The Thom Hartmann Radio Program
Live Chat Room -- Topic-by-topic audio archives -- Audio Archives -- Web Pages -- Articles on Democracy
New Since your Last Visit
 
We The People
Activism Alerts
Articles by Thom
Audio Archives
Bibliography
Biography
Book Reviews
Books by Thom
Bumper Music
Candidates
Chat Emoticons
Chat Room - main
Clips
Cracking the Code
Events
Frames
Interviews
Law
Movies
National show
News
Newsletters
NLP classes
Photos
Stack
Tag, you're it!
Thom's .com site
Transcripts
White Rose
More!
  Links
  Mercury Retrograde

Subscribe to
Thom Hartmann's Free Newsletter on Politics & the Environment
(we respect your privacy and do not sell or share our list)
Email 
First 
Name 
My email program supports HTML 
    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Environment    Can Al Gore Get Us to Solartopia?

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
Find
Notify
Tools
  Login/Join 
Picture of Common_Man_Jason
Posted
Can Al Gore Get Us to Solartopia?
by Harvey Wasserman

quote:

Al Gore has leapt to center stage with well-founded concerns about global warming. He has been gratefully successful in publicizing the fact that there is a virtual library of irrefutable evidence that carbon dioxide levels are rapidly rising in our atmosphere, that this is being caused by human beings, and that the potential impacts are catastrophic.

What’s not being said is that the solution to the problem—the necessary transition to Solartopia, a world based on renewable energy—is also the key to the future of our economic well-being, and would be whether global warming was a problem or not.

In short: even without the dire disaster of climate change, a transitioning to green power is the only hope our global economy has for future prosperity.

Indeed, moving to an industrial system that runs on wind, solar, bio-fuels and other renewable sources, along with increased efficiency, including a revival of mass transit, can and will do for the global economy in the next 25 years what the computer/internet revolution has done for the last.

What’s also clear is that there is absolutely no room in this future for fossil fuels or nuclear power. But King CONG (coal, oil, nukes and gas) is not going to give up without an epic fight.

First up is the insane idea of bulding new nuclear plants. A debate now rages about a possible “renaissance” for atomic energy. It’s a non-starter. Nuclear power is nothing more than a half-century of proven failure.

It is 50 years since the first commercial reactor opened at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. But no solution has been found for the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel.

Nor is the private insurance industry willing assume liability for a possible catastrophic accident.

We have had a taste of such disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. We agree with the insurers that risk of another one, by terror or error, is too great to sustain.

The scant experience with these new reactors has already been bad, with cost overruns and other problems plaguing the few projects that have been tried.

The economics for new nukes are catastrophic. Bush Administration partisans may be willing to pour billions of taxpayer dollers into them. But we see no rush from Wall Street to embrace more nukes, especially when Bush is threatening war with Iran to prevent them from doing the same.

Which leaves us with this obvious challenge: if we reject fossil fuels and nuclear power, how will we heat and light an increasingly crowded planet, whose people are rightly intent on material prosperity?

The answer is in green power: renewable energy and increased efficiency.

For decades it has been argued that a planet run entirely on natural energy—a “Solartopia”—is an unrealistic dream, that might, at best, come in fifty or a hundred years.

But our planetary eco-systems can not wait that long.

And the economic engines now driving the conversion to green power—the big investment dollars pouring into wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc—will not allow such a delay.

In fact, there is a “great green avalanche” of investment dollars now flooding the renewable markets. The global wind business is booming with 25-35% annual growth. Far more new wind capacity is being installed than nuclear. Major technological advances in commercial-scale turbines mean there is no cheaper form of new electric generation. New gearless machines promise even better performance.

Though siting issues often arise (as they certainly will with new nuclear plants), properly installed wind machines do virtually no environmental damage. Though there are exceptions, the bird-kill issue is mostly anti-wind hype. Wind turbines are in fact proven to the point that financial powerhouses such as Goldman Sachs, Edison Capital, John Deare, and many more are lining up to invest in these projects. Wind power’s principle problem today is a shortage of turbines.

