Last Friday the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released to the public. Although their findings were covered by many of the media markets the scientific community really reached a consensus on climate change some time ago, so this isn’t really news. Even Saturday Night Live took a swingť at people that are still debating global warming’s existence.
Despite old-style economy vs. environment thinking, some are realizing that many carbon mitigation strategies are good economics - for individuals, some big companies. Let’s look at three examples from the transportation sector.
Eliminate Wasteful Idling: Idling diesel trucks, buses and trains needlessly waste over one billion gallons of fuel each year. This is 5% of the total diesel fuel consumed in the U.S. A combination of education phased in legal restrictions on idling, and a low or no interest loan program for anti-idling technologies could nearly eliminate unnecessary idling, curbing CO2 emissions while saving money for companies, local governments, school districts and others.
Biofuels: Biodiesel, which is made from vegetable oil and other renewable feedstocks, can curb net CO2 emissions by 79%. Ethanol made from corn can curb net CO2 by 10-20% with higher reductions possible producing ethanol made from cellulosic materials in the future. Ohio is well-positioned to produce and use more of both fuels, which will benefit our economy and create jobs.
Public Transit: Many mayors have proposed streetcar plans that have drawn support and opposition, economic studies leave no doubt that improvements in public transit, whether street cars, light-rail, intercity rail or ideally a mixture of all provide economic benefits to the regional business community and specific neighborhoods while helping individuals save on transportation costs - all while eliminating the CO2 by providing more appealing options to encourage people to keep their personal cars parked.
Any serious effort to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions requires active participation among big business and sectors of industry in our society. It turns out that ten major companies from varied industry sectors including General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy, British Petroleum and others have formed the United States Climate Action Partnership with environmental groups in calling for firm limits and reductions in carbon emissions.
It’s time recognize climate change as an economic opportunity, not a scientific debate. It is time for debate about solutions and economic ramifications, positive as well as negative, of addressing what may be the biggest challenge of the 21st century.
Lets not argue over the existence of global warming in editorial pages. Lets move forward and grow a “green”ť economy in the business section of our daily newspapers.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Climate Change, Eco-Business Strategies, Oil and Gas, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I agree, no doubt big business and politics are the driving forces behind the global warming scare, not scientific findings. True, the earth has warmed by one percent. But few have mentioned the sun has too. Now, call me crazy, but if the sun warms by one percent, isn’t it only logical the earth will also?
There are some pretty simple remedies to soothe the fearful heart if the dread of global warming cannot be relieved by intellectual honesty: We either insist those irresponsible Martians cut down on their CO2 emissions as well, or we paint the entire earth’s parking lots white to reflect the heat at once.
By the way, it snowed in Orlando, Florida this past November, leaving me confused as to who I should believe with respect to global warming. Al Gore or my lying eyes?
Great column,
Elaine Lopez
February 8th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I’ve been reading your website for a little while now and I love all the insight that you have!
The Global Warming Awareness Organization is looking to spread the word about global warming and its consequences. I was hoping that you and your readers might like to help.
Would you let me know if you would be willing to display our small logo on your website/blog?
We are also looking for contributors of content on our organization’s site: http://www.GlobalWarming.org.in - if you’re interested in contributing a story, we would love it if you could!
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Scott
Spread Awareness About Global Warming
Join us at: http://www.GlobalWarming.org.in
February 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Why do we keep arguing over the science? I don’t know whether global warming is occuring or not (and I disagree strongly with those liberals who want to fire anybody who dares say it isn’t settled science) but so what. Do any of us disagree that we can do more to protect the environment. Just because I am a republican doesn’t mean I hate trees and want more cars that pump out crap all over the place.
If I get the point of this blog, it is to try and find a path for economically responsible conservatives who give a damn about protecting our environment and who hate being beholden to despots overseas. Good on you TerraRossa. About time we started talking about new ideas, about time we show losers like Gore that it aint only his way or the highway.
Someone much smarter than I said there are no easy solutions to difficult problems. But I can tell you, if we leave it up to liberals to come up with the solutions we will end up with some wierd socialist agenda.
Tell me more about nuclear, tell me why solar hasn’t caught on as much as we were all expecting. Tell me about wind power, or even these new light bulbs. More importantly, lets find a way to use conservation as a wedge issue for these urban dwelling liberals (I don’t know the stats, but I would be willing to bet that blue states generate more pollution than red states).
Maybe we should have an optional box on our tax returns where liberals can choose to pay more tax to protect the environment. Let’s see how many of them actually check that box.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I am almost certain the point behind the article is to find solutions to a problem. There’s little argument as to whether or not the earth has warmed. Therefore, that’s not the problem. Instead, that’s the hook, advancing many political and business career opportunities.
The problems as defined by the discovery are: What exactly is the cause of global warming; what, if any, will be the impact on our environment; and exactly what can or should be done about it. So, first things first.
