From Copenhagen to Climategate, 2009 was a busy year for those of us at ecopolitology and anyone else interested in environmental politics. Here’s a rundown of what we saw as the year’s biggest environmental politics stories.
Van Jones’ Resignation
Van Jones, one of the people who was fighting hardest to create jobs in a green economy resigned his job at the White House as Special Adviser to President Obama for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. Jones was the target of a coordinated attack spearheaded by conservative media pundit, Glen Beck, for what Beck claimed was Jones’ communist leanings.
:}
From that to Number 5:
Economic Downturn and its Impact on Environment
One of the biggest stories in 2009–environmental or otherwise– was the massive economic downturn that gripped the U.S. and many other parts of the world. A tanking housing market, collapsing banks, and folding financial institutions all but dried up the available credit. As a result, homes were foreclosed, people lost their jobs and a general reluctance to invest in clean energy and pass legislation for the betterment of the environment permeated nearly every environmental debate in the country. The renewables sector was hit particularly hard for most of the year as banks were not lending up-front capital required for many renewable energy projects. Despite the economic slump, the wind industry continued to grow through the 3rd quarter, but suffered much more in Q4 of 2009.:}
From that to number 1:
Inauguration of Barack Obama as President
On January 20, 2009, the world watched as Barrack Hussein Obama was sworn-in as the 44th President of the United States. Throughout his campaign, Obama promised renewed attention to energy efficiency and renewables and a return to science-based policymaking. Many argue that Obama’s unprecedented commitment to science stands in stark contrast to the previous administration’s tampering with and dismissal of scientific findings that were not in line with its political agenda.
:}
There is much much more in this article including, Cash for Clunkers; ClimateGate, Copenhagen, cccccChanges…oh sorry got carried away with the Cs.
They are starting to build steam – oh what a mixed metaphor. But first I must say…
:}
Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.
Panoche Valley is known mostly for cattle and barbed wire, a treeless landscape in eastern San Benito County that turns green every spring but for much of the year looks like rural Nevada.
A posse of lawmen gunned down the famous Gold Rush bandit Joaquin Murrieta, an inspiration for the fictional character Zorro, near here in 1853. Nothing that exciting has happened since.
But now the remote valley 25 miles south of Hollister is finding itself at the center of a new showdown. A Silicon Valley company is proposing to build here what would be the world’s largest solar farm — 1.2 million solar panels spread across an area roughly the size of 3,500 football fields.
“This is renewable energy. It doesn’t
cause pollution, it doesn’t use coal or foreign oil, and it emits no greenhouse gases,” said Mike Peterson, CEO of Solargen Energy, the Cupertino company behind the $1.8 billion project.But critics — including some environmentalists — say green energy isn’t always green. In a refrain being heard increasingly across California, they contend the plan to cover this ranch land with a huge solar project would harm a unique landscape and its wildlife.
From the Bay Area to the Mojave Desert, green energy supporters are frustrated that a state that wants to lead the green revolution is facing roadblocks.
Peterson, a former vice president of Goldman Sachs, looked across the Panoche Valley last week and noted its attributes.
t sits 20 miles from the nearest town. It has 90 percent of the solar intensity of the Mojave Desert. Five willing sellers, mostly longtime ranching families, have signed options to sell his company 18,000 acres. And huge transmission lines run through the site, negating the need to build the kind of costly and controversial new power lines that have stalled similar projects.”From our standpoint, this is a perfect place,” he said. “If not here, where?”
Opposition mounts
The project would produce 420 megawatts of electricity, roughly the same as a medium-sized natural gas power plant, and enough to power 315,000 homes.
Reflecting on a year that opened with high expectations for renewable energy from the new Obama Administration and was buffeted by economic storms, AWEA identified the wind industry’s top accomplishments in 2009.
“Wind power is a symbol of hope in our economy and supports thousands of jobs, but U.S. wind turbine manufacturing is lagging at the very time that the global clean energy race is heating up,” said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. “One of the most urgent measures that our government can enact is a national Renewable Electricity Standard, which will unleash in the U.S. a wave of manufacturing investment that will otherwise go overseas. Many companies are eager to enter or ramp up their activities in this sector, as this year’s highlights show, but all need to see a long-term commitment with hard targets to renewable energy in order to be able to invest.”
The top accomplishments and developments include:
* American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 Funds a Lifeline: The ARRA included several provisions to spur development of wind and other renewable energy industries along with the Treasury Grant Program, which by year end had supplied over $1.5 billion in crucial capital. Since the early July announcement to implement the stimulus bill, at least 37 different wind projects, using large and small turbines, have been recipients of the grant program, powering the equivalent of 800,000 homes and providing a lifeline for the industry and sustaining wind power as a bright spot in the economy.
