Obama's Clean Energy Policy

Winky,

Have you gone fracking nuts?

Winky

You must not be in West Virginia or Wyoming.

It would be nice if the rest of the world played by the same rules....China for example. 

No, but I have always worked in the mining industry, mostly in coal, and am certainly not anti-mining per se. I have managed coal mines in West Virginia and experienced the local mining communities first-hand. But the US is the highest per capita GHG emitter and ties with China in an absolute sense. If the US doesn't take the lead on this, the consequences stretch far beyond the short-term benefits of jobs. If short-term self interest prevails (and I fear it will) there is little hope for the future.

It would be great, if America finally woke up to the facts that:

• Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy. 

·         On average, one American consumes as much energy as:

o        2 Japanese

o        6 Mexicans

o        13 Chinese

o        31 Indians

o        128 Bangladeshis

o        307 Tanzanians

o        370 Ethiopians

• The population is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people - the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California - by the year 2050. 
• Americans eat 815 billion calories of food each day - that's roughly 200 billion more than needed

- Enough to feed 80 million people. 

• Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily. 

- The average American generates 52 tons of garbage by age 75. 

• The average individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons. 
• Fifty percent of the wetlands, 90% of the northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of the tall-grass prairie have been destroyed in the last 200 years.
• Eighty percent of the corn grown and 95% of the oats are fed to livestock. 
• Fifty-six percent of available farmland is used for beef production. 

TP,

America is waking up, and if not just happy to hear it, maybe you should be concerned. Read here:http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23151813

The Obama administration has made great strides towards US energy independence, and efficiency is also being addressed. Good for the economy, but many Americans have viewed parts of Obama's policy as faulted with regard to assumed Democratic Party environmental principles.

Polity may be slow to address the facts you presented, but rest assured many individual Americans like myself are concerned and make lifestyle decisions daily to effect changes in their energy consumption. 

And then there are people who took advantage of falling oil prices to double down on huge pick-up trucks as their preferred means of getting mostly just themselves around. Light-duty trucks up nearly 11% ytd, compared to a flat trend for cars.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/publ..._3022-autosales.html

American per capita energy use is not simply personal energy consumption.  Consider the World Bank statistics of GDP per capita, a measure of economic productivity:

United States: $54,690

Japan:          $34,200

Mexico:         $10,360

China:          $7593

India:          $1630

Bangladesh:    $1096

Tanzania:        $998

Ethiopia:         $567

There is a pretty strong correlation between energy consumption and economic productivity.

I think the real challenge for American emissions controls will be convincing businesses that they can be both cleaner and economically viable at the same time.  Adding regulations that hamper output after a long period of sluggish economic growth is a tough sell.  Especially with the Chinese economy rapidly growing while their emissions grow even faster.

Brian,

I get your point and have two thoughts on your response:

1) an economically productive nation ought to be expected to consume a greater amount of energy, as you point out. Americans are consumptive but to a degree productive, and this production goes beyond their shores. The US is aware of their relative consumption and working to reduce it. Life styles won't change overnight.

2) The economic prosperity of green technologies and related legislation in the US will be used as a model for second world nations, and I hope there is success in the long term to serve as an insentive. If not, China, developing on the 20th Century model for fossil fuel consumption and emission is a scary prospect.

The obvious point is that wealthy countries can afford to reduce their carbon footprint without creating misery. On average, it is much easier for a Canadian, American or Australian to afford (for example) solar power than for an Indian to do so. Yes, paying higher prices for power or fuel will reduce consumption and impact "lifestyle" but that is exactly the point. If we want to consume less of the planet's resources and cause less pollution, we consumers need to consume less.

True to a degree in the existing time frame and infrastructure. But through time when/if renewable energy resource technology (wind, solar, tidal, etc.) developed by wealthier nations can be shown to be economically feasible while providing the additional security of reduced CO2 emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, the benefits should become obvious to other nations. Granted, renewable sources also come with their own set of costs, as does any solution.

Sorry joerand, I owed you a reply. I am not so sure America is waking up. I hope it does but frankly? I do have my doubts. It seems more like going about business as usual, i.e. plastering over the cracks, out for a quick buck, but not addressing any of the underlying problems. When you talk about energy independence what are we primarily talking about here? The push for shale gas and fracking? This to me represents the most evil exploitation of your (our) natural resources. The environmental costs are huge, not just to the land but to all humans and animals living on that land or in its proximity. And it will be even more catastrophic once they are done raping the environment and squeezing the last drop of oil out of the soil. If no one stops this insanity! As you propably know the process involves pumping a toxic cocktail of carcinogenic substances into the ground leaving pretty much wasteland behind. Not to speak of the milliions of gallons of water required in the process and the problem of disposing the wastewater afterwards. Have you seen any of the documentaries done on fracking in the USA? They do not make for pretty sights. 

Environmental issues aside, there are some strong indications that the rush into shale gas is nothing more than an investment bubble waiting to burst. According to David Einhorn, the chap who identified profound irregularities in the financial reporting of Lehman Brothers prior to their collapse, "the large shale producers have since 2006 spent $80bn more in acquiring and developing reserves than they have made from selling oil. They were kept in business only by a constant inflow of capital".*

"Since early 2010, energy producers have raised $550 billion of new bonds and loans as the Federal Reserve held borrowing costs near zero, according to Deutsche Bank AG. With oil prices plunging, investors are questioning the ability of some issuers to meet their debt obligations. Research firm CreditSights Inc. predicts the default rate for energy junk bonds will double to eight percent next year".**

*ft.com, 06 Mai 2015

**bloomberg.com, 11 Dec. 2014

You get the picture?

If you are interested in the subject I can recommend these Internet sources for a different angle on the subject. They are worth having a look at:

http://shalebubble.org/#intro

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...nts-4.html?_r=1&

http://www.washingtonsblog.com...ng-ponzi-scheme.html

Other than that, I am all for clean, renewable energy, so anything Obama can do to support a shift in mindset and outlook is bound to be welcomed and applauded. Question is, are the American people and big business willing to pay the extra dollar to get green house emission levels down?