~~ written by agelbert ~~
AGelbert comments written to Vermont State Government Officials in regard to The State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP)
"The State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) addresses Vermont's energy future for electricity, building heating, industrial processing, transportation, and land use. The 2016 CEP sets specific goals and strategies for Vermont to obtain 90% of our total energy from renewable sources by 2050."
"First, the CEP is intended to inform readers of the many challenges and opportunities facing Vermonters in our mutual efforts to maintain a safe, reliable, affordable, environmentally sound, and sustainable energy supply across all sectors ..."
I suggest you add entrenched fossil fuel industry influence counterforce to the preface. When you use the word , "challenge", it sounds like it is just a matter of doing a cost benefit analysis. Renewable Energy includes that, of course. But to ignore the consistent, and successful, efforts made by the fossil fuel industry for the last 60 years or so to prevent Congress from funding solar and wind energy R & D and provide Renewable Energy subsidies on an equal footing with fossil fuels and nuclear power, instead of the pittance Renewable energy has received, clouds the issue. This is not merely a challenge; it is a war with predatory capitalist welfare queens degrading out democracy and our biosphere for short term gains.
Fossil fuels are environmentally and economically unsound. That is blatantly obvious. Any preface summarizing the challenges we face should state that a huge part of our challenge is to stop them from being subsidized.
A goal of 90% Renewable Energy by 2050 assumes that climate change will not dictate 100% long before that. If you read the Hansen et al 2015 paper just published, you will note that a plus 2 degrees Centigrade world, now baked in, is not amenable to comfortable political expediency.
When you are in a hole. you are supposed to stop digging.
On the issue of per capita energy use, let's talk. A CEO of a corporation that pollutes should have his carbon footprint, above and beyond that of his home and personal vehicle, include his share of the corporate carbon footprint. If you own a mall or a hospital or a moving company, you own that carbon footprint too. I am just a little tired of the "it's everybody's fault" approach to carbon taxes. More on that later.
It is also hypocritical for the state to encourage utilities to give businesses that use a lot of electricity a discount because they allegedly "benefit" the economy, while urging people like myself, that live in a 980 sq. ft. home, to lower my carbon footprint.
The climate will dictate the path forward, not the politicians. If you find that too "lockstep", then you are not cognizant of the existential threat humanity faces from global warming. You need to take your direction from climate scientists, not economists or lawyers.
-----------------------------------
"The four years since the completion of the 2011 CEP have seen significant progress in advancing the recommendations and goals established in that plan."
Sure. But that is because the goals were too limited. This is a circular argument used by lawyers and/or politicians, whether they are lawyers or not. They create a set of goals that are "realistic" within the confines of political expediency, while ignoring the urgency of addressing the pressing need to eliminate dirty energy in order to ameliorate the effects climate change.
Had Vermont given a 50% or more discount on sales tax for electric vehicles, some real progress on reducing transportation emissions would have been made. Even now, the state is mute about that.
Why aren't people who drive internal combustion powered cars rewarded for low annual mileage and why aren't people carbon taxed above 5,000 miles a year unless they drive an EV? Why doesn't Vermont connect state employees to Montpelier computers directly in their homes so they can telecommute? Why can't meetings be by telecommute? Why travel 30 or 60 miles round trip to a place where you work a computer and talk on a phone when you can do that from your home? Why isn't more of education done over the internet to save on school heating costs and bus fossil fuel use? This is just a small sample of the missed opportunities in the 2011 goals.
Where is the statewide zoning ordinance exception for people wanting to put passive geothermal systems in so they don't have to pay for permits and go through a lot of red tape? Ground sourced passive geothermal heat pumps are far more efficient with modern heat pump technology than the air sourced heat pumps. Where are the sales tax exemptions for home Renewable Energy infrastructure?