* … But Manufacturing Still Lags: Wind turbine manufacturing, however, has fallen behind 2008 levels in both announcements and in production activity. While this is bad news, the good news is that a solution is readily available: A strong national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) will create the market certainty that manufacturers need in order to invest, enabling the U.S. to become a wind turbine manufacturing powerhouse creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
* Strong Support for a National Renewable Electricity Standard (RES): An RES is included in the House version of climate legislation passed this spring and in pending Senate energy legislation. The wind industry, backed by popular support, continues to advocate for swift passage of a strong RES. A poll released by AWEA in May showed that over 75% of Americans, including 71% of independents and 62% of Republicans, support an RES requiring that 25% of the nation’s electricity be generated from renewable energy by 2025.
* COP15: AWEA sent a delegation to the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen this month. AWEA’s participation at the conference is another indication of America’s reengagement in the international climate change process and of the key role that wind power plays today in the transition to a clean energy economy.
Things have gone pretty dismally in Copenhagen. The Developed Countries tried to bully the Developing Countries. The Newly Industrializing Countries sniffed at the DeIndustrializing Countries. The US yelled at China and China yelled back and jingled the coins in its pockets. After all that excitement I must say:
:}
Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.
Gruel is a food preparation consisting of some type of cereal— oat, wheat or rye flour, or also rice— boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk than eaten and need not even be cooked. Historically, gruel, often made from millet or barley, or in hard times of chestnut flour and even the less tannic acorns of some oaks, has been the staple of the human diet, especially that of the peasantry. The importance of gruel as a form of sustenance is especially noted for invalids[1] and recently weaned children.
Gruel consumption has traditionally been associated with poverty. Gruel is a colloquial expression of any slop that is of unknown character, e.g. pea soup; soup is derived from sop, the slice of bread which was soaked with broth or thin gruel.[2
Copenhagen climate change summit – final day live blog
World leaders are still trying to thrash out a last minute compromise climate deal. These are the final day’s main developments:
• In a disappointing speech Obama admitted that the talks are in the balance.
• Leaked documents showed a draft agreement is extremely weak.
• Obama held two crucial talks with the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao.
4.43pm:
Greenpeace has expressed its disgust at the draft Copenhagen accord currently doing the rounds.
Its climate campaigner Joss Garman said:
This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communique than the legally binding agreement we need. It doesn’t even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face.
All this haggling is going to get us right where the top 500 POLLUTERS want us, sucking up their soot and poisons:
4.57pm:
A third draft of the climate is agreement being considered by world leaders, according to AP. But they are some way off the pace, according to our environment editor John Vidal – he’s looking at sixth version.
For what its worth the third version reinstates targets omitted from earlier ones. It says rich countries should reduce their greenhouse emissions by at least 80% by the year 2050.
It adds that developing countries’ emissions should be 15-30% below “business as usual”.
Stay tuned for more details on that later version.
5.28pm:
Tim Jones climate policy officer from World Development Movement, joins the chorus of disgust.
This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, and now appears to be culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that will condemn millions of people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich countries have refused to lead and instead sought to bribe and bully developing nations to sign up to the equivalent of a death warrant. The best outcome now is no deal. Leaders of rich countries should go home and adopt new year resolutions to become low carbon economies and pay their climate debt. Then we may have a chance of a properly just and effective agreement in 2010.
WASHINGTON — The White House complex and the federal government are going green — and not just with Christmas trees and holly.
As President Obama meets with world leaders at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen today, the government he runs at home is quietly engaged in an unprecedented effort to reduce its carbon footprint, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, cut waste and more.
In the complex that includes the White House, that means more efficient heating and cooling systems as well as organic paint, low-flow toilets and lights that turn off by themselves. Even the 800 Christmas ornaments adorning the 18-foot tree in the White House Blue Room were recycled from previous administrations in a nod to the environment and the bad economy.
In many of the federal government’s other 500,000 buildings, the effort to go green includes cutting the amount of garbage produced in half and installing more efficient lights.
“This is a big leap forward for the federal government,” says Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of Obama’s White House Council on Environmental Quality. And the effort will be “sustainable itself beyond this president.”
Sutley says the federal government is the country’s single largest energy consumer, using 1.6% of all the power used nationwide, so reducing energy consumption will mean big savings.
The nation is the world’s second-largest producer of greenhouse gases, behind China, and the cuts could help there, as well, environmentalists say.
Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth says, “There are many economies of scale that President Obama can achieve by forcing the federal government to rethink its energy habits.Dot Dot Dot (as they say)
Environmental groups say Obama’s efforts go far beyond what’s been done before. “There’s real substance behind the rhetoric,” says Joel Makower, editor of GreenBiz.com, which reports on the greening of mainstream business.
Under a 15-page executive order Obama signed in October, government agencies must implement a host of changes, Sutley says. Among the requirements:
• Agencies must reduce waste by 50% by 2015.
