RED, WHITE 'N TRUE™
UNSUSTAINABLE MEANS UNSUSTAINABLE
YES, THE WEATHER OUTSIDE IS FRIGHTFUL
by STEVE BLUMBERG
Posted, January 6, 2010, 12:01 p.m.

Share on Facebook

Climate change is real.

I have lived in the same geographical region for six decades. When I was a child, it snowed in the winter. It rarely does now. Likewise, the summer heat was punctuated by frequent afternoon thunderstorms. Today, it seems that any significant rainfall stops in May and doesn’t resume until October or November. So when I began reading about climate change in the mid 1980s, I paid attention.

Climate change is obviously a hotly debated issue - politically. That is not so much the case among scientists. Recent public opinion polls have indicated that “belief” in global warming has been slipping, though a solid majority continues to favor taking action to address it.

Within the scientific community, however, there remain very strong convictions that 1. The climate has warmed over the last century and will continue to do so; and that 2. Almost without a doubt (90% probability), climate change results from human activity. (A little perspective: if there is a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, do you take an umbrella?).

I often wonder how public opinion would be affected if the media would report, accurately, that no major scientific organization or institution in the world contests those two points. In other words, every major scientific organization in the world endorses the 2007 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It should be further noted that in a summary of the scientific research since the 2007 IPCC Report, "The Copenhagen Diagnosis", evidence shows that the IPCC was too conservative in its estimates of the rate of warming, and that the anticipated consequences are manifesting more rapidly than predicted at that time.

Political debate is the appropriate arena for policy decisions, but wouldn’t it be wiser to leave scientific debates to the scientists? Scientists have spoken fairly definitively. Now it is time for political debate to determine which policies we will decide on to address the growing problem that scientists tell us we have looming before us.

Within the Obama administration, the Department of Energy (DOE) has been steadily “seeding” those industries and technologies, which will be instrumental in tackling climate change. The major source of funding was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Bill), which allocated $36.7 billion to DOE, a ten-fold increase from the previous administration (1).

For example, within DOE, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) was awarded $16.8 billion, $5 billion of which was targeted for weatherization. Weatherization is about as exciting as flossing teeth - and with regard to energy - as necessary. Energy expert, Amory Lovins, notes that efficiency is the “low-hanging fruit“ of our energy policy. A dollar saved at your electric meter represents a savings of $10 at the power plant owing to inefficiencies in the system (2).

Currently, the “Cash for Caulkers” program, which is being proposed, runs parallel to the EERE weatherization programs. New York has such a program, and if you are a New York resident, you can be reimbursed 10% up to $3,000 by the state to have your home assessed and weatherized. The administration and congressional climate legislation would increase that reimbursement to 50% up to $12,000. Those, who describe climate legislation as a “tax”, omit direct benefits such as these.

Another benefit is jobs. A New York contractor who has been making homes more efficient notes that instead of laying off workers, “cash for caulkers” would add about $500,000 to his business, creating 3 or 4 jobs. (3)

In Iowa, Community Action of Eastern Iowa, has hired 12 people with funds from the Stimulus Bill. Gary Anderson (4) had been laid-off for seven months, when he was hired to assess and weatherize homes in the Eldridge area.

Renewable energy has also received a boost from the Stimulus Bill. According to Scott Sklar (5), an energy consultant in Washington, D.C., “…overall the clean-tech industries are booming and have surmounted the global mega-economic meltdown.”

Mr. Sklar presents a summary of the growth in renewable energy sectors this year, from solar and wind energy, to geothermal and biomass. But I would just like to highlight one fact. Earlier this year, First Solar announced it had reached production capacity of an average nuclear plant (1 GW) annually (6), and that it had reached the $1/watt industry “milestone” (cost parity with coal) (7). This is just one corporation in one renewable energy sector. The possibilities for a “green” energy economy are fast becoming realities.

Critics of climate legislation, even when they admit global warming is real, claim that “fixing” the climate is too costly, and will hurt the economy. Others, however, note that addressing this problem may well represent a “fix” for the economy, as well (8).

An unsustainable economic policy, and an unsustainable environmental policy, and an unsustainable energy policy - these are merely different faces of the same problem. After all, unsustainable means unsustainable.

1. http://www.energy.gov/recovery/index.htm

2. http://rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1359&file=E04-02_EnergyEffTax.pdf

3. http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/economy/energy_retrofits/index.htm?cnn=yes

4. http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energyempowers/post/Weatherization-fueling-Iowa-job-opportunities.aspx

5. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/this-year-in-clean-energy-what-a-ride

6.http://investor.firstsolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=201491&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1268014&highlight=

7. http://investor.firstsolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=201491&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1259614&highlight=

8. http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/hot-flat-and-crowded

____________

Steve Blumberg is a retired psychiatric social worker. He lives in north Mississippi.

COMMENT HERE