The scientific community is still debating the cause, the affect, and the need, if any, to drastically alter the status quo. My personal belief is, and has been for many years, that extracting oil from the earth, which cannot be replaced, would have the same affect as removing oil from an operating engine. Removing lubricant will result in friction, and to no one’s surprise, friction causes over heating.
If the true cause and affect can be scientifically determined honestly, my sincere guess would be we truly need to stop oil production period. But who on this earth would second that opinion?
So, the solution as I see it is, we need to stop looking toward others for help, and instead, each of us, on our own, must take responsibility into our own hands and move toward solar power (or other such alternatives), for heating, cooling, etc. in our homes and daily lives. It’s the first step. Let’s take it. Let us quit waiting for the “experts” and “governments” of the world to do it for us or to tell us what to do for ourselves. After all, we’re conservatives, not liberal Dems dependent on everyone else for our own wellbeing.
And although I was joking around before, painting the parking lots white is not a crazy idea. It will in fact reflect heat as opposed to the earth absorbing it. It’s simple, it’s workable, it’s affordable, and every parking lot in the world will have to be repaved at some point. Meaning, at the same time, light reflecting elements can be placed into the mix. Again, it’s a “first step” toward solutions we the people can take.
Great columns to both Michael and Jim.
Sincerely,
Elaine Lopez
February 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I disagree with this article strongly. What kind of nonensense is it to capitulate to the worhtless UN and call carbon mitigation good economics or economic opportunity? This is the double speak from “1984″.
If eliminating idling was such good econimics dont you think companies would already do it? There are reasons to idle rather than to stop the engine and the costs of these must be weighed against the fuel used. For instance, stopping and starting the engine puts extra wear and tear on the starter, batteries, and charging system which costs money to fix. Also, the batteries must be recharged which causes the engines to use more fuel. In cold climates, engines left to sit may not start, may have to be warmed up after they are started, or, in the case of diesels, the engine heat must be used to keep the fuel warm so it does not gel.
Bio-diesel? I am all for it and agree on this point.
Economic opportunity? If you mean open an airconditioning business because its going to be warmer, thats economic opportunity. If you mean squander capital on carbon mitigation because the UN says so, this is not good for the economy. It is a hidden tax on the people. It creates jobs yes, but it sucks up wealth to produce nothing. Wealth which could be used discover a new medicine, renewable fuel, or some other thing which improves our lives.
Michael raises some good points, although I dont buy the argument that we need to find solutions before the liberals do it for us. This is like gun control. We will enact a little so the liberals dont enact a lot. The problem is that this recurs and after a time we ended up with a lot of gun control. The same has happened with environmental laws. It was republican presidents who signed the most sweeping environmental laws. But are the liberals happy? No, they want more.
The environmentalist liberals and the UN need to be exposed for what they are, socialists. Their agenda is to transfer our wealth to the third world and our sovereignty to the UN. Passing stupid laws to head them off at the pass will just get us where they want to be, just slower.
You want solutions? I have some ideas.
First, lets waive pollution laws on engines provided that they will use renewable fuels. The cost for small businesses and entrepeneurs to comply with the likes of OBD II are too high.
Second, modify the environmental, DOT, and TSA regulations so that small businesses are exempted or it is made easy enough for them to comply that they dont need to hire compliance consultants and pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to get permits.
Instead of government subsidies for ethanol, why not tariff oil imports? This would discourage consumption of foreign oil. Also, the alternative energy industry is too much affected when oil prices crash or government subsidies run out as happened in the 80’s.
Stop any more future regulation of engines or power plants. This just diverts R&D money into regulatory compliance and serves to continue the use of oil.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
In addition to my previous ideas, I have a couple more.
States need to get off their dead rear ends and pass net metering laws which encourage renewable fuels usage and allow for some kind of market based profit.
The price of interconnect equipment is way too high. Perhaps there is an opportunity here to develop or mass produce equipment of lower price.
The net metering laws should address interconnect agreements so that these agreements are not needlessly restrictive or complex.
If there is to be utility deregulation, it must truly be deregulation, not reregulation as is the case in California or Illinois.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Thank God (and I really do!) that you red staters (and I am one) are finally taking this issue seriously! Even if it is all about the money instead of the future of the planet, please speak up about what needs to be done. Remind the GOP that no matter how hard it may be to think green instead of black (oil) no one will be beheaded or go to war over whether we choose grass, corn, sugarcane or some other source of alternative energy. As for what Jim Davis says about wouldn’t companies have already thought about the economic benefits of not idling, etc, –I wouldn’t bet on it–anything that requires an unpopular effort is always looked at as a pain –no one wants to make an effort to change even the smallest thing. That’s laziness, but they call it conservative!
February 15th, 2007 at 8:06 am
In response to Elaine–you can’t judge global warming by a cold snap! Look at the statistics globally. However, if you want a local example–here in Virginia–in my half century+ I have never seen a year when the robins didn’t leave for the winter. Their song is the herald of spring. Yet this year –and there have been locally warmer winters than this one–the robins never left. That is huge.