• Agencies must show a 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020.
• All new buildings and any major renovations to existing buildings must be eligible for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification given by the U.S. Green Building Council to environmentally responsible buildings. In and around Washington, the Pentagon and the ornate 121-year-old Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House are in the process of becoming LEED-certified.
• The government’s 600,000 vehicles must operate with 30% less petroleum by 2020.
Pentagon officials, Sutley says, are “thinking about how they can power their vehicles in different ways, so they don’t have to transport as much fuel,” a change that would save money and improve safety for servicemembers.
:}
So Copenhagen was pretty much a bust but it’s Christmas so let’s rock out!
I rarely have “guest posters”, mainly because nobody asks but also because I like to run my mouth. I forget how I found Jed’s Column but it makes so much sense in such a short space that I actually ASKED Jed if I could use it. How rare is that? So far that would be 2 people Jed and Dan Piraro soooo without further ado (I always wanted to say that…damn).
Written by Jed Morey on Dec 9th, 2009 and filed under Columns, Off The Reservation. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Want to take a trip down the environmental rabbit hole? Spark a discussion about climate change and watch human warming reach extremes far greater than any place on the globe.
To the right you have the laughable stance adopted by the conservative movement that humans are having no effect on climate and the atmosphere. At the other extreme are non-scientist policy makers and pundits holding “The End Is Near” signs on every street corner claiming that Iowa and Chad will be beachfront property by the end of next year.
Personally, I’m not qualified to discern which side is closer to representing the truth.
What I do know is that the debate should remain in scientific circles because I have yet to meet anyone qualified to entirely explain the variances in global temperatures. While world leaders are dithering in Copenhagen and arguing over hacked e-mails about tree rings versus thermometers, the public needs to close its ears to the noise produced on both sides of the global warming debate and focus on the tangible aspects of industrial pollution.
You don’t need to be an expert on carbon emissions or reference “parts per billion” to understand that we are seriously screwing up the planet. Public health has been compromised by the rise of industry. While there are several factors that contribute to the decline in public health, much of the discussion centers on energy production and sources because it’s the baseline driver of industry. So let’s look at it.
First of all, there is no such thing as clean coal. True, you can clean coal emissions, but the process of scrubbing coal to burn cleaner is just as much of an environmental disaster. There is no such thing as clean nuclear energy either, for that matter. True, the emissions are carbon neutral, but at some point every nuclear facility must dispose of the spent fuel used in production. The spent fuel must be stored somewhere and wherever that place is, it’s no place you want to be near.
Large wind farms in lakes and oceans are unrealistically expensive and remarkably inefficient. The Danes will tell you differently and espouse the virtues of wind power—just look at the marvel that is Copenhagen—but the fact remains that they are the largest manufacturers of wind turbines and have a vested economic interest in, shall we say, massaging the numbers. However, wind, solar and geothermal energy present viable options on a micro level and should be encouraged in every corner and backyard of the world. Individuals and small businesses need affordable access to clean energy solutions, not just municipalities.
Economically, there is no such thing as cheap oil anymore. Whether or not the Saudis or Venezuelans care to admit it, we have hit peak oil in the largest, most accessible oil fields around the world. Period. Are there places on Earth with large reserves of oil and natural gas? Yup. Is it easy to get to? Nope. Expensive to retrieve? Yup. Environmentally secure to extract? Nope.
As far as Cap and Trade is concerned—please. Giving large corporations and polluters the ability to buy their way out of cleaning their emissions is a lousy practice. Lisa Jackson from the EPA is on the right track by simply drawing a line in the sand and taking it out of the hands of Congress. The message from the Obama administration is clear: Clean it up. If Cap and Trade is allowed to continue one can only imagine Goldman Sachs creating a derivatives market that bundles pollution credits in with mortgages on homes with inefficient boilers and selling them to school boards in Greenland. No more government-backed securities bought by large corporations and sold on opaque markets, especially if they contain something as ethereal as carbon credits.
This is it folks. We have reached the tipping point. The only option heretofore is conservation.
Can’t say it any better than that. By the way those who know me know I disagree with Jed about renewables, broadly stated, to replace fossil fuels but as he says “Cheap nope, time consuming Yup”. Thanks Jed.
Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.
:}
This is an example of what we have to put up with in this community. Springfield has been raped by corporate media purchases. First a right wing conglomerate, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, bought channel 20 and gave us an ex-CIA agent as a far right social commenter. Then Gatehouse buys our local paper, the State Journal Register, and in one week they give us an editorial in which Union Pacific says that they can ram as many freight trains down our throats as they want and the opinion below that Cap and Trade will kill the USA’s economy. This by the guy who lead the deregulation train before it derailed our economy. Thanks a lot man.
