Is the climate challenge — which would require moving away from
conventional use of fossil fuels even as the world's energy appetite grows threefold or more in the next few decades — fundamentally a bad fit for Washington?
In theory, change can come through a mix of a) increasing public will to shift behavior and priorities for the sake of cutting a long - term risk and b) lowering the cost difference between non-polluting energy choices and
conventional use of fossil fuels.
Not exact matches
There is now adequate empirical evidence available around the world: Wherever people have brought about more efficient
use of energy and greater
use of renewable energy, you generate many more jobs than if you were to continue with
conventional technologies and
fossil fuels.
By dramatically improving the speed and efficiency
of conversion over
conventional approaches, these enzymes could stimulate efforts to grow crops for
fuel, with implications for biodiversity in the form
of increased land
use for this purpose, potential shifts away from
fossil fuel use and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
[ANDY REVKIN comments: I'm pretty sure they've changed over to
using all ethanol
fuel, which is a step in the right direction ONLY if the
fuel is from crops grown and harvested without
using a lot
of conventional fossil fuel.]
Increased recovery
of these materials into
fuel could significantly reduce the nation's dependence on landfill disposal while also decreasing the
use of fossil or other types
of conventional fuels.»
So one monitors the decline in the
conventional forms
of fossil fuel and then predicts the trends in
use of alternative forms
of energy.
As Jennifer Marohasy quotes the abstract on her blog: «THE
conventional representation
of the impact on the atmosphere
of the
use of fossil fuels -LSB-...]
What the world needs is not decreased
fossil fuel use but increased
use with careful control
of conventional pollutants
using conventional controls where needed and justified.
I would like to add that
Conventional transportation technologies usually involve the
use of fossil fuels for vehicle propulsion.
THE
conventional representation
of the impact on the atmosphere
of the
use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration
of CO2 come from
fossil fuels and the balance
of some 50 %
of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes.
After all, assuming substantial
use of unconventional
fossil fuels (UFFs) in the BAU scenario, suggests a certain amount
of insensitivity to price (assuming UFFs are significantly more expensive than
conventional fossil fuels).
-- Alan Caruba -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- «What the world needs is not decreased
fossil fuel use but increased
use with careful control
of conventional pollutants
using conventional controls where needed and justified.