The first LEED platinum building in America, in Annapolis, Maryland.
A recent list of ten things the US need do to make us more energy independent shows some promise if our learning how life is evolving in the US. This is a viewpoint of the paper but is worth reading. It is more than turning off the lights or computers (those DO count though). We are developing a new philosophy, and this coming from Houston!
So here they are. What do you think?
1. Most of the oil consumed in the United States is for transportation. Congress recently raised fleet mileage (CAFE) standards to 35 miles per gallon. The mileage standard must continue to rise as swiftly as new technologies and concern for passenger safety allow.
2. Scholars and industry executives now agree that demand for oil will exceed supply in the next few years. U.S. energy needs demand that government and industry engage in a program to develop alternative energy sources — wind, solar and hydrogen, to name a few — that would rival the scale and national commitment of Project Apollo’s missions to the moon. Houston remains the world capital of energy technology and, as with the space program, is primed to play a major role in producing tomorrow’s energy.
3. The lead time for developing new energy sources will leave the United States dependent on the oil and gas industry for years, probably decades, to come. Industry should not be hobbled by a windfall profits tax that would only discourage exploration and production, limit supply and drive up consumer prices. Also, industry needs greater access to domestic oil reserves in the Arctic and off the East and West coasts. There is no reason why the western Gulf of Mexico and its adjoining states should solely bear the burden of supplying the nation with oil and gas pumped from beneath the sea.
4. Government has already raised efficiency standards for home appliances, but Americans need to voluntarily adopt conservation measures — both as a personal virtue, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it, and as a strategy to curb energy prices. And when buying a house, Americans should calculate commuting costs. The numbers might persuade homeowners to buy a smaller house closer to work, saving money and putting the hours spent driving to more rewarding use. Government, for its part, must provide urban commuters attractive mass transit alternatives, including a robust system of zero-emission light rail in Houston.
5. The U.S. nuclear energy industry has proved itself to be safe, reliable and free of toxic emissions. New technologies make plants more efficient and easier to build and operate. Environmental concerns dictate that nuclear power play a larger role. However, full exploitation of nuclear power plants demands that the government quickly provide a safe site for the disposal of radioactive waste.
6. Although China threatens to overtake us, the United States remains the largest producer of greenhouse gases. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system is the best means to decrease emissions without putting industry in a straitjacket. A carbon tax could finance mass transit and alternative energy research; a cap-and-trade system is likely to benefit Houston, with its long experience with energy trading.
7. The United States gets most of its electricity from burning coal. The U.S. government must revive its research into carbon sequestration so the country can safely continue to utilize this abundant resource.
8. States such as Texas, the nation's leading producer of energy from wind, need to invest in adequate transmission capacity to get clean, green electricity from the wind farms to the cities.
9. Congress must stop mandating use of ethanol made from corn as a motor fuel. The net gain in energy is small, while the demand for corn disrupts food markets and needlessly raises prices at the grocery store. When ethanol from more efficient sources such as sugar cane and switch grass becomes profitable on a large scale, then ethanol can play a constructive role and lower U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
10. So-called green buildings are gaining in popularity, both because of their energy and cost savings and their aesthetic appeal. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System should be incorporated into local building codes whereever reasonable.
2. Scholars and industry executives now agree that demand for oil will exceed supply in the next few years. U.S. energy needs demand that government and industry engage in a program to develop alternative energy sources — wind, solar and hydrogen, to name a few — that would rival the scale and national commitment of Project Apollo’s missions to the moon. Houston remains the world capital of energy technology and, as with the space program, is primed to play a major role in producing tomorrow’s energy.
3. The lead time for developing new energy sources will leave the United States dependent on the oil and gas industry for years, probably decades, to come. Industry should not be hobbled by a windfall profits tax that would only discourage exploration and production, limit supply and drive up consumer prices. Also, industry needs greater access to domestic oil reserves in the Arctic and off the East and West coasts. There is no reason why the western Gulf of Mexico and its adjoining states should solely bear the burden of supplying the nation with oil and gas pumped from beneath the sea.