Regulations and mandates that force nationwide cuts in carbon dioxide emissions offer only speculative environmental benefits, if any, as a switch to wind and solar power will certainly cause more harm than good to the environment.
But command-and-control forces in Congress are headed in that direction, with the House narrowly passing a bill to cap CO2 emissions, and the Senate taking up a companion bill this month.
Engineers calculate that a stunning 600 square miles of wind turbines would be needed to produce the same 1,000 megawatts of electricity as a single medium-to-large coal power plant. That’s enough to provide electricity to about 10,000 homes.
Even in favorable locations, wind turbines can supply electrical power only about 20 percent of the time, meaning utilities still must have an alternative baseload source to compensate for wind fluctuations, and those alternatives are three: coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. But by taking coal and natural gas out of production due to carbon dioxide restrictions, a massive and enormously expensive program will be needed to build more nuclear power plants to supply this baseload.
Further, wind turbine developments despoil nature’s beauty, and indiscriminately kill birds and bats, including many endangered species.
Writing last summer in the Boston Globe, Eleanor Tillinghast, director of the environmental advocacy group Green Berkshires, warned, “Cutting wide swaths of unspoiled forest for access roads, clear-cutting miles of ridgelines, erecting industrial structures with spinning blades that threaten migrating birds and the last remaining bats — these are irreversible actions with permanent consequences.”
Solar power likewise requires substantially more environmental destruction than coal. The Nevada Solar One array, the most efficient in the nation, requires 350 acres of land to produce less than 1/10th the power of a conventional coal-fueled power plant, and that’s at peak efficiency at noon on a cloudless day.
Both wind and solar power projects inevitably would require the construction of new transmission lines, often across otherwise-pristine lands, to reach energy-hungry consumers. The nation’s key wind corridor, from the Texas panhandle to the Dakotas, contains no major population center.
Further, wind and solar generators consume much more water than coal power plants, a serious problem in desert areas with the most sunlight.
All of that explains why so many environmentalists oppose further development of wind and solar power. By forcing construction of more of these projects, carbon dioxide restrictions will have a devastating impact on many of America’s most valuable natural treasures.
Dan Miller is publisher at The Heartland Institute and former chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, the public utility regulatory body in Illinois. He can be reached at
dmiller@heartland.org.
Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.
:}
Will High Speed Rail become a fast way for the general public to get around at a reduced energy cost? Or will it become a fast way for the Wealthy to commute from city to city? Will Union Pacific and the other big railroads carve up small towns in the rural areas while doubling and tripling freight traffic? Only time will tell. BUT here is Union Pacific’s take on it from the The State Journal Register.
Joseph Bateman: Rail upgrade needed for passenger service, not freight
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Nov 04, 2009 @ 12:04 AM
Last update Nov 04, 2009 @ 06:58 AM
Contrary to the headline and opinions expressed in the Oct. 25 article “High-speed rail spending to be a boon to freight rail companies,” Union Pacific does not need for its freight operations the improvements contained in IDOT’s proposal for high-speed passenger service in the St. Louis-to-Chicago corridor. The public expenditure required for track capacity and other improvements needed on the UP line for high-speed passenger service is necessitated by the increased frequency in passenger service (10 to 18 daily trains) and the increase in maximum passenger train velocity (79 to 110 mph), not by the increased UP freight operationsPlans to build our new Joliet intermodal terminal, which could result in additional UP traffic in the corridor, were announced long before high-speed passenger rail or stimulus funding grabbed the national spotlight. Union Pacific currently has adequate capacity on our existing rail corridor infrastructure to support growth in freight train volumes. If the time comes when we might require additional capacity, we will build and finance it ourselves, just as we have done throughout our 23-state, 32,000-mile network for nearly 150 years.Nonetheless, we think it is important for Springfield residents to be aware of misconceptions and facts regarding this project that have not been widely reported:* Union Pacific did not ask for higher-speed passenger trains on our line. We are responding to requests from the state of Illinois and others to host this service on our line.* One high-speed passenger train consumes the equivalent track capacity of two to three freight trains. Even without freight train growth, a computer simulation of the corridor demonstrated that double track infrastructure is needed to meet required levels of service and reliability for IDOT’s four-hour express passenger schedule.
* UP always has been willing to review any mitigation alternatives the city of Springfield may propose for the Third Street corridor, including grade separations. To date, we have received no suggestions for mitigation from either the city or county.
* Congested urban areas such as between Sangamon and Iles avenues in Springfield require speed restrictions, most likely in the 40 to 50 mph range, not the 110 mph maximum speed envisioned elsewhere in this corridor. Passenger trains will operate even slower in the downtown area because of the station stop.
* The maximum number of trains running through the Third Street corridor would be 40 combined passenger and freight per day, assuming maximum growth of UP’s business over the next 10 years. In contrast, there would be 60-plus trains per day using the 10th Street corridor to accommodate Union Pacific, passenger and Norfolk Southern trains.
