future

We Need to Balance Climate Change Against Our Needs for Energy Services

Like most Americans, I believe strongly we should do something about Climate Change, to limit it’s most severe impacts. Yet at the same time, I am fully aware of our needs for energy services – the stuff that energy provides for us like lighting, transportation, powering electronics and motors, heating, and cooling. We need a lot of energy too – as I noted when the BP Oil Spill occurred – all the oil that spoiled the ocean could only fuel America for about 45 seconds. Turns out the oil spill severity was much worst then originally predicted, but still it was only one and half minutes worth of petroleum consumption for the United States.

So how do we get there from here? I do not advocate a “crash” diet on petroleum and other fossil fuels. People really like the energy services that fossil fuels provide, and most people aren’t give up their vacations using their petroleum fueled automobiles, or heat and air conditioning in their houses – especially for a “projected” future problem. Electric lighting and computers are essentials of modern life that most people aren’t going to want to give up either. Cities – particularly large cities – have such intense energy needs, that fully substituting with renewables isn’t going to be practical, much less cost effective.

Sure Looks Like Rain

What needs to happen is a big compromise. We need reasonable but strong energy standards that promote and preferable renewables and energy efficiency. Those standards can’t compromise the core things that make up the necessities modern life – including reliable and affordable energy and products. We have to continue to develop fossil energy sources responsibility. At the same time, we need to choose a realistic climate goal that matches our need for energy.

There are those out there that say we can’t afford that much Climate Change destruction. Essentially slaughtering millions of people and destroying billions in property to ensure our society has the energy it needs, really isn’t a pretty choice. But it’s a realistic choice. There is no free lunch on climate change – and protecting all the energy services provides for our society is important. America needs services that energy provides, and it has to be balanced against the painful consequences of consuming that energy.

Today’s debate needs not be whether we will need fossil energy to provide for energy services we all depend on and deeply enjoy. We will need fossil energy for the foreseeable future – and probably more of it in coming years. The question is can we burn it cleanly, and efficiently so it provides the most energy services for the least amount of actual fossil energy consumed. We got to take the oldest and dirtiest power plants and replace them with modern technology. We also got to boost renewable energy to be the preferred source of energy whenever it’s reasonably cost effective.

Should We As A Society Plan for the Future?

If you want to make god laugh, tell him your plans.
— Van Zandt, Help Somebody

It seems like there is a lot of talk about planning these days. People are constantly urging us to make retirement plans on the radio, especially for the young. Cities are told they have to make 20 year solid waste plans, along with Comprehensive Plans through 2030.

Paint Mine Creek

What’s the obsession with plans? Why can not we as a society simply learn to live in sustainable ways today, and not spend so much effort focusing on tommorow? There is a difference between planning and sustainability:

Planning is…

  • Abstract plans
  • Based on a view of tomorrow by today’s ziegist
  • Educated guess based on today’s technology
  • Excuse for not doing things right today

Sustainability is…

  • Taking sensible steps today that are right for today and tomorrow
  • Not consuming more resources then we currently have access to
  • Avoiding debt unless it shows short-term benefit, and can be shown also to have a long-term benefit equal to payback time

There is a lot of talk about short-term pain for long-term gain these days. Yet, what should be the threshold for pain? While it would be irresponsible for us as a society and individuals, to ignore long-term consequences of our actions, it’s just as bad to scrimp today on false beliefs on what tommorow would look like.

Thru a Tree

Planners of all stripes are bound to take issue of prioritising sustainability over planning. They say, without a plan, how can you really know if your actions will lead you where you want? I disagree. Do what’s right for today, but also don’t destroy your world for tomorrow.