4. Government has already raised efficiency standards for home appliances, but Americans need to voluntarily adopt conservation measures — both as a personal virtue, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it, and as a strategy to curb energy prices. And when buying a house, Americans should calculate commuting costs. The numbers might persuade homeowners to buy a smaller house closer to work, saving money and putting the hours spent driving to more rewarding use. Government, for its part, must provide urban commuters attractive mass transit alternatives, including a robust system of zero-emission light rail in Houston.
5. The U.S. nuclear energy industry has proved itself to be safe, reliable and free of toxic emissions. New technologies make plants more efficient and easier to build and operate. Environmental concerns dictate that nuclear power play a larger role. However, full exploitation of nuclear power plants demands that the government quickly provide a safe site for the disposal of radioactive waste.
6. Although China threatens to overtake us, the United States remains the largest producer of greenhouse gases. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system is the best means to decrease emissions without putting industry in a straitjacket. A carbon tax could finance mass transit and alternative energy research; a cap-and-trade system is likely to benefit Houston, with its long experience with energy trading.
7. The United States gets most of its electricity from burning coal. The U.S. government must revive its research into carbon sequestration so the country can safely continue to utilize this abundant resource.
8. States such as Texas, the nation's leading producer of energy from wind, need to invest in adequate transmission capacity to get clean, green electricity from the wind farms to the cities.
9. Congress must stop mandating use of ethanol made from corn as a motor fuel. The net gain in energy is small, while the demand for corn disrupts food markets and needlessly raises prices at the grocery store. When ethanol from more efficient sources such as sugar cane and switch grass becomes profitable on a large scale, then ethanol can play a constructive role and lower U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
10. So-called green buildings are gaining in popularity, both because of their energy and cost savings and their aesthetic appeal. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System should be incorporated into local building codes whereever reasonable.
9 comments:
Your comments are truly within the reach of reason when it comes to saving the environment. In reading your comments there is a common theme that is found in each point. This idea is the same as me and other fellow students have expressed in other blog comments. That idea is that the government and politicians will play a great role and in fact serve as the spark that will put the ball in motion. But just how do you accomplish this. People have for years preached to death ears when it comes to the environment. The lobbyist for the energy companies just have to much money to push there will in Congress. As seen in many cases between government and environment, no action is taken until the problem stares them right in the face. For example, look at the race for alternative energy now; this race was started by the war in Iraq and the threat of losing major oil suppliers in the Middle East. When it comes to attractive mass transit alternatives, you take the places where they are located now and see that they are located where the demand dictates them to be such as in New York, D. C., Atlanta, Chicago, etc. but many do not see the sense in having them where the demand is not drastic.(Take Livonia for example)When it comes to ethanol production the politics of using corn (I feel) is another way to shift energy production to a source that US could have a strong hold in, with no regards to simply the most efficient. But in saying that the government holds the key to these changes, people must realize that the power of the strongest government in the world lies in the citizens of it. (Some may say the military is where it lies and would have a good argument)
Robert Walker GEOG 320)
Not to be too negative, but after reading those 10 initiatives it really seems that (just as always) environmenal concern is really a seconday selling point to economic improvement. Which means that whenever the economy is doing ok, the environment falls way down the list of peoples concerns. That's why I think that environmental "baby steps" work better than grand initiatives designed to change the course of all humanity.
I also question whether we are running out of oil or if we're just running out of easy to get oil. There's lots of oil trapped in shale around the world that nobody taps because it would take oil to $150 a gallon... but if there's still demand, people will pay it. The infrastructure of our society is built on the consumption of oil.
There have been great strides in the electric car in the past 5 years. I do agree that this is the primary place we can lessen the demand for oil. Imagine parking your electric car into your garage at night where it gets reenergized by your own wind generator. Cars would run for free.
On a side note, concering the overall importance of the natural environment, we need to continue promoting the value of undeveloped resources such as water and trees which improve living standards without any human modification.
Kyle Kurtzal, Geog 320
Right now, I think that the U.S. needs to focus its attention on wind power over several other resources. First, using wind does not effect people or prices in a harmful way. Second, it is something that is always there. Where as Ethanol comes from corn and corn is used for a lot of other things such as food and power. A few years ago my dad put a corn burner in our home to heat it. Back then a bushel of corn cost just over $1.00. Now the price of corn is over $4.00 per bushel. It is not worth using it anymore because the price just keeps increasing. The corn is needed for food in other parts of the world or it is being used for ethanol. My dad also tried using ethanol in his truck for fuel (i think my dad has an obsession with corn, but after a few times he realized that it was not as efficient and burned much quicker than regular gas. So, he quit using it due to the cost. That is why I think that wind is a great resource to tap into because it is not being used in other ways that would affect its price.