* At-grade road-rail crossings in Springfield would be blocked by 40 trains for a total of approximately 65 minutes per crossing per day, not five hours per day. Unnecessary speed restrictions or inadequate rail capacity provisions, however, would create bottlenecks that will add to blocked crossing time.
* Constructing a bypass for UP on the 10th Street corridor would require displacing many residences and businesses to accommodate the required double track and grade separations. In addition, a new connection track at North Grand Avenue would be required through or near an area now occupied by housing, the ballpark, Memorial Stadium and tennis courts.
High-speed passenger rail ultimately boils down to a public policy decision. If private freight rail infrastructure is to be used for passenger service, then federal grant policy requires that sufficient infrastructure capacity must be provided to efficiently and reliably handle both existing and future freight and passenger service on demand. That infrastructure must be paid for by the party precipitating that need, in this case, the sponsor of expanded passenger train operations.
Joseph Bateman is vice president for public affairs of Union Pacific.
:}
I plan on writing a response, so if the SJ-R doesn’t publish it then I will put it up as a post.
This is a perfect example of an Oil and Gas shill. Actually at this point I guess I should call him a Carbon front man. Ever notice how it’s always a man? He ignores the subsidies paid to the Oil and Gas business right now, which are huge. He ignores the impact of the pollution (externalities you know). He ignores the fact that, as predicted, we are starting to use oil shale and oil sands which are marginal materials because we are running out of resources. Not because of “magical” new technologies. He ignores the simple fact that if everyone in the world heated their water using geothermal or solar we could cut consumption in half….
I loved the true story of the Nigerian energy worker who, having received a pay check for $900, amended the figure to read $9,000. As the reporter wittily put it, “The check fraud proved entirely successful … right up to the point where he attempted to cash it.” That’s kind of how I feel about the renewable energy revolution. It will prove entirely successful in the eyes of the public and media — right up to the point where the lights start going out. And those lights will soon start going out, according to a new report.
I fully understand the romantic attraction of the clean energy revolution and the rush to replace ‘dirty’ fossil fuels. In the light of the war on carbon it’s a no brainer, right? Which is precisely why, just as diminishing EU and UK subsidies are prompting an industry exodus westward, the British renewables industry may be about to be given an unexpected investment shot in the arm from some of the world’s biggest multinational companies in one of the biggest analogs to the adage “I gave at the church,” in this case the environmentalism church. Companies, it seems, in their rush to appear politically correct are oblivious to how that renewable revolution is ushering in a new dark age in Britain.
Why the multinationals?
Speaking at a UK Confederation of British Industries (CBI) conference in October, the Bank of America’s head of power and utilities, John Lynch, named companies like Google, Microsoft, Wal-Mart and IKEA (the Swedish home goods company) as being potential new investors for Britain’s offshore wind industry. “This is the technology that the UK is leading in, and these companies are looking at ways to get involved,” Lynch told his CBI audience, “because it meets their own corporate social responsibility objectives.” Enthusing over the prospect of a massive new injection of funds for British industry, Lynch noted how the Crown Estate (which owns the UK seabed) had launched the offshore program specifically to enable Britain to meet its target of 80 percent cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. Clearly nobody had told Lynch that in recent weeks the leaders of Britain’s biggest energy companies privately warned the government that its climate targets, contingent upon renewable sources replacing hydrocarbon fuels, are “illusory” and “delusional.
as we say in the editing business … or dot dot dot
Put bluntly, Tucker shows that industrial scale renewable energy is, realistically and mathematically, an economic non-starter.
Ironically, just as UK and European subsidy opportunities are dwindling and the revolution faltering, the retail multinationals may be about to reinvigorate the flagging UK program. And as the economic cost of renewables is being counted across Europe, Britain’s energy-climate policy is likely to be touted increasingly as the blueprint for others to follow. A rash of UK studies continue to sound alarm bells over the government’s current energy direction and, one of these, just published, should do the same well beyond UK shores.
Does it really take an Einstein?
In October, the UK energy regulator, Ofgem (The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets), warned that Britain was facing 1970s style power blackouts within just four years – a much shorter timescale than previously thought. Project Discovery cited the British government’s failure to renovate its “crumbling power infrastructure” due to compliance with new EU rules that will force the closure of a quarter of the country’s power stations by 2015. In a typically British understatement, Alistair Buchanan, Ofgem’s chief executive warned, “There could be a potential shortfall in the period 2013-18 … Life might be pretty cold.” Buchanan’s assessment is that only an “involuntary curtailment of demand” – power cuts – can conserve household supplies, unless the government acts urgently to upgrade its nuclear plants. Jeremy Nicholson, of the Energy Intensive Users Group, representing some of Britain’s biggest manufacturers, said that power cuts that hit UK business first would present a “material threat to heavy industry.” Nicholson also warned that once the crisis hit the 60 percent hike in British energy bills currently being acknowledged by the government will, more realistically, hit the 120 percent mark.
