Do you think this ten-year plan is doable?

[Godiva]

Why aren't the post office delivery trucks all NEV? They don't need to go fast or on the freeway.

We need our rail system back and expanded.

I'm a teacher. I can't keep selling my home and buying a place close to my current school assignment. I'd like to have a say in the school I am assigned to so I can choose sites that are within biking distance.

I just heard that my sister is now "phoning" in her work. Instead of commuting 30 min. she is doing her work at home on the computer and sending it in. She writes code and does trouble shooting for a credit card company. There really is no reason for her to drive to work every day. So finally she is being allowed to work from home. (Where she can also keep an eye on my brother in law.)

Everyone can do more than they do.

Is there any good reason people can't drive 60 or even 55 mph on the freeway? Coasting to stops? Gentle accelerations?

Is there any good reason why we can't start using cloth and string bags instead of paper or plastic when we buy groceries?

Is there any good reason not to replace a regular bulb with a compact fluorescent when it burns out?

If everyone is required to have a low flow toilet and shower head, why not a programmable thermostat?

Everyone can recycle. Even those in apartments.

It's a mindset of waste and consumption that needs to be changed. We don't need to buy an entire new wardrobe every season. Yes, there are some people that do.

Now that I'm recycling more I'm going to try cutting down on bringing more trash home in the form of packaging. Buying fresh or in bulk can eliminate boxes, bags, cans and jars. I can't eliminate all of them. But I can certainly cut down more. I have Tupperware and a Foodsaver vacuum sealer.

Convenience foods generate a lot of trash. What would happen if people reduced the purchases of those convenience foods? How would our grocery stores change? They don't stock what doesn't sell.

[DaveinOlyWA]

times have changed

during the war, the depression, the whatever, america was largely made up of 2nd generation immigrants that saw firsthand what is was like to have nothing, to have to bust ass just to be able to survive. that created an american who was willing to make a plan, work hard to attain their dreams, save money, do without things they could not afford, etc...

today, we have people who are 3rd, 4th and 5th generation americans. who never knew what it was like to have nothing. they are the children of the parents who had jobs during the greatest economic expansion in our history... an expansion so great, it could not last, and it didnt.

so, in order for people to live in the way they grew up, they borrowed, did not plan, or planned poorly. escalating costs, lower paying jobs, etc made the situation worse...

yesterday, the average family saved 8% of their income for "a rainy day"

today, the average person has $8,000 in credit card debit and all because they wanted something they could not afford and was not willing to save, plan or earn it.

yesterday, basic costs and needs were simple...easy to predict.

today, the average family probably has $10,000 in electronic gadgetry, and i bet most of it is not really needed or used that much. (i have a ton of stuff...used infrequently... paid a lot for it)... so we live on the edge, and now, the economy has a bit of a downturn and boom, people are overwhelmed because they had no margin to levy against even the slightest of misfortunes.

we need to start working on this solution, but i wonder where we will get the motivation to get it done. americans are no longer willing to sacrifice anything they have for any reason. the maniacal addiction to 15 mpg full sized vehicles is a prime example of that.

[icarus]

The short answer is YES! The longer answer is we probably won't!

Icarus

[CarolinaJim]

Yes!

However, as Tripp says reducing our dependence on oil will lower the price and probably spur more demand, in the short term, in the emerging regions of the world.

So, in the short term, in my opinion, despite or best effort there will likely be an increase in CO2 plus other emmissions until the economy of scale (read China starts producing the technology) kicks in and reduces the new technologies to levels which can compete with carbon based energy sources/technologies.

Using the prius timeline as a gauge I'd say it will take 10 years to transform our society and 10 more years to reach economies of scale which will allow transformation of other societies.

But...that is just my opinion.

[isisdave]

Most discussions of "what shall we do" seem to demand that the solution be comprehensive, and completely right the first time. Let's just make a reasonable plan or two, and get started.