Where are the incentives for people to heat and cool smaller spaces? Where are the carbon taxes on homes larger than 500 square feet per occupant? And yes, people that heat and cool less than that should be paid for their frugality and contribution to a low carbon economy in rebates, not tax credits (the poor would not benefit from tax credits because they pay low taxes - a tax credit, like the $7,500 tax credit on EVs, helps mostly the well to do who pay at least that much in taxes - that's unfair). The needs of the poor, more impacted by climate change than the well to do, are unfairly ignored.
In short, there were several incentives for the everyday Vermonter that would have made a huge dent in our collective carbon footprint, but were left out.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is only one way to measure "Progress". And that is because there is only one real goal. That goal is taking our parts per million of carbon dioxide back to 290. I am not surprised that goal is not ever stated in these types of programs. Even the 350 PPM goal of Bill McKibben would be more realistic.
I realize that Vermont is just a state and the problem is global but the effects are local. So, while percentages of this, that and the other carbon footprint reductions are good metrics, our progress can only be realistically measured by how we preserve the biosphere for future generations. The only proxy Vermont has available for reducing the ppm of CO2 is renewable energy percentage. As long we are not at 100%, we are making things worse.
------------------------------------------
"The CEP strives to further the state’s economic, environmental, and human health goals, which are summarized in this chapter."
As I said in regard to Chapter 2, I realize that Vermont is just a state and the problem is global but the effects are local. So, while percentages of this, that and the other carbon footprint reductions are good metrics, our progress can only be realistically measured by how we preserve the biosphere for future generations. The only proxy Vermont has available for reducing the ppm of CO2 is renewable energy percentage. As long we are not at 100%, we are making things worse.
The conflict between the economy and the environment is artificial. It is imperative that, in discussing goals, the enormous pressure on our government exerted by polluting corporate interests is considered as in defining the action needed to achieve those goals.
Every advance in the percentage of Renewable Energy used by Vermonters equals less profits for the fossil fuel industry. Their deliberate corruption of our government energy policies for the purpose of continuing to privatize profits and socialize the costs is endangering the welfare of future generations. Their product is a liability, not an asset. It's high time that the State of Vermont admitted that.
If you do not, at the outset, state that fossil fuels are damaging out environment and, contrary to the propaganda, hurting the economy too, then you have not properly framed your guiding goals.
Of course you need to maintain revenue for the government. But not at an intolerable cost to the environment. And continuing to provide tax benefits for fossil fuels, be they gasoline, heating oil, kerosene or natural gas is counterproductive in two ways:
1. It perpetuates the myth that we can continue business as usual with fossil fuels as long as the state gets it's cut from the user.
2. It defends a dirty energy status quo condemning future Vermonters to the "externalized " costs the fossil fuel industry happily socializes on all of us.
The state of Vermont needs fossil fuels like a hole in the head. There are a plethora of revenue streams from renewable energy sources that can more than replace every regressive tax now in place for the user of fossil fuels.
I do not advocate increasing taxes on gasoline simply because the poor are the most impacted by regressive taxes. What I do advocate is incentives in the form of rebates for people that reduce their fossil fuel use. The lowered health care costs for the state resulting from a cleaner environment will not show up on a balance sheet right away. So there will be people claiming this is "voodoo" economics. But it's not. Within a couple of decades, the benefits will clearly justify the costs.
This what leadership is supposed to be about. Policies should look at the big picture, not engage in hand wringing over how much loss for state revenues incentives for cutting gasoline, heating oil and gas (no matter what Vermont Gas says) use would represent.
The goals should be to reverse GHG emissions, not just reduce them. They need to be stopped completely followed by action to sequester CO2 in order to lower our parts per million below 350ppm. This is not hyperbole. Read the Hansen et al 2015 climate change paper.
The biosphere is not going to accept politically motivated half measures designed to avoid stepping on entrenched polluting industry toes. The only real world that we must look to for a standard of behavior is the Biosphere.
The so called "real world" of politics is not now, or ever was, the "art of the possible"; it's the product of profit over people and planet. We need to act now because climate change is not going to adjust to political expediency.