Bottom line? If Einstein’s E=mc2 as it applies to renewable energy doesn’t cut the intellectual ice for prospective investors and foreign governments alike, perhaps another will. Try this:
UK energy-climate policy, circa 2009 = a blueprint for black-outs.
See what I mean about a fraudulent check being entirely successful right up to the point
:}
But here is where his analysis shows his paradigm. He says industrial users have to have “so in so” amount of power. I say great. Let the industries that need it generate it in such a way that they generate no pollution. Thank you very much and usins in the residential market, well we will keep our alternative energies. Come on you ARE the smartest guys in the world right? oh..OR maybe not?
Last week I had the miserable experience of interviewing a man who had accidentally survived a suicide pact with his wife.
Dr William Stanton, 79, has bone cancer and is plainly very ill: doctors give him three to eight months. His wife Angela was 74, and in good health, but didn’t want to survive him.
Dr Stanton happens to be one of the foremost proponents of population control in Britain, possibly anywhere, and has written articles and letters for anybody who will publish them, including his local paper and the New Scientist. But the latter stopped publishing him more than 20 years ago because – he believes – his views are regarded as being beyond the pale.
A geologist by profession, Dr Stanton has made a massive study of global population growth since the start of the industrial revolution, and suggests persuasively that the growth can be accounted for precisely by the advent of cheap oil. He contends that global oil production is at peak now, however, and that diminishing supplies will require the population of Britain to fall from around 60m today to just 2m in 2150.
Two million!
This will either happen inadvertently, he argues, as people kill each other for precious resources, or in a controlled way, as laws restrict women to just one child each, humane euthanasia becomes widespread to deal with people who represent a “net drain” on society, and immigration is made illegal – arrivals would be put to work in chain gangs, with other criminals.
In its own terms, Dr Stanton’s analysis makes some sense, but his prescriptions are utterly repellent. But when I said that, he told me I was being sentimental. Was he right?
You can read my Sunday Times interview here. If you wish to find out more about Dr Stanton’s views – and his struggle to get them into the mainstream – you should Google him.
:}
Unfortunately, in the long article of maybe a gazillion words, he mentions Bill Stanton’s beliefs on population in two or three paragraphs focusing most of the rest of the article on Stanton and his wife’s botched double suicide. The irony of his healthy wife dying and he being terminal with cancer and living is over exploited. Also the author spills a lot of ink on Britain’s law against assisted suicide and how 132 Britains went to Switzerland to do the deed.
William Stanton and his wife tried to end their lives together – but they only half succeeded. He says He’d do it again
John-Paul Flintoff Early one morning in September, William Stanton heard footsteps coming up the stairs of his cottage in Somerset. He knew who it was and panicked. “I shouted out: ‘Go away, Nigel, leave me to it, leave me to it!’”
Nigel, a neighbour and family friend, did not go away. He came into the bedroom and found Stanton in distress and his wife Angela lying dead with a plastic bag over her head.
The Stantons had made a pact to end their lives together and put it into effect just days after the director of public prosecutions revealed how he would apply the law prohibiting assisted suicide. It did not work out as they planned and stands as a terrible cautionary example for anybody thinking that self-inflicted death is easily arranged.
I met Stanton last week in the neat and pretty bedroom where Angela’s body was found. I noted a commode in the corner and a trolley-load of pills beside Stanton, who was sitting up in bed. He is 79 and obviously unwell — his doctors say bone cancer will kill him in three to eight months — but he complained only that the pills make him lethargic.
Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, Ireland
ASPO Newsletters, Article Number 573 (July 2005)
The population of the World expanded six-fold in parallel with oil production during the First Half of the Age of Oil. William Stanton, author of The Rapid Growth of Human Population 1750-2000 (Multi-Science Publishing, 2003) contributes the following analysis of how population will have to return to pre-Oil Age levels. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic.
Reducing Population in Step with Oil Depletion
by William Stanton
Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be.
In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is “more of the same”. They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
Everyone in this country has been programmed by rampant science fiction to believe that everything for the future comes from outer space. So the Japanese launch a press release about using a satellite to beam microwaves back to Earth.
Let’s see, first you have to clean up the 13,000 pieces of space debris…then you got to up our payload capacity and multiple the number of vehicles available by at least 1,000. Just to START such a project. Hell we can barely generate enough capacity to keep the International Space Station running which is 160 volts in DC. Which gets us back to this final meditation on “living off the land”. There are somethings we will have to give up on and the first one is Space Flight. Why? Not because of the money and effort that could spent elsewhere. Not because of the hellishness of the logistics. NASA’s dirty little secret is Cosmic Rays. They would destroy any unshielded human and that is why the International Space Station is not in geosynchronous orbit or higher. Stewardesses and Pilots who regularly fly at high altitudes are exposed to enough Cosmic Rays to have a slightly higher chance of developing some cancers. That is why NASA limits the space station stay for astronauts to under a year. But what is the point of going out there?