I opposed drilling in the ANWR for a long time, but after seeing some stats and perhaps more authentic pictures, I could be persuaded. But as law and economics are now, this will just be more oil in the global barrel. We need some way to embargo this oil from the global market and use it for domestic purposes only. Otherwise, it'll be bid up to world levels by demand from India and China. But I think we need to have this source developed for strategic purposes, whether we actually open the valve or not. Remember that WWII in the Pacific pretty much started over control of oil.

I think the big problem with expensive gasoline is mostly in the suddenness of its arrival. It's been $7-8 in Europe for years, but it's tolerated because they actually use the taxes that make it that much to build good roads. What if the government instituted a variable tax so that the price would climb slowly but predictably to $7 over a determined number of years, and stay there (plus inflation). We could fix some roads, build some light rail, improve some infrastructure, develop some alternate sources, and maybe even save a little for the next crisis. Oh by the way, I'd sure like it if all gas taxes were per gallon, not per dollar. Talk about lack of incentive to fix things.

Solar power is still expensive because it's still expensive to refine silicon, even though there is a plentiful supply, and because there are only a handful of factories doing it. The first problem will fall in the face of enough research funding. The second is a matter of priorities being set ... if there's a market, they will build them.

How about universal rooftop solar panels on homes in sunny areas? No, you don't have to be able to generate every watt you need. Buy them if you like, and lock in your savings. If that doesn't make economic sense or you can't afford it, lease your rooftop to the utility and let them put their panels there. It'll save the cost of transmission lines and losses associated with them.

Every new parking lot and suitably-topped building should be built with support and wiring for future solar panels, and some percentage should be required to be installed at time of development, with the rest to follow when the cost reaches $x.xx per watt.

[tripp]

Originally Posted by isisdave

I opposed drilling in the ANWR for a long time, but after seeing some stats and perhaps more authentic pictures, I could be persuaded. But as law and economics are now, this will just be more oil in the global barrel. We need some way to embargo this oil from the global market and use it for domestic purposes only. Otherwise, it'll be bid up to world levels by demand from India and China. But I think we need to have this source developed for strategic purposes, whether we actually open the valve or not. Remember that WWII in the Pacific pretty much started over control of oil.

Exporting countries are dealing with this now. They just massively subsidize their oil prices so that petrol in Venezuela costs $0.15. Iran, China, and India to the same thing and that's why demand has remained high despite the price hikes in oil. The downside is that places like Iran aren't getting too rich because the higher the price of oil the more gov't money has to go into the subsidy programs.

[daniel]

I think the ten-year plan is technologically possible (maybe not in ten years, but the exact number of years is really not the issue) but I think it is politically very difficult, because the decision makers have a very short horizon and a lot of power and a powerful greed-based incentive to obstruct a switch to sustainable energy.

The best thing that could happen would be spiraling fossil fuel prices, which would give an impetus to new energy companies without ties to fossil fuel, combined with a new generation of leaders, also without ties to fossil fuel.

I'm a pessimist, but not a doom prophet. I think it will be very difficult to steer the country in the right direction, but if we can break the strangle-hold that the present generation of dinosaurs (both Dem and Repub) has on power, then I think the technology exists to make the switch.

[thepolarcrew]

I am not sure I am up for re-election! Just kidding. Wish I was.

Doing a lot of what Godiva has suggested.

I agree, both parties need to do more. It shouldn't be, I wont have any thing to do with this because it wasn't my idea, have my name on it, or what's in it for me.

[Godiva]

Okay. We need to clear this up.

While I agree with what I posted in the first post that started all this.....I didn't make it up.

It was from Al Gore's speech. I didn't want to name Gore because I didn't want the discussion to become political.

[PriusSport]

Things will change radically if Obama gets elected. They will have to, if this country is to survive as a Global competitor. The past eight years have been devastating. It's hard to believe how badly the Republicans have screwed up everything. And the Democrats so far have behaved as though they are powerless to do anything about it. What a mess. No leadership.