Eliminating all fossil fuel use in Vermont should be part of guiding goals.
-----------------------------------------
Nice graphics. The elephants in the GHG room are transportation and distillates for heating and residential. State incentives for ground sourced geothermal heat pumps would take care of the heating distillate pollution.
In regard to transportation, as I mentioned before, there are a host of missed opportunities, by the State of Vermont, to rein in the use of these polluting fuels that the owners of gasoline stations and heating oil are quite happy about. Brazil has been using E100 for several years. There is no reason, beyond concern for fossil fuel industry profits, why Vermont could not have legislated gasoline out of existence with E100.
All present internal combustion engine vehicles can be modified to run on E100. In fact, because an internal combustion engine that runs on ethanol runs so much cooler (you can put your hand on the manifold or block and keep it there without being burned), engine wear is reduced and longevity is increased. Although that is beyond the scope of this discussion, an engine designed to run specifically on E100 would weigh 2/3 less because the metal alloys would not have to be engineered to handle the high waste heat from gasoline. That engine would be ruined by burning gasoline. That engine would have a higher compression ratio (like light aircraft engines). That engine would get better mileage. Those are the thermodynamic facts, regardless of what you may have heard to the contrary.
The fact that we do not have E100 engines or E100 sold routinely in the USA is not an accident or an oversight. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the fossil fuel industry would not like the idea of car engines running exclusively on E100, never mind why Detroit hasn't made a lighter engine that runs exclusively on E100.
If you do not believe what I am saying, send somebody to Brazil and the government there will calmly set up an appointment with an engineer that understands the benefits of E100 over gasoline. 100% Ethanol (E100) is just one chemical. It burns evenly and has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline.
Do you know why there isn't chemical name for gasoline? It's because there are many different types of hydrocarbon chains in it. The fact that it does not carry its own oxygen, like ethanol, causes uneven burning and high waste heat. The claim, used to argue that gasoline has a higher energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) than ethanol, that the enthalpy of gasoline is higher than ethanol is a clever deception. Yes, the enthalpy of gasoline is higher. But enthalpy is an external combustion calculation determined by heating water. Thus, all the waste heat of gasoline is considered, incorrectly, as contributing to the energy needed to do the work of moving a vehicle. When an internal combustion process is calculated, the waste heat from gasoline actually detracts from its efficiency. Thus, ethanol is a superior fuel. This was known as far back as 1906 by the work of Thomas Edison and the U.S. Navy. The new ethanol efficencies from lighter, high compression engines is a recent development in Brazil.
And the claim that major ethanol use would take food out of people's mouths is another myth. Vermont does not need gasoline. But the owner of Maplefields gasoline stations does. And we all know that he, like others that profit from fossil fuels, will try to keep this liability on our biosphere from being outlawed.
So let's cut to the chase. We are headed for a very difficult and dangerous climate because the increased concentration of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is overheating the oceans and the atmosphere. We need to stop burning them as a matter of personal responsibility to future generations. Theresa Morris wrote about it and I summarized her excellent essay.
Why Dianoia, Aristotle's term for "Thinking Things Through", is sine qua non to a Viable Biosphere
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/catastrophic-climate-change/future-earth/msg27/#msg27
Here's a snippet:
One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan ahead to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny some liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system to limit even proven 100% liability.
When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdes oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers know how the Court System "works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation..
While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. distorted Fragmentation of Agency).
This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, aren't non-profit organizations. If they were not profiting, then, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."
Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.
Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.
They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".
They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive.
As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.
The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental Law fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).
This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.
When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures are not sufficient), the rich plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it.
Why Dianoia, Aristotle's term for "Thinking Things Through", is sine qua non to a Viable Biosphere.
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/catastrophic-climate-change/future-earth/msg27/#msg27
-----------------------------------------
Land use for siting Renewable Energy is important.
