unit of work done.

Field Notes from Catastrophe

Andy | May 2, 2011

In the summer months I spend a lot of time reading down at the Town Park in the evenings. Recently with the coming of Earth Day and because it seems like energy is such a big issue these days, I have been reading a lot about Climate Change.

Kolbert’s book tries to bring home the message of the enormity of the problem that has been unleashed by the excessive concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. She gives several examples of her experiences on trips to see sea ice melting and climates changing, and how pronounced these problems are becoming in some locations. She writes in alarm about forces, largely masked by environmental inertia that threaten the well being of humans and the planet alike.

Most of the book is delightful stories about her experiences. She reserves the last chapter to pass judgment on the progress we as a country are making on climate change. By being non-judgmental and non-political in most of the book, she provides some insight on what is really happening now and what is likely to happen in the future. The last chapter is largely scornful of what she believes the lack of action on climate change, something she believes is a tragic mistake to face generations to come.

Her message is hopeful if not a bit cynical. She is realistic but pragmatic. She does make a good case for getting on a pathway of Climate Emissions Control, and doing something rather then ignoring the increasingly obvious consequences of what we as a global society have unleashed by the often uncontrolled and uncaring burning of fossil fuels.

Why Not Make Electrically-Powered “Trolley” Cars and Trucks?

Andy | April 15, 2011

I’ve always wondered what the fascination with battery technology is, when the proven technology used by trolleys and streetcars for over 120 years is electricity via rail or wire. There are no limitations on range or power delivered electrified lines, and use avoid the inefficiency of power stored in a battery.

I could envision the car of a future being a gasoline engine with complete cylinder deactivation, where the complete engine is shut off by a solenoid disconnecting the rocker arms controlling the valves ala the Active Fuel Management widely used in General Motors pickup trucks today.

On major highways and other high traffic roads where “electric wires” are available, as sensed by a radio signal, the car would automatically pop up trolley poles through the roof like a power radio antenna. Electric consumption and billing information would be transmitted through a signal in the wire to the billing municipality, public authority, or power company.

An electric motor/generator in the transmission of the car would spin the drive train and engine, including pushing up and down engine pistons (using the exhaust in the cylinders and shut valves as a choosen) and flywheel. When braking or going downhill, the motor acting as a generator would put recovered power back into the electric line.

The nice thing about this system is there is no range or weight limitation, and uses existing technologies. You could power even semi-trucks or buses with this technology. Moreover, if you become disconnected temporarily from the electric line, the motion of engine’s pistons decompressing the exhaust left in the cylinders and the standard flywheel, would keep the car coasting until electricity came back or the solenoids reconnected the push-rods to the rocker arm and started feeding the engine gasoline once again (the later could happen basically instantly if there is such a power demand).

Because your still moving the pistons up and end down and compressing waste gases, the engine never gets cold, always has warm coolant to heat the inside of the car, and is always ready to burn gasoline at proper operating temperature whenever electricity is dropped.

I can not imagine a future where cars don’t have at least some kind of internal combustion engine that burns gasoline or diesel, at least part of the time. We have been refining Internal Combustion Engines for 110 years now, and the technology is so well engineered and reliable, that it seems likely that cars will use Internal Combustion Technology of some sort for at least another 110 years, if not longer. Internal Combustion Engines are only going to be come cleaner and less polluting as pollution control standards and technology improves, and they are only going to burn less gas or diesel in decades to come.

Being Uneconomical for an Uncertain Future

Andy | February 26, 2011

.There is a common line of thought that argues that we should undertake a massive restructuring of the economy, even if it has no current clear benefit, in preparation for some dramatic future change like climate change or peak oil. Folks like Bill McKibbean have the logic, unless we make drastic changes now, the future will be bleak.

Their logic reminds one a lot of the logic of a High School Guidance Counselor, pushing over-priced college educations at so-called “select institutions” that are very over pricd. They argue unless one gets an expensive college education, the future will be bleak. They say, unless you go seriously in debt, you will have no future and be without a good job.

