If the Move To Renewables Is Inevitable, Why Not Do It Now?

Here’s a question for you: When you listen to the debates in English Parliament, and hear how people with opposing viewpoints heckle and interrupt one another, doesn’t your skin crawl?  Mine does.  These people have such incredible manners on most occasions, but not in public speaking.  How is that possible?

When I saw this piece in which British Prime Minister David Cameron scolded Europe for “missing out on the fracking boom,” I could imagine the loud HARRUMPHs he must have received from the environmentalists.

It really is a very interesting argument.  There are 200+ sovereign countries, each competing for economic prosperity on a globe with a fixed supply of resources.  Those who restrain themselves for the sake of the planet’s welfare are, indeed, at a disadvantage to those who rape and pillage.

Perhaps this is what makes these COP meetings in Durban, Copenhagen, Cancun, etc. such a magnificent waste of time: the more aggressive countries “just say no.”  No, we can’t afford to close our coal plants; no, we feel no obligation; no, we’ll be relatively unharmed by climate change; no, we don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.  In a word: No.

My suggestion: come to terms with the reality of the situation, i.e., cleantech solutions sit at the core of the economy of the 21st Century.  The sooner we understand this and embrace it, the sooner we can grow our job base, and create a boom in real and sustainable prosperity.

Even Shell Oil says that solar will have overtaken oil by the year 2060.  Yes, here’s one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful opponents to clean energy that admits that the migration to renewable energy is inevitable.  So why not now?  Why not build a vibrant new economy while averting catastrophe?

The world is staring into the face of environmental degradation and resource depletion; it’s a world facing the abyss of climate refugees, food and water shortages, and the other horrors brought on by our collective folly.  This means, like it or not, that the development of cleantech and renewable energy more specifically is not just a nice idea; it’s the only enterprise that has any real meaning in the 21st Century.  The sooner we embrace this reality and build a new economy around cleantech, the sooner we can get on the road to true prosperity.

How much longer will it matter how cheaply you can manufacture ballpoint pens or I-pads or Cadillac Escalades?  When drought has destroyed our farmland, and our industries and agribusinesses have poisoned our waters and skies, it will be too late to start thinking about clean energy, conservation, and energy efficiency.

Let’s do it now.  This won’t hurt a bit.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
8 comments on “If the Move To Renewables Is Inevitable, Why Not Do It Now?
  1. Pierre says:

    wow craig… well stated thanks

  2. Larry Lemmert says:

    “Let’s do it now. This won’t hurt a bit.”

    That is like telling pregnant woman that childbirth will not hurt a bit.

    The birth of the solar age will not come without a lot of birth pangs. It is too simplistic to think that the economics do not matter and that the jobs created as the new paradym kicks in will offset the jobs lost in industries impacted negatively by the change.

  3. Ron Mccurdy says:

    My car is my electric assist tricycle.

  4. Phil Manke says:

    This argument makes the use of SRECs more interesting; Solar energy producers get an additional stipend from CO2 producers, mainly coal burners.(I eagerly forsee the adoption of the petro industry into carbon assesments). If you like things the way they are, fine. If you want to go solar, the avoided costs of carbon dumping into the commons are added into the SREC scenario, so the up-front bumb is greatly lessened. Thus, solar becomes a positive economic move instead of outlay. Even the banks like the idea. SRECs cover the cost of money because of cash over time. Adopters must keep systems operating to stay in the black.. Most coal burners are paying now, but it comes back to themselves for their favored wind, bio, and hydro projects, and keeps the money “in house”.
    …….With SRECs, distributed solar gets a favored “carve-out” status and an SACP keeps the Utes from “not” buying the carbon credits. A trading swap auction board levels the whole flow, in and out, and it is run by 501 C-3’s, on % commissions with no government money!!! How is this not a viable idea?

    • Larry Lemmert says:

      “Solar energy producers get an additional stipend from CO2 producers, mainly coal burners.”

      But who collects the carbon debt generated by the solar producers?
      Each solar device has a carbon footprint that must be accounted for over the life cycle of the device. Do the same rules apply to the solar panel owner who has to junk (recycle?) his costly treasure after it gets whomped by a hail storm?
      Aluminum, steel, copper and concrete components of every solar and wind project have a big carbon load on the environment. Maybe not as much as a burp from a volcano but if we are playing this game it ought to be fair, right?

  5. mark clayton says:

    As always thank you Craig for being our voice in the wilderness. Just one comment, I am an engineer/developer who has a build plan and a business plan that will demonstrate how renewable/sustainable living can be achieved starting in the southeast, with the exception, our cost of build rivals conventional and we are off the grid.

  6. garyt1963 says:

    The UK Parliament is well known for its formal ritualistic “polite” insults – its part of our heritage just as the Australian Parliament is known for very direct frank, and sometimes vulgar exchanges.

    More concerning is a lack of clear incisive debate based on evidence gathered from unbiassed sources. It is interesting that whilst a large number of British members of Parliament have legal or finance backgrounds and very few are scientists of engineers, China’s legislature is exactly the opposite – with large numbers of engineers and scientists and fewer lawyers and bankers.

    Regarding Fracking the argument currently seems to be mostly about toxic leaks and drinking water which is full of methane. No one is discussing in detail the whole process climate impact of Fracking for gas which is much higher than conventional gas.

    First, you have to multiply emissions by a factor taking into account the high embodied energy of the process, and then you have to multiply that by a factor taking into account increased release of methane to the atmosphere.

    Experience in the USA seems to indicate that around 5 to 10% of Fracked gas leaks – bypassing the pipe, or passing into aquifers through cracks generated by the Fracking.

    Given that methane is many times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, it seems likely to me that in some instances, the production of fracked gas far from being a clean source of energy may be more climate change intensive than even coal production.