I have often wondered why this is such a political football in Vermont. For example, the winds on mountain ridges near ski areas can be rather fierce. In fact, they are pretty constant. Yet those areas weren't the first to have wind turbines put on them.
I find it absolutely irrational for people to complain about aesthetics when fossil fuels are quite literally endangering the welfare of future generations. Where do some people get the idea that it's okay to drive a gas guzzler but it's not okay to see a wind turbine on a mountain top? They think wind turbines are too noisy but roads full of gas guzzlers aren't? Ask anyone that drives an EV what it's like to have to listen to internal combustion engines all around you in traffic.
And then there are those bothered by seeing a lot of solar panels. There is definitely a disconnect between the scientific consensus of the urgency to transition to 100% Renewable Energy and the lack of perception of that urgency among too many Vermonters.
There is no excuse for anyone in government to sugar coat the existential threat we face. The people of this state need to understand the stakes. This is not about whether something looks "Vermont" or not; this is about whether you care for future Vermonters or not.
But for those who don't want to see all those "ugly" solar panels ( I think they are cool, myself), I propose a land siting solution with more than enough acreage to really boost our solar harvesting.
There is a lot of land out of sight of 99% of the public that is made to order. The State does not need to ask anybody's permission and has access to all the right of ways with no issues except some coordination with electric utilities.
Swaths in the forests are cut across mountains all over Vermont for transmission lines. Why don't they put solar panels in those areas? The transmission lines are right next to them for hundreds of miles. The workers that keep the forest and undergrowth trimmed will have less work because the solar panels will block the sun. This is called common sense. let's see more of it.
You could go all out and roof in several miles of railroad track. That would keep snow off the tracks along with producing lots of solar energy while reducing land trimming costs in summer. Those tracks run nearby many neighborhoods that have transformers. State financing to help those neighborhoods buy a piece of that solar energy would go a long way to getting more people on board with the 100% Renewable Energy Transition. I think that would be a better way to go than sell the panel energy to the utility. The more the renewable energy is distributed the more democratic it is. The less it is distributed, the more the utility owning it will try to control the rates we pay. Centralizing energy is what has undermined democracy and favored predatory capitalist special interests. We want to go in the other direction.
In regard to private land and grounds in front of government buildings, why doesn't Vermont outlaw all local ordinances that require having a sterile, chemically polluted lawn that requires a lawn mower spewing totally unregulated emissions?
Is this a throw back from the European castle tradition of having a low cut "killing field" in front of the castle? It's time to get rid of that pretty lawn, Vermont. If you don't want to force somebody to do it, at least put a carbon tax on lawns and overrule all local ordinances that require them.
There are a lot of yards in Vermont that can join the fight to have a viable biosphere if the lawmakers would just recognize the importance that having pollution free yards in this battle. It's time to outlaw those signs on lawns that say, 'do not walk on lawn due to chemical treatment". We don't need that pollution and it isn't doing wonders for future generations either. Let the lawn care industry switch to organic yard gardening products.
-----------------------
Financing is one of the subjects that leaves far more out than it puts in. The Federal Reserve can influence every Vermonter that buys a home but somehow, those low interest rates never make it to Renewable Energy infrastructure.
We can have a cash for clunkers program but somehow, we can't have a EV for gas guzzlers program.
We can have pension funds investing in fossil fuel industry stocks but we can't have pension funds investing in gigawatt level State Funded Renewable Energy infrastructure.
The money the State of Vermont gifts the fossil fuel industry in subsidies alone, never mind the federal welfare queenery, would be ample for divestment from fossil fuels and nuclear power and investment in a 100% Renewable energy transition.
I am not convinced that the bankers understand that they need to hitch their financing star to the Renewable Energy Wagon. But I am convinced that that insurance actuaries are keenly aware of the costs of not transitioning within a decade, not 40 or fifty years, to 100% Renewable Energy.