Nobody today can tell us for sure about when or if climate change will occur, or for that matter what the impacts of peak oil will be. We have projections and models that extrapolate data based on today’s conditions and projected changes, but they probably are not accurate as effects rarely are linear. Itï¿½s quite possible that effect our growing use of fossil fuels may be far different then anything yet predicted.

Yet, itï¿½s also hard to object to efficiency standards and pollution controls on power plants that benefit society now. More energy while burning less fuel will benefit the economy by lowering costs over the long-run. More fuel efficient cars, while possibly more expensive up front, will provide drivers with lower fuel bills over the carï¿½s life. Good standards that improve efficiency, conserve resources, and reduce pollution, help us now.

I disagree with folk like Bill McKibbean who argue for a radical transformation of the economy based on a projection of climate change or peak oil. We should work to conserve resources and clean up our generating plants, but not because of a future projection, but to improve economic efficiency and the quality of our lives today. If with incidentally also help change the projection for bad things to happen tomorrow, then all the better.

My Comments on State Climate Action Plan

Andy | February 18, 2011

Climate Action Plan
NYSERDA
17 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203-6399

Re: Climate Action Plan Interim Report

I am deeply concerned about the Climate Action Plan put forth by NYSERDA and other interested parties. Rather then advocating for sustainable, local communities, it advocates for large centralized facilities such as massive waste incinerators, massive power plants, and massive private automobile infrastructure.

Our over-reliance on such large centralized facilities, is largely responsible for environmental crisis we face. Climate Change Emissions are a symptom of our societys unsustainable nature. Its mother natures Engine Malfunction Light. The shocking changes, already underway in our ecosystem, demonstrate a multitude of problems that can not simply be fixed by sticking a better scrubber on our smoke stacks. Instead, we need a state that emphasizes sustainability, encourages sustainable acts, and builds infrastructure that gets us towards sustainability.

Here are several proposals in your report that create grave concerns and there more sustainable, lower cost solutions. Most sustainable solutions are not high-tech or even expensive, but require changing both governmental policies and infrastructure in minor ways to promote more climate-friendly actions. Lets not follow the insane policies of the past, that have brought on this Climate Crisis!

Zero-Waste vs Garbage Incineration.

The Climate Action Plan is right to be concerned about fugitive methane emissions from landfills. The Plan suggests the construction of various forms of trash incinerators such as mass-burn or gasification or plasma-arc to eliminate organic waste from going into landfills. Yet, this is a very bad idea. Trash incinerators destroy valuable materials and recover minimal amounts of energy. Their smokestacks belch toxic materials into air, many compounds not yet fully understood. Waste materials that could be feedstock for industrial or agricultural purposes are destroyed in incinerators.

All forms of trash incinerators (be it refuse-derived fuel, mass-burn, gasification, or plasma-arc), take the carbon in garbage, combine it with oxygen, and release it directly in the air through a smoke stack as carbon dioxide. An average ton of garbage incinerated equals a ton of carbon dioxide in the air. It also represents many more tons of carbon dioxide in materials destroyed in the incinerator. Organic waste that could fertilize the ground are destroyed in incinerators, man-made materials like plastics burned in incinerators could be an industrial feedstock using a fraction of energy of new products.

Garbage Incinerators are expensive, the must always burn a full load to pay off their costs, always maximizing carbon emissions. The goal of any Climate Action Plan should NOT be to maximize carbon emissions! Garbage incineration is very expensive, it literally burns the publics cash, that could be used to improve recycling of technical materials and organics recovery through composting. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Rather then promote waste-incineration, the report should support a ban on organics disposal in landfills and incinerators, along with supporting Zero-Waste goals. The state should look towards minimizing waste, and recovering waste through recycling and source-separated organics processing such as anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. Reuse through secondary sales of used products should also be promoted. The Plan should call for garbage incinerators to be phased out, along with large landfills. Small, stable residual waste landfills are acceptable, only after all organic and usable technical materials are recovered first.

Cleaner Energy vs Nuclear Power.