Solar power is also plummeting in cost and soaring in demand. Solar water heating has long been economically competitive throughout the northern hemisphere. Photovoltaics (PV), which convert sunlight to electricity, are being incorporated into roofing shingles and window glass.

Solar power towers and parabolic trough collectors have proven themselves to be cost effective.

Passive solar architecture can be as simple as facing a building’s biggest windows to the south, with resultant heat gain worth big money for decades to come.

Ethanol from corn and diesel from soy have become major cash crops. But in the long run, bio-fuel stocks that need annual planting will give way to perennials with high cellulose and vegetable oil content. These “incredible inedibles” will include switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, canola and more.

Meanwhile, simple devices to harness the tides, the currents, and the thermal differentials between solar-heated water at the surface of the oceans and the colder waters deeper down, are already proving do-able. Geothermal power, built on the heat beneath the Earth’s crust, has been with us for centuries.

All these sources are great job-creators. But can they add up to a totally green-powered planet?

That depends on our most crucial energy wild-card—increased efficiency. Despite all we’ve been through since the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, this nation—and much of the rest of the world—still wastes at least half the energy it burns.

Light Emitting Diodes (LED), superconducting, mag-lev, and a wide range of other high-performance technologies will redefine how we use—and abuse—energy. The projections for unsustainable rises in global energy consumption in the next decades are posited on energy inefficiencies that economic factors will force us to transcend.

In fact, we see a society that has no choice but to go totally green. The primary reason is that our survival on this planet depends on it.

Green energy and efficiency make perfect economic sense. They are our future, both economically and ecologically.

But none of that matters if we are still stymied by the hugely rich and powerful fossil/fuel industry. We won’t get to Solartopia until King CONG (coal, oil, nukes and gas) is shoved out of the way.

And that’s the hugest “if” of all. Those awaiting Al Gore to take on these industries may have a long wait. Even if he were an ideal leader, it will take nothing less than a gargantuan grassroots campaign to change our energy system to what it must be if we are to survive. For many of us, that will be the real work of the coming era.

A century ago, a great leader named Eugene V. Debs warned that he could not lead the American people into a worker’s paradise, because if one leader could take them there, another could take them out.

In the long run, Al Gore is right, global warming is a dire threat. There are major investors now willing to invest big money in solar power. And it is certain that one leader after another will emerge to lead us toward a world based on green energy and efficiency.

But King CONG will not give up on its gargantuan investments without an epic struggle. We will not get to a green-powered world without dismantling the enormous infrastructure that is the fossil/nuke cartel, with all its power and money.

No single politician will ever do that. In the long run, the only route to Solartopia is through the grassroots.

Harvey Wasserman’s SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030 is now available at http://www.solartopia.org/


Source


--Jason

http://jasonmott.blogspot.com

If you're right wing or left wing, you're only half enlightened. If you're centrist, you're not enlightened at all.
 
Posts: 3690 | Location: Southern Vermont | Registered: 08 March 2004Report This Post
Picture of true_north
Posted Hide Post
Just remember to cut and paste part of the article and submit the link for regard to copyright infringement.


==========================
Richard M. Nixon: "I am not a crook"
George W. Bush: "I am a crook"
 
Posts: 106 | Location: Mississauga, ON | Registered: 23 July 2004Report This Post
GG
Posted Hide Post
"If your former vice president has a fever, he should go to the doctor, who will in all likelihood prescribe merely a dose of cool-headed realism and a few tablets of common sense."