The costs of a slow transition are far higher than a drastic transition. They are 5.5 times higher, per year, than a drastic and quick transition to 100% renewable energy. The reason for this is that the fossil fuel subsidies are a force multiplier on CO2 pollution. Every year we delay in financing the transition increases the costs of global warming exponentially.
This is what the insurance actuaries and the scientists are so alarmed about:
According to the recently published Hansen et al 2015 study which models of our future using the Eemian period (about 125,000 years ago), due to certain similarities with our period (excluding the fact that the PPM of CO2 was only about 290 back then), the oceans are going to get extremely stormy.
Besides the large increase in sea level, the wave action predicted makes every hull design of modern shipping inadequate. It will be very hard to sustain our level of civilization without the benefits of modern shipping.
Redesigning hulls will not work for the simple reason that the waves, now called "rogue" waves, of those oceans will be routine. 30 to 35 meter tall waves exert forces on a hull of about 100 tons per square meter. No modern hull design exceeds 20 tons per square meter.
This is a serious issue that should be addressed more by the scientific community. Actuaries of insurance companies are already addressing it: “every year, on average, more than two dozen large ships sink, or otherwise go missing, taking their crews along with them.”
http://www.actuarialeye.com/2014/03/30/how-many-ships-disappear-each-year/
I am grateful to Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa for alerting me to the threat from violent oceans that mankind faces.
Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.
Part 4: An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves by Paul Beckwith
Published on Jul 23, 2015
"Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this..."
Vermont will obviously not directly face problems from the end of cargo shipping as we know it due to violent oceans. But considering the impact on civilization that the end of routine cargo shipping will have on the U.S. economy in general and Vermont's economy in particular, it would behoove Vermont to do everything possible to be a leader in the transition to 100% Renewable within a decade.
It's time to tell the bankers and Vermont Lawmakers. Delay is more costly than drastic action.
----------------------------------------
I would recommend Ground Sourced Geothermal Heat pumps with 100% sales tax exemption and guaranteed 5% or less interest on financing. Forty five degrees is available all year round about 20 to 25 feet down (or less) anywhere in Vermont all year. You can heat and cool with that with very low electricity demand. With solar power, it's 100% Renewable Energy heating and cooling.
Charge a Carbon Tax on high income earners and businesses that stay on fossil fuel powered heat to subsidize heat pump installations for the low to middle income earners and schools.
-------------------------------------------
Require all gasoline stations to sell E100 with no sales tax for a ten year period.
The fact that gasoline taxes are a revenue stream is not a "dilemma", it's an incorrect, biosphere damaging choice. I suggest you correct it.
---------------------------------------
Expand the Charging station network in Vermont to level two chargers for at least 50% of the all vehicles over a ten year period. Reduce sales tax on EVs by 50 to 100% until 75% of all vehicles in Vermont are EVs or ten years, whichever comes first.
Convert all Federal Income Tax credits on EV purchases to rebates for Vermonters who pay less than the Federal Tax Credit on their Federal income taxes.
-----------------------------------------------
The problem here is one of perception. The fear that people will overload the grid by switching to all electric ignores the fact that Renewable energy is mostly distributed. This energy will be closer to the user. The efficiency of electric energy use is inversely proportional to the distance from the energy production.
So, although computer load balancing issues will exist, only the fossil fuel industry crocodile tears are the ones making a case for keeping people off electric heat and EV charging because of "grid overload".
It's time to eliminate discounts to high electricity users in industry and start giving discounts to Vermonters in their homes for charging EVs at night or running appliances in low use periods. These policies, though not popular with big pocketed individuals, will smooth the grid power demand. If that isn't what "smart rates" are, it's what they should be.
Our problem is CO2, not electrical demand.
-----------------------------------------
I think Scenario A for generation capacity should be our reality by 2025, not 2050.
---------------------------------------------
Nice summary
----------------------------------
Nice map.
Imagine how much more Renewable Energy we would have if a 100 miles or so of railroad tracks was roofed over with solar panels and a hundred miles or so of transmission line swaths cut through the mountains had solar panels on them.