GROWTH
If we replaced that with
Quality of Life
As a principle the world would be a much nicer and longer lived place.
Welcome to our free online resource for off-grid living.
We are here to help you along in the rewarding challenge of living off of the power grid. Whether you are a veteran off-grider living in an RV or cabin in the woods, a seasoned rural farmer, a third-generation rancher – or someone just looking to get out of the rat race – we have the information you seek.
Though sometimes a challenge, the many benefits of living off grid make it all worthwhile. How can one describe the feeling of running your house or business off of clean energy sources like natural gas and propane, or renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydro? Who could explain the effect being out of the city and suburbs has on your sense of well-being? How many of us would enjoy more fresh produce grown organically on our own property?
This website isn’t just about owning property that happens to not be connected to the big power company’s grid. It is about living closer to the land; Being responsible for the culture, values and environment we leave behind to our children; knowing that life was meant to be enjoyed, rather than working in a tiny cubicle to earn enough to accumulate stuff we didn’t need in the first place.
Well, that’s what it’s about for me at least. But more importantly: What is living off grid about to you?
Ever wish you could just unplug from your current hectic life? Maybe quit your stressful job, move to a farm with several acres, and spend your remaining time living off the grid. Yeah, me too.
The problem is that this type of lifestyle seems so simple, but is terribly difficult to pull off these days. Why? Because we have become slaves to our stuff – myself included. We have our houses, our cars, our expensive hobbies, our electronic gadgets, our new furniture, our designer clothes, etc.
We spend the majority of our lives working to pay for the stuff that keeps us from living a life with more freedom. Along the way we usually manage to accumulate debt buying more stuff than we can afford. So then we spend even more time working to repay the money we borrowed to buy the stuff that we work to pay for in the first place. Whew! It’s a vicious cycle.
So how do we break the cycle? How do we join others who are living off the grid? It isn’t easy. I believe the very first step is to stop accumulating stuff. Draw a line in the sand (or on your front porch), and vow not to allow anything else to enter your home unless it is a necessity or improves your quality of life in some way. If something qualifies under those two conditions, you must save for it and pay cash. No more borrowing!
The second step is to take a look around your house, and your budget. Are you paying for things that you could really live without? The $40 gym membership, or the $15 Netflix membership, may not seem like much by themselves, but how much of a nest egg would be required just to cover those expenses? I mentioned the multiply by 25 concept in a previous post. The idea is that you can estimate how much of your nest egg would be required to maintain your current expenses. I used Netflix as an example:
The UK is in the grips of a power cartel, says an insider from the governing UK Labour Party.
That cartel actively hinders the fight against global warming by lobbying for its own narrow commercial interests at the cost of local democracy and the future health of the planet. It’s an argument that off-gridders and anti-capitalist campaigners will be familiar with. It’s not really what you expect to hear from an advisor to Her Majesty’s Government. Yet it is precisely the belief of Alan Simpson, who occupies a place close to the heart of political power in Britain as energy advisor to the Secretary of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband and Member of Parliament for Nottingham South.
In the summer of 1980, my wife, three-month old son and I moved “off-grid”. We loved living in San Francisco but wanted to live a simpler, more independent lifestyle, and so we bought a small cabin with land on a rural island in the Pacific Northwest. Since there were no services to the island, our home had no electricity. Residents of the island had to create their own electricity or do without.
Now here I sit, almost 30 years later, with the kids grown and their rooms empty, and with some time to reflect on our experience living and raising a family off-grid. But before even considering the challenges and solutions in dealing with our energy needs over the years, one observation seems to leap out: how little things here have changed. We’ve done very little over the years to enhance our energy needs, aside from installing two solar panels last year to power the computer I’m using to write this article. (Alongside my computer on the table here is a kerosene lamp, and a candle for added light.) This lack of change is testament to the feasibility of off-grid living, and my vision for the upcoming years is to keep things pretty much the way they are.
But keeping it simple hasn’t always been simple. We had to learn alternate methods of preserving food, how to build things without power tools, how to cook on a wood stove, how to clean diapers without a washing machine, entertain ourselves without TV, and accept that many common tasks can take longer and be more difficult without electricity. Here are the main challenges we encountered in living off-grid, and how we managed with them.
While there was huge howling on both the right and the left about Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize, I think it was mainly because they don’t understand that we are shifting from a “growth” paradigm to a “sustainable” paradigm and the Nobel people were publicly recognizing that fact. I think if they all knew what that meant, they would be howling even louder. What Barack and company have understood is that standard politics is about to become irrelevant. That is that the Growth method of economics is about to become obsolete and with it a whole way of life.
