hmaly,
The part of my post you left out:
The solution to the energy situation is incremental. 100 million baby steps. There is no magic technology that's going to make us independent. That doesn't fit well with the US psyche, but unfortunately it's the way it will work.
I'm not talking about covering the desert with solar panels. Jeez. I'm talking about covering residential and commercial roofs with solar panels. When people are at home using electricity, the solar supplies some or all of their needs. When they have low usage, the electricity feeds back into the grid to be used where needed. The electric meter runs backwards.
By accomplishing this on an incremental basis, with the homeowner or factory owner bearing the initial cost, for the ultimate savings, it's not an expensive project. But the millions of incremental contributions add up to far, far lower overall consumption.
But for this to happen, you need to change perceptions. Imagine a subdivision with $500K houses all with ugly solar panels; not appealing to the average suburban family. It will take real leadership to make the benefit more compelling than the negative image. Why not start with the White House?
Same story with SUV's v. hybrid or electric. MY WAG on the replacement cycles for autos is 3 1/2 years. Start giving a compelling economic benefit for hybrid and electric vehicles, and you might reduce vehicle energy consumption by 1/3 or more in 5 years. That's progress; right now we are going in the opposite direction.
It's an incremental problem that requires incremental solutions. And you would build huge new companies and industries (and jobs) in the process.
But in the end, you have to make energy conservation cool, something people are charged about, something they want to do. I know the curent guys in the WH wouldn't pull that off, I doubt any of the Dem candidates could pull it off. Gore might have, he was committed. A Kennedy or a Reagan could do it. You need leadership and commitment.
Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.
John |
