As a professional in renewable energy development I see a negative trend in the effort to solve the global warming crisis. One example is that the New York-based Doris Duke Charitable Foundation has announced it will set up a $100 million Climate Change Initiative. According to MSNBC, the Initiative "will award monies to nonprofit groups, research institutions and universities to study the best policies and technologies that will help build a "clean-energy economy."..." Excuse me?!
Isn't it companies who build clean technology? Shouldn't the money go to actually replacing old technology with more efficient, cleaner technology?
I know there is an effort to raise awareness about global warming, but the simple fact is we have to spend MOST of the money into actually doing something about it.
While some of this money certainly belongs in research and development, and some money should go to outreach, the bulk of the money MUST go to building something now.
Instead of researching climate change solutions and a "clean energy economy" with $100 million, how about purchasing $10 million worth of efficient lighting to replace the most inefficient lighting systems. How about spending another $20 million on installing solar panels in homes where the suns rays are strong? How about another $20 million on geothermal heat pump systems in colder climates which save both money on heating bills and replace natural gas, propane, or oil heating? How about spending $10 million on carbon limiting equipment on inefficient coal plants? How about spending $10 million on more efficient transformers on transmission lines which enable more power to travel from electric generation plants with no increase in emissions? How about spending $20 million on retrofitting old truck engines, each one which spews thousands of tons of carbon dioxide each year, with more efficient engines. This is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce global warming pollution and makes a difference NOW!
Now, I've given you $90 million worth of ideas that will immediately reduce millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions AND will save energy and money at the same time. You can keep the other $10 million for concerts and press releases and to hire kids from college to research policy issues.
The fact is, there is too much self-aggrandizement and not enough action. I am not trying to rip on people and organizations willing to spend big money to help solve this problem through research grants and outreach, but the climate is getting warmer now and we better act soon. There are too many sappy speeches by politicians and not enough acts of actual conservation. Too much talk of supporting clean technology without ponying up the dough.
Sure, people might say that companies should do this themselves, but they aren't. The fact is that once we spend money actually replacing inefficient technology with clean and efficient energy saving technology, people will see immediate economic benefits. They will be encouraged to buy products that are more efficient, and due to economies of scale, more efficient technology, appliances, etc., will be less expensive to purchase. Clean technology will begin to saturate the marketplace, and suddenly carbon emissions will noticeably decline.
So next time someone asks you to give money to support a research study into how to encourage policymakers to think about proposing legislation to encourage research into how to support climate change initiatives on the state and local level, tell them to shut up and give them a fluorescent light bulb. Action is more important than anything right now. It doesn't come with all the glory or moral superiority, but it gets the job done!
For the record, I do something about this issue everyday. I buy green power from my utility, I buy efficient light bulbs, I turn off appliances when I leave the house, and I work for a renewable energy company whose plants displace nearly 7 million tons of carbon dioxide each year (assuming that power would otherwise be produced by coal).
And, by the way, there are so many actions that we can take.
If I was 'into' carbon offsets, the 20 minutes/so per month that I spend walking through turning off office lights would offset my home electricity use many times over.