Note: These recommendations are specifically for the USA, since I am most familiar with the situation and circumstances of my country. The situation and circumstances of other nations will vary from one to another, so their particular needs - and the resources available to meet those needs - will be different. However, I feel these recommendations could provide a model for other countries as well, making the appropriate adjustments.
Conservation (short & long term)
- Increase the availability & amount of tax credits to encourage home owners to make their homes more energy efficient. Make grants available to low- & fixed-income people to pay for making their homes energy efficient.
- Require all new homes & buildings to meet much stricter standards of energy efficiency.
- Dramatically raise the existing standards for fuel economy of new vehicles. Require all new vehicles be flex-fuel, including be able to run on natural gas.
- Local governments should promote relocalization efforts, adopt "smart growth" plans to prevent urban sprawl, & increase the availability of public transportation, including walking & biking paths.
- Local governments should ease regulations & zoning ordinances that restrict conservation efforts because of concerns over "appearances" and the attitude of NIMBY (not in my backyard).
- Build up of the rail system similar to the build up of the interstate system fifty years ago. Goal is to move most long-distance travelers & goods by train rather than by car or truck.
- Laws & regulations to encourage recycling & the end to the "throw-away" economy.
Energy During the Transition
- Adopt the Pickens Plan to replace electricity generated by natural gas with electricity generated by wind, and to use natural gas as one means of fueling vehicles.
- Open up offshore areas, ANWR and other areas to drilling (maintaining carefully monitored environmental & safety standards) (note: this should only be done in conjunction with increased fuel-economy standards and a switch to flex-fuel vehicles, otherwise it would just be maintaining the status-quo for a little while longer).
- Allow construction of new nuclear power plants (maintaining carefully monitored environmental & safety standards).
- Tax credits for home owners & business to switch to rooftop solar electric systems. Grants for low- and fixed-income homeowners to switch.
Long-Term Renewable Energy
- Tax-incentives & government funding for more research into non-food based bio-fuels, such as bio-diesel from algae.
- Build-up of the necessary infrastructure for large scale wind- and solar-power farms.
- Expand tidal, wave, hydro-electric and geo-thermal energy where appropriate.
- Tax-incentives & government funding into fuel cells & the hydrogen-based economy. Begin the buildup of necessary infrastructure should this option prove viable.
- Direct NASA to research feasibility of mining asteroids or the moon for resources such as uranium & other metals. Any future NASA missions should be directed at resource discovery & extraction. Space exploration for the joy of exploration or even pure-science is no longer feasible. If the space program cannot provide much needed resources, than it must be shut down.
Part 5 has listed a number of recommendations for energy conservation, energy during the transition and long-term renewable energy sources. Part 6 will look at recommendations for a more sustainable food system.
Posts
3 comments:
I almost feel like what I imagine a doom merchant to be, when I comment. But I feel that opinions and suggestions aren't worked through.
I agree totally with the aims of the suggestions, Tim, and maybe it's the way to go. Maybe tax incentives, or grants, are needed for some people to make inroads into their energy use, without disproportionate pain. But if money is the incentive, then I don't think the results will be as effective than if (miraculously, I'll admit) people did this because it was the right thing to do to move towards sustainability.
Why? Because if it's not costing anything (or significantly less than it might have done), then extra energy is being used, because it is not being saved elsewhere. And if people ultimately save money, then they will spend that money elsewhere, on stuff that uses energy and resources. There is a rebound effect that will not yield the energy savings expected.
Hi Tony,
What you are saying sounds a lot like what I've heard from others in different forums before. Basically that it is human nature to use as much (energy, gas, food, water or whatever) as one can afford and that the only way to get people to use less resources is to make those resources less affordable.
I don't buy that argument. Makes people out to be nothing more than mindless automatons, unable to change their instinctual behaviors on their own. Fact is I know plenty of people who choose to consume less than they can afford - frankly, I count myself among them.
Admittedly, there is going to have to be a major change of attitudes, especially here in the USA. We are a society of consumers, and need to be a society of savers.
Hopefully, I reflect that elsewhere in my writings. I have tried to make it a vital part of my Modern Victory Movement idea (3 of the 6 points revolve around consuming less). And I did include a section on the need for new values/attitudes in Part 3 of this series, specifically saying we need a civilization that:
* sees itself as a caretaker of nature, rather than a consumer of it.
* Its populace takes energy conservation seriously.
* People take pride in taking care of their possessions; status comes not from how new your stuff is, but from how long you can make it last.
* People are more concerned with quality, rather than quantity.
* Waste is considered not only bad, but offensive.
Don't worry about sounding negative. I am looking at this series as a "rough draft" and am rewriting parts of that need clarification. You comments are helping identify those areas.
I believe we can transition to a sustainable future without drilling in ANWR and the OCS. These areas are unexplored and not set up for production. It will take years to get them to full production. It is possible that drilling in these areas will also have an adverse effect on the environment. It is estimated that when we reach full production in these areas, it will only provide 20% of the worlds daily energy supply. The cost and potential damage is not worth the feel-good sense it will give the American People if it happens.
Post a Comment