The Climate Action Plan trumpets Nuclear Power as the solution for large amounts of carbon-free base-load power. As the report correctly notes, at all times the electrical grid must be supplied with sufficient sources of energy to keep the lights on. Nuclear Power is a problematic proposition, as it requires large amounts of heat-trapping HFC gases to process the fuel, is very expensive, creates dangerous waste byproducts, and puts millions of New Yorkers at risk of serious injury or death. A terrorist strike or serious mistake at a nuclear plant such as Indian Point could kill millions of New Yorkers and destroy vast acreage of land forever. There is no repository nuclear waste, all of it must be stored on site of nuclear plants for the foreseeable future.

Nuclear Power is very expensive. It literally burns the publics cash, that could be used to promote energy conservation, and bring new renewable sources of electricity online. A single nuclear plant is estimated to cost $5-10 billion dollars, money that could instead go to subsidize the purchase of solar cells on residential houses, wind turbines in rural areas, micro-hydro and anaerobic-digestion on farms, and small-hydro on rivers and streams. Money spent on nuclear plants could also help people better insulate their houses. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Conventional fossil-fuels and clean biomass systems, have an important role in filling in the gap between renewable sources of energy and the needs of electric grid. Fossil fuel plants should increasingly serve to meet peak load, and balance the fluctuation of renewable sources of energy, and not provide base load power. Natural gas plants are particularly good at generating power to meet peak demand as necessary. In addition, consider new pump storage plants like Gilboa Power Project, in an environmentally sensitive context. Consolidated Edisions Storm King Pump Storage was a terrible idea.

The Climate Action Plan should emphasize conservation of energy, renewable energy, and especially small-scale sources of renewable energy like solar and micro-hydro. Continue the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, tighten limits to force electricity companies to build more renewable sources. Further develop the smart-grid, and call for the aggressive promotion of Net Metering. The plan should call small scale electricity generation, being as common as heating systems in houses. Call for phasing out of all nuclear power, starting by closing Indian Point in 2012.

Burn Less Fossil Fuels vs Carbon Sequestration.

The Climate Action Plan promotes Carbon Sequestration as a solution to carbon emissions from Power Plants. Carbon Sequestration is an unproven technology, in regions where it has been tested, there is growing evidence that carbon dioxide is peculating back up through the ground, damaging water supplies and being released back into the atmosphere. While this is seriously troubling, even more troubling is the amount of energy required to sequester carbon from power plants.

Current estimates suggest that 40% of a power plants energy is required to sequester carbon. That means 40% more coal must be mined, 40% more oil or gas must be removed from the earth. Carbon sequestration would mean 40% more landscapes would be defiled, 40% more water wells would be poisoned by hydrofracking, 40% more toxic non-carbon dioxide emissions would enter the air. From an broader environmental perspective, carbon sequestration will devastate habitats and accelerate the global decline of our plant. We should not burning more fossil-fuels just to sequester carbon.

With carbon sequestration, 40% more fossil fuel burned means 40% higher energy prices, not including the cost of actually sequestering the carbon. Money spent on mining all this extra coal or drilling for all this extra oil, could be better spent on conservation or renewable sources of power. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Instead the solution is make fossil fuels the energy source of last resort. Use lower-carbon fossil fuels like natural gas or oil rather then coal. Develop more renewable sources of power, use renewable sources to make up the majority of the base load. Use fossil fuel plants whenever necessary to make up the difference in electricity generation. Phase out fossil fuel plants, dont waste the public’s money on carbon sequestration.

Public Transit and Walkable Communities vs Electric Cars.

The Climate Action Plan triumphs Electric Cars as the preferred solution for transportation. The plan incorrectly argues that private automobiles must forever be the most common way people get around cities. Electric cars are a new technology, while promising, probably have benefits much over stated by the report. It is very energy intensive to move 1-2 tons of steel down the road, and electrical energy is very technically challenging to store in large quantities.

It is possible that in the future, batteries will be developed to allow private automobiles to make short-trips around town, like the Chevy Volt. Someday it may be possible to even power large pickup trucks like the Chevy Silverado electrically for a short distance around town. Yet, due to the difficulties of storing large amounts of electricity, and the length of time required to chemically store large amounts electric power in batteries, it should not be assumed that we will see an all-electric fleet of vehicles in the foreseeable future. Towing the power-boat to Adirondacks behind your Chevy Silverado, probably wont be powered all by electricity, even 50 years from now. Such technology seems unrealistic. The Climate Action Plan should realize cars will continue to get at least a significant portion of their energy from fossil fuels.

