Tracy Press

His Voice: From Chuck Hall.

With both the President Bush and Congress considering legislation on the issue of global warming, many people are wondering exactly what we can do to minimize greenhouse gases. Here are a few proposals:

1. There are 2 billion cars in the world. In the U.S., the average fuel economy is 22 miles per gallon. We have the technology to increase fuel economy to between 30 and 60 mpg.

Automakers should consider offering a wider range of more fuel-efficient vehicles until zero-emissions vehicles can be designed and manufactured (see item 10).

2. Decrease car travel through public transportation, telecommuting, biking or walking. The latter two choices have the added benefit of providing daily exercise.

3. Use energy-saving measures, such as compact fluorescent lighting, energy-efficient appliances and added insulation to decrease energy consumption in all existing buildings by up to 25 percent.

Design future buildings using green-building techniques to create no harmful emissions and to be as energy-efficient as possible. The new Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification is a step in the right direction.

4. Stop clear-cutting our rainforests. Double the rate of new tree plantings. More trees mean less carbon dioxide. This is something anyone can do. All you need are a few seedlings and a place to plant them.

5. By using “conservation tillage” techniques, soil erosion could be slowed or even stopped in many farms throughout the world. Less soil erosion means more plants. More plants means less carbon dioxide.

Encouraging local and organic farming decreases transportation costs to and from distant markets (and therefore carbon emissions caused by the trucks used to transport produce) and eliminates pesticides from the atmosphere.

6. Switch to wind power wherever possible. The newer wind turbines can function in winds as little as 3 or 5 mph. Wind energy is totally emission-free. Also, once the turbine is paid for, the only cost for the electricity it generates is a little routine maintenance.

7. Increase use of solar power whenever possible. Prices continue to come down on solar panels and accessories, and city, state and federal governments offer many tax incentives for purchasing solar systems. Some banks are loosening lending criteria for purchasing home solar power systems as well.

8. As solar and wind power become more available, phase out coal-burning power plants. Set standards for efficiency and carbon emissions, and close down any plants that don’t live up to the standards.

9. Practice carbon dioxide sequestration at existing coal plants until they can be phased out as more solar and wind farms come online.

10. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including hydrogen fuel-cell technology, plug-in electric vehicles that recharge overnight at home and hybrids powered by renewable biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel.

We already have the technology to do many of the things on this list. All that is missing is public will. If any of these suggestions make sense to you, let your local members of Congress know by getting in touch with them!

Chuck Hall is a sustainability consultant and author. His e-mail is This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Dave Hardesty , February 18, 2007

They all sound like great ideas and I support them. In fact most of them have already been proposed and argued in Congress they are so great.

The problem is how to do all of these truly wonderful things in a short time that won't end up causing more problems than they solve?

It is nice to have these goals in mind but quite another thing to make them a reality. We need to start that is no argument. But we also need the participation and positive support of every individual on the planet as well.

For example, it's a good idea to stop slash burning of the rainforests. But before you place those nations and their people into abject poverty and disease, you need to have something in place for them to make up the difference.

Zero-emmissions is also something that seems impossible to achieve as everything, including manufacturing processes necessary to creat them, create emmissions. And unfortunately the higher tech the manufacturing process, the greater the really hazardous waste products that are created.

I suppose it really comes down to, "Tell us how it can be done, not that we simply need to do it."

...
written by scott hurban , February 18, 2007

Organic farming would be a environmental disaster. Such farming would require a lot more land than we now use to grow our food. That means more cutting down of trees and the use of more wild lands. One always needs to see the consequences of our good intentions.

Example ethenol. To supply all our fuel with ethenol would require us to increase our corn crop by 165% with no corn for our pleasure or to feed our livestock. This means the price of corn and meat would sky rocket and bring many of the poor to the brink of starvation. There has already been serious effects in Mexico where the price of corn tortillas has risen over 50% on just a few months due to corn being switched from food to fuel. Such economic pressures will surely cause more people to flee north in search of better living conditions.

Our problem is we always look at these solutions in isolation to all the possible adverse consequences of our actions.

...
written by Ian Stewart , February 18, 2007

Biofuels don't have nearly as good a return on energy investment as petroleum fuels. Biodiesel has many more possible sources than ethanol, but those would still require diversion of resources, such as diverting water to feed algae colonies. Plus the easiest way to produce biodiesel uses methanol, and the easiest way to produce methanol is from petroleum. On top of that, all high-volume agricultural methods pretty much require a petroleum input, no ifs ands or buts.

That's not to say that biofuels don't have their place (biodiesel mixtures can restore some of the lubricity lost by using ultra-low-sulfur petrodiesel, and ethanol is surely preferable to MTBE), but replacing petroleum completely is an impossibly tall order. And don't discount the influence of corporate agricultural interests like Archer-Daniels-Midland on those Congressional debates...

...
written by Xjy , February 18, 2007

The oil lobby arguments out in force so far in these comments. All forgetting the huge subsidies paid out to Big Oil and Coal and Nuclear; all forgetting the lack of big investment in alternative fuels and the fact that despite this wind, geo-thermal, bio-fuels and solar are all approaching break-even point, and with extra targeted investment will reach and break through even more rapidly; all forgetting the flexibility of supply and demand when technology changes - corn farmers are subsidized for not producing, so let them produce more; all forgetting such things as clean-up costs for fossil fuels and nukes (air, water, land pollution in extraction, production and use, not to mention health care for polluted human beings); all forgetting that fossil fuels are limited in supply and politically catastrophic in their repercussions; all discounting the possibility and ease (given political and social will) of increasing energy efficiency at home and at work, and of redeploying manufacturing and planning and infrastructure resources to satisfy public and social needs in transportation (freight by train and waterway, public mass transit solutions.

That's a lot of forgetting!

And most of this stuff has been done and is either happening on an industrial scale in some advanced industrial nations or has been shown to work in large-scale proof of concept projects.

...
written by Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant , February 18, 2007

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R13

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA 91324
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

...
written by Dave Hardesty , February 19, 2007

Jay

If I told you I had a bio solution to our energy problem that wouldn't cause more problems than it creates and actually made an improvement on the way we utilize energy in the future, would you think me a crack pot or would you be interested in a discussion?

Most of the other methods you have mentioned as sources for energy, are not efficient, as in Solar-Photovoltaics (only 16% efficient for those who can afford them), or have other serious drawbacks to other elements of our ecosystem such as Wind and Oceanic tidal, even though many of those drawbacks might possibly be mitigated to make them viable.

Geothermal, within certain parameters, might be viable but some necessary science along those lines is required. Hydrogen Fule cells, at this stage of the game are not practical because of the current manufacturing techniques and detremental effects the waste products created as a result of their manufacturer.

...
written by han zhe , June 13, 2007