It was not by chance that Elinor Ostrom was awarded this year’s Nobel prize in economics.
Global warming, along with the preservation of the quality of our environment, has become the most pressing issue facing the human race.
The presentation of this year’s Nobel prize in economics to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson–in particular Ostrom’s dedicated researches in the inter-relationship between mankind and our ecological system, thus ensuring the sustainability of our water, forest, fishery and other shared resources–should serve as a loud and clear alarm to mankind, who have now come face to face with ecological disasters of unprecedented proportions.
Environmental initiatives continue to thrive in all corners of the Earth. Although many people are well equipped with the knowledge of protecting our environment, few will actually turn that knowledge into practical actions, resulting in the piling up of trash, severe river contamination, illegal logging as well as ill-planned and uncurbed developments. The quality of our environment has deteriorated further, culminating in a broad array of hygiene issues and illnesses.
Elinor Ostrom spent her teenage years in the depth of the Great Depression and the subsequent second world war, when resources were scarce and potable water a rarity. She grew vegetables in her own yard, and made her harvest into canned food. This opened up her eyes to the realisation of the necessity to work with other people for the common interests of all when resources were in short supply. Such a realisation had laid a solid foundation for her future scientific research works.
Judging from this perspective, it therefore came as no coincidence that she was given the Nobel.
It is an undeniable fact that environmental degradation has resulted in global warming. Even in Malaysia, the average atmospheric temperatures have risen over the past three decades.
:}
Summarizing her findings about the “tragedy of the commons”:
1. We must value the strategy of a more balanced overall development: In the past, due to the lack of overall development concept and plans, our developments have been concentrated in large cities while the well-being of rural residents was overlooked.
For instance, we moved polluting factories from cities to outlying areas and adjacent rural communities. We should have instead formulated a set of preventive guidelines to curb environmental degradation. The success of environment protection depends very much on the monetary expenses as well as manpower, financial and equipment inputs; and priorities and timetables should therefore be set.
2. An environment evaluation system must be put in place. Works on all new major construction projects, manufacturing plants and public gathering places, should begin only after environmental impact assessments have been carried out.
3. Promote a sense of responsibility in nurturing the necessary expertise. Future entrepreneurs must come to the full realisation that the prevention of environmental degradation is a responsibility which they are obliged to, and the money invested in the equipment for the prevention of environmental degradation should be seen as part of the essential operating cost in their production and service delivery. At the same time, they should also establish research bodies aimed at grooming expertise to fight pollution.
Not believing in the “tragedy of the commons,” Ostrom has put her entire lifetime’s effort in the researches on outlying and underdeveloped communities, living over a very long period of time with their impoverished residents.
Utility chiefs are juggling the conflicting goals of green energy and low rates—and self-interest reigns
BUCKING POWERFUL INTERESTS
What makes the task even more difficult is a fundamental clash between the two goals that Rowe, Rogers, and other CEOs say they are passionate about: keeping power prices low to benefit customers and averting the potential catastrophe of climate change. The effort to curb emissions, after all, will significantly raise the price of coal-fired and other fossil-fuel-generated electricity and make alternatives more competitive.
Germans are leading the way in the clean energy revolution. From huge smart grid projects and massive wind and solar farms to smaller micro-generation projects at the home to new appliances Germany is taking energy efficiency very seriously.
Germany passed legislation more than 20 years ago that required utility companies to pay homeowners who generated renewable power. Since 1990, carbon emissions there have been reduced by 23 percent as a result of forward-thinking policies and by embracing innovative technologies.
The country is now conducting tests that will determine if homes can produce all of their energy needs and sell excess back to the power grid. Operating under the label E-Energy, the project will include tens of thousands of homes in six separate regions. The €140 million project has attracted many of the world’s largest energy and technology firms who have agreed to help pay for the effort. Germany believes that a similar nationwide program could conserve 10 terawatts of energy annually – an amount equal to the yearly consumption of 2.5 million homes.
The Germans are also working on offshore wind farms and massive solar power installations to be built in Africa. Several energy companies are working on the solar project that will eventually feed clean energy into Europe’s power grid. Schemes such as these can eventually provide up to a third of the country’s requirements, according to estimates.
:}
The point being, that the Nobel Committee picked people that reflect that…the “Growthers” just don’t get it and never will:
Written by 
Welcome to our free online resource for off-grid living.
In the summer of 1980, my wife, three-month old son and I moved “off-grid”. We loved living in San Francisco but wanted to live a simpler, more independent lifestyle, and so we bought a small cabin with land on a rural island in the Pacific Northwest. Since there were no services to the island, our home had no electricity. Residents of the island had to create their own electricity or do without.