I think you should know that average wind speeds in Vermont are predicted to increase with climate change. I doubt whether that has been modeled here. I suggest you consider that you will get quite a bit more energy from wind in your Scenario A with the same number of turbines.
I also suggest you take a look at the potential of Lemna Minor (Duckweed) as a biofuel and an animal food source. Duckweed can be pelletized. You can make ethanol from it too. It is the fastest growing flowering plant known to mankind. It grows in still water ponds with pig feces or tilapia fish droppings as fertilizer. No extra water is needed once the shallow ponds are filled and you can place them on non-arable land. Duckweed grows wild from the equator to Siberia. Duckweed is also a cleanser of heavy metals and an excellent carbon sequestering source of Renewable Energy.
Vermont has not taken advantage of Duckweed. It's considered mostly a nuisance here. It's not. It's far more efficient than corn as a feed stock for ethanol and animal feed too. And there is no nitrogen run off from duckweed ponds to deal with or the need for fossil fuel based chemical fertilizer or pesticides.
Duckweed, The Little Green Plant that Could.
------------------------------------------
Petroleum is not a resource. Fossil fuels are not assets. Fossil fuels are liabilities. Fossil fuels are endangering the welfare of future generations. The CO2 damage is accelerating. The acidification of the oceans is increasing. The icecaps are melting. The IPCC has us headed for a plus 4 degree C world by century's end. Mankind has never even existed on the planet above an average global temperature of plus 3.3 degrees C above the pre-industrial baseline.
Petroleum is a resource to civilization like arsenic is a food for humans.
I suggest you rephrase your definition of what a "resource" is.
Elizabeth Kolbert discusses her book, The Sixth Extinction
FEB. 10, 2014 Chasing the Biggest Story on Earth
‘The Sixth Extinction’ Looks at Human Impact on the Environment
Reporter asks: Why do you say this could lead to an extinction event?
Elizabeth Kolbert: It’s not what I say. It’s what many respected scientists are writing. If you read the scientific literature, you see frequent allusions to a current mass extinction event.
As of June of this year (2015), further evidence of the existential threat we face has been published. The conclusions are conservative but still clear. Incremental measures will not stop this existential threat to 75% of al of Earth's species.
"Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species, and to alleviate pressures on their populations – notably habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change," the study's authors write.
Stanford Report, June 19, 2015
Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here
Paul Ehrlich and others use highly conservative estimates to prove that species are disappearing faster than at any time since the dinosaurs' demise.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/mass-extinction-ehrlich-061915.html
-----------------------------------
There is absolutely no reason why the state cannot use ground source geothermal heat pump technology to heat and cool all the buildings. All they have to do is go down 25 feet or less.
There is no reason why the government cannot have more telecommuting employees who don't have to deal with the public face to face. That would save on transportation and public building heating and cooling costs.
There is no reason why more education cannot be performed via the internet to lower school bus use and school energy use.
There is no reason why the state cannot mandate that all government vehicles either be EVs or, if internal combustion powered, run on E100. If the government led, the people would follow.
Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and trucks, snow plows, school busses, etc. can all be converted to run on E100. Some fossil fuel toes will be stepped on. So what? It's about time we got real about the damage fossil fuels do and stopped pretending our economy needs them.
---------------------------
The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of their responsibility to use dianoia, Aristotle's term for "Thinkng Things Through", in their decision making process.
But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical destructive exploitation of the biosphere for the short term gain, 'greed is good', modus operandi.
Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.
Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the existential threat we face from climate change damage.
The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational. Theresa Morris said in her essay on our responsibility to conserve a viable biosphere for future generations:
"Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia , Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future;
it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.
If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.
And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible.
If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a). "
We are in a world of trouble. This is not chicken little hysteria or hyperbole; this is the scientific consensus
A. G. Gelbert
Colchester, Vermont
No comments:
Post a Comment