Moreover, electrical cars get their energy from some source. While we hope that source is renewable, like from solar cells on peoples houses, the reality is the vast amount of electricity to power an urban fleet of cars is likely to come from fossil-fuels for the foreseeable future. Electricity does not come from god. The Climate Plan should also reflect that many if not most electricity powering cars will come from fossil-fuels that generate carbon emissions, for decades to come. Private automobiles even electrically powered cars discriminate against the young and elderly, and the disabled. Rather then focus on this high tech proposal, the Plan should: Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

While electric cars are futuristic, the lowest cost and largest reductions in carbon emissions will come from building walkable communities and expanding and improving mass-transit. Make it so people can leave the Chevy Silverado parked in their driveway for day to day routines. As the Capital Region Transit Authority showed in Schenectady, simply modernizing bus timetables, based on current needs, can increase ridership by 20% while not increasing service. Adding new transit services is very cheap compared to building new superhighways. Building sidewalks can reduce the number of trips to the store in private cars. Giving tax incentives for retail to locate in cities, serviced by transit, can further reduce carbon emissions. Done right, building walkable communities, serviced by quality public transit, can reduce carbon emissions by private automobiles by 80% or more, with the existing fleet of cars and trucks. Parked cars release NO climate change gases nor do they require new freeways cut through animal habitats.

Good Transit vs High Speed Rail.

The Climate Action Plan calls for High Speed Rail. While a nice goal, one possibly to consider in the distant future, its more of a toy then a realistic plan. Save the high-speed rail models for your kids to play with on the living room floor. Most New Yorkers will probably never ride on a High Speed Rail line, even if it is built. Its a very expensive option, when simpler lower-cost options make much more sense. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Passenger rail service needs to be reliable and on-time. The state should consider the cost-effectiveness of creating a moderate-speed rail service, that uses dedicated track. Trains running consistently at 50-100 MPH may be fast enough, as long as stops are limited, and the service is reliable. The biggest problem with Amtrak currently is trains are often late or delayed due to freight trains on the tracks. Its also important to connect trains and airplanes with transit. Should railroads go right up to airports? Airports, especially Upstate, have almost no public transit service to and from them. Railroads have more access to transit, but in many cases its limited or indirect. Consider bundling train boarding passes with bus passes, for the last mile. Improving inter-model transportation should be vastly more important then high-speed rail.

Most people will still not use the passenger railroad, except on rare occasion. Most travel is intra-city, best serviced by streetcars or buses. Streetcars or trolleys that are electrically powered, preferably by renewable energy, are a very smart climate change solution. Most cities had them prior to 1950. Consider making streetcars fare-free to minimize boarding delays and maximizing their use. Buses in the short-run may be the most cost-effective service, but in the long-term, electric trolleys are quieter, faster, and dont burn foul smelling diesel.

Impacts of Fugitive Emissions and Non-Climate Impacts of Natural Gas vs Cleaner Fossil Fuels.

Natural gas has a great potential to be a lower-carbon source of fossil fuels to fill in the gap when renewable energy cant meet all of the needs of electric grid. It burns very cleanly and efficiently, with minimal toxic emissions, and less carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated compared to other fossil fuels. Yet not only does burning natural gas release climate change gases, the natural gas (methane) is a potent greenhouse gas. The Climate Action Plan should account for fugitive emissions and emissions associated with drilling for natural gas.

High-volume hydrofracking is particularly worrisome when it comes to potential fugitive gases and those emissions relating to the drilling of wells. In addition, serious concerns have been raised about the regulation of gas drilling, in recent years, by state and federal governments. A slightly cooler climate is not an acceptable trade-off for polluted ground water or seriously defiled landscapes.