“Climate Change Fever

“If your baby has a fever,” a maternal Al Gore instructed Congress last week, “you go to the doctor.” So what do you do when the planet gets a fever? You go to Al Gore. And if he says to take action, you better take action—unless, of course, you wish “to send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”

In addition to his scientific expertise on climate change, Gore offered Congress his psychiatric assessment of all mankind, in light of its failure to solve the warming problem. “The entire relationship between humanity and our planet has been radically altered,” Dr. Gore reports. Although, Gore realizes, not everyone shares his professional opinion that the current crisis is primarily a relational rift between Man and Mother Earth, it is imperative that the unconvinced use their “moral imagination to see and feel and understand (emphasis mine)” this vital truth. Enlightenment is only a few yoga sessions away.

His quasi-religious rhetorical flourishes aside, there are two problems with Dr. Gore’s climate-change methodology: (1) his diagnosis and (2) his prescription. First, although the predominant majority of the scientific community concedes the reality of global warming, scientists offer widely differing accounts as to why—and to what extent—it is happening. In this sense, global warming is far from “settled science”; the topic of climate-change, then, demands some humility from its students. Second, even if one were to grant that the current warming trend is real (as many do), it does not follow that one must then necessarily embrace Kyoto I, Kyoto II, or, as Gore suggested in his testimony, a freeze on carbon dioxide emissions.

Sure, global warming will be costly; but, as economists like to say, compared to what? In May of 2004, a group of economists (a few Nobel Laureates among them) gathered at the Copenhagen Consensus to investigate precisely this question. Their conclusion? Given the scarcity of time and resources, our money would be best spent on more pressing global problems, such as HIV/AIDS, starvation, and malaria. Kyoto and other such immediate climate-change policies, because they require so much and accomplish so little, were ranked with other “bad projects” at the very bottom of the list.

Noted statistician and best-selling author Bjorn Lomborg, who will release a book in September on exactly this topic, echoes the Copenhagen Consensus. Lomborg embraces the principal thesis of the global warming theory, yet his objection is that, compared to the host of other crises ravaging our world, the threat climate change poses is negligible. “Climate change is not the most urgent problem facing the world’s poor majority,” Lomborg wrote in a column for The Australian a few years back, “Their problems are truly basic. They are dying from easily preventable diseases. Their children are malnourished from a lack of basic micronutrients. They are prevented from exploiting opportunities in the global economy by lack of free trade. We have the solutions. . . . We need to start doing the best things [for our world] first.”


* * * * * * * *
Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
 
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005Report This Post
Picture of Agent11
Posted Hide Post
I think it's obvious that if solar and wind was commonplace it would be a very good thing.. However there are some industries and situations that would require more power than I think would be feasible with just solar and wind.

Have you looked into Fusion power at all?
Looks very promising and because the moon is rich in Helium3 a potential fuel source it would encourage development in space.

Eventually our sun will die, and sooner than that there is the potential for other catastrophes.. It would be wise to be somewhat prepared.
The sooner we begin to figure out ways of gathering resources elsewhere besides our fragile little globe the better.

I know some very intelligent people that are convinced that the human race has made an unconscious decision to commit suicide.
We know fossil fuels are running out, we do nothing.
We know global warming could have grave consequences, we do nothing.
We know that this planet will not sustain us at our current rate of consumption, and we consume more.
We know that eventually this solar system will not be the friendly place that it is now, and we still have plenty of time to take action, however with our current track record they aren't optimistic for our survival in the distant future.

I'm an optimist.

The trick is for the government to make the right thing profitable and the wrong thing much less so.. It's too bad the people making money doing the wrong things are the ones shoveling money into candidates campaign coffers.

Everything is interrelated, if we want major change on our energy policy we need to start with publicly funded elections.. Otherwise things will only change when it is too late, politicians will only move in mass when the issue is slapping them in the face.
To take action early would offend the sensibilities of their contributers pocket books.


"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
 
Posts: 127 | Location: Keizer OR | Registered: 16 June 2006Report This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

    Discussion Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Thom's Radio Program  Hop To Forums  Environment    Can Al Gore Get Us to Solartopia?

Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.