-Chelsey Kasper GEOG 320
All of the initiatives proposed are all fantastic and would do a great deal in alleviating some of the environmental problems we are facing as a world. In reality though, they seem almost unrealistic. Most of those proposed would take massive cooperation of polticians, businessman, industry and consumers. I just don't think you can get enough people to care on a large enough scale to implement those changes. I think most humans, by nature, are short sighted creatures and tend to whatever is most necessary to them at any given time. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and they need to be able to see the benefits of their own personal efforts via tax breaks, and other things that ease the burden on the pocket book.
Sorry for the pessimism.
I think this could tie into our last blog on the basis of alternative means of energy. It didn't state if the "10 things" were listed in order of their importance, but number 7 states that the United States gets most of its energy from coal burning. THis to me should be high atop the list as far as importance. I think we need to stop being so dependent on coal and fossil fuels and strive towards more renewable sources of energy. The list of 10 things is agreeable upon the things that we need to do, but I like how Kyle worded it in saying that we need to take "baby steps" towards a more drastic change.
I normally am the type of person that just "goes with the flow" as people say it. Especially when it comes to this type of stuff. After taking this course and reading this information it kind of scares me. Our children are going to be living in a totally different area than what I'm dealing with right now and it really is up to us on what happens and what direction we go in. The dependence we have on oil is outrageous and simply not required. With all of the money that the United States has and has spent it is hard for me to believe that we have not come up with a way to truely conserve energy and use alternative sources. That is just bull in my opinion. This whole situation is about money and greed. What makes it ok for our government to not take the necessary steps in helping our environment. The suggestions made in the posting are not difficult areas to move towards and yes it would take everyone getting involved to help the situation, but the government, or politics, has a giant pull with our society. I do believe that these steps need to be addressed and put into progress. What is so difficult about that, oh yeah, people don't want to go out of their way. Selfish!!!
I think the idea of saving money by buying a smaller house closer to work is a great idea that more Americans should consider. However, a problem with this is that many jobs are in major cities and there are not so many family-friendly neighborhoods in these urban areas.
I also think it is a great idea to find ways to burn carbon more efficiently. This seems to be a resource that we continue to need, so we need to find a way that we can use it without further hurting the environment.
Why can't we put wind turbines closer to major cities, instead of trying to find a way to transport energy to them? I'm not exactly sure how these turbines work, so I'm not even sure it if this is possible, but it would make sense to me to continue something that is working (the turbines) by expanding to areas that need energy, rather than finding environment-friendly way to transport this energy.
These ten initiatives are definitely steps in the right direction. The statements motions made by the government in regards to our personal duties should be feasible and handled easily. In regards to #4 in relation to the efficiency standards, I feel that these are baby steps. In our homes, we need to take grander steps to make it noticeable and beneficial. We need to be living in the ways that we want to see benefits from in the future. Can we live on wind power? Can we live on solar power? If so, then why aren't we? Are we commuting and polluting the air? Can we live closer to our jobs? Can we drive a more fuel efficient, environment friendly vehicle? Can we carpool? Are we living as conservative as we can? Are we contributing to the environment, or only taking away from it? Are we recycling and reusing as much as possible? If so, good. If not, why? Baby steps today, result in much more available to us tomorrow. But grand steps today, may give us the chance to see tomorrow.
The ten things presented on the surface seem to be great ideas. The problem is they all seem to have an if clause attached. For example the use of nuclear power is safe "if" the goverment can create safe disposal grounds. Green buildings are becomming even more popular they "should" be adopted in building codes. The ideas presented could make positive steps towards the sustanible advancement of the united states, but our goverment is so slow in implimenting new procedures. We need to create proactive soultions that are not ties to if clauses but are simple and proctical to inpliment.Other wise we are simply playing lip service to the growing energy concerns of our nation.
Post a Comment