The Plan needs to carefully balance natural gas, and fully quantity its dangers to the climate. While it seems like Natural Gas is the most climate sensitive fuel compared to carbon-intensive coal (with its own methane emissions problems), its use needs to be constrained like all fossil-fuels to simply meet the needs that can not otherwise be met by renewable energy. All sources of energy have their problems, and all have some carbon footprint, and its important that they be carefully measured in the plan.

Local Solutions vs Global Solutions.

To often, the Climate Action Plan advocates for the wrong kind of solutions to reduce Climate Change Gas Emissions in our state. Our state faces an unprecedented fiscal crisis, and insisting on the most expensive solutions to reduce Climate Change Emissions ensures failure. Smaller, human scale solutions to Climate Change Emissions like better public transit service and sidewalks might be hard to measure, but they not only reduce emissions, but also make our communities more desirable.

Here are a few other small ideas the report should consider:

Agriculture: More on farm generation of electric power — dairies in particular are very energy intensive. More farmers markets in every neighborhood. Less regulation of farm operations to promote more farming. More slaughterhouses and processors. Many farmers have to truck cattle hundreds of miles, lots of GHG associated with that, discourages local food. More processors that buy local food.

Industrial: Increase recycling from residential and commercial sources to provide relatively clean feedstocks to plants. Develop more local recycling plants. Require industries to maximize their energy efficiency.

Residential: More education on benefits of off-the-grid living, net-metering, and other sources of electricity generated on site. More education, promotion, tax breaks for increasing insulation and energy efficiency. Tighten building standards further. Offer more convenient recycling options for a wider variety of wastes.

Commercial: Have tough efficiency standards for new buildings. Give tax breaks to businesses located on trunk lines of bus services. Mandate commercial recycling of waste.

Transportation: More trains and bus services, consider bringing back Streetcars and Trolleys. Mandating inter-connected streets and sidewalks

Thank you for consideration of my comments. If you need further clarifications on my ideas for improving the Climate Action Plan, feel free to contact me at andy -a-t- andyarthur.org or by phone at 518-281-9873.

Sincerely,

Andy Arthur
15A Elm Ave
Delmar, NY 12054

Climate Change as a Check Engine Light

Andy | November 17, 2010

The “Check Engine” light can indicate a variety of problems with a car engine that needs to fixed, but is not a critical safety issue that would prevent you from driving home or to the garage. You might have a spark plug that is misfiring or a oxygen sensor that is out of range, but neither of those problems in over the next 500-1,00 miles is going to seriously damage your car.

Ignoring them for months or years, will likely plug up your catalytic converter or scour the cylnder walls by detonation. Ignoring a check engine light for an extended period of time can do serious damage.

Therefore, it’s a serious mistake to:

Totally ignore the check engine light, and drive for the next year or two.
Panic, and pull off the road, and wait for a tow truck (the Check Engine light is not the Low Oil Pressure light).
Scrap the car and buy a new one.

One might argue that pulling off the road and waiting for the tow truck, when the Check Engine light is on, won’t do any harm to the car. It’s the safest option. This is true. Yet it will do real harm to your day, your plans, and you’ll have to pay a towing bill that otherwise you would otherwise avoid by temporarily ignoring the Check Engine Light, driving home, and dropping off the car at the garage later in the week.

Climate change should not be ignored, but should be dealt with in an appropiate fashion not to ruin people’s quality of lives. The solutions to climate change will not be found in radical changes in energy policy or massive new taxes, but gradual changes, that will ensure the harm inflicted onto the environment by our carbon-based economy will be minimized to an acceptable level.

That means a moderate changes but not radical changes:

A gradual decarbonization of electrical grid, by mandating a greater portion of the power purchased by renewables.
A gradual decarbonization of fossil fuels by blending them with renewables such as ethanol in gasoline, and wood waste in coal boilers
A gradual increase in energy efficency by mandating new efficency standards for a broad series of appliances, automobiles, and industrial facilities

People forget that the problem of climate change is not due to any one individual or for that matter, any one power plant or industrial facility. The problem is largely a problem of scale — we are consuming, as society, so much fossil fuels that we are dramatically changing the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — a trace gas, but a trace gas that is likely to double in coming decades over historical levels.

We, as a society, have a moral obligation to slow the accumulation of carbon dioxide atmosphere.