How can we mitigate global warming?

[Nate13]

RE subsidies, I inquired and heard it from my Republican (anti-environmentalist) congressman’s aide…so I sort of believe it. And then Obama made a speech today re oil subsidies.

I personally don’t keep exact tabs, bec human life is more dear than a few dollars here or there. What concerns me is the tremendous harm done by fossil fuels (these are externalities, not factored into the costs). Not just from AGW, but the total harms, from mining, mountaintop removal, burning (local, regional, global pollution), coal ash & oil spills, etc. Asthma, emphysema, miscarriages, etc. And I don’t like paying on April 15th for others to pollute and harm. So it’s more like a priciple than costs for me.

In other words, I’d be willing to pay more for wind power – and we did for a number of years by some $5 a month, before it became cheaper by about $3 a month some 5 years ago than fossil-fuel electricity (perhaps due to increased subsidies to wind?).

We give money to various charities, why not pay a little extra to reduce our harms as a form of charity?

Just know that when the government plows ahead on shutting down a vast majority of our coal plants its going to hurt. Bad. Coal is sitting at around $12 a kilowatt and natural gas is pretty near to that. Wind is up at around $55 a kilowatt. How many people do you believe could handle 4 or 5 times their energy bill right now?

That’s of course assuming you could replace it all with wind which you cannot. It appears the current people running the administration are prepared to shut down coal plants without having anything built to replace it yet, which will only increase demand and further spike costs.

I’m sorry but it remains immoral in my eyes to push this right now. Give the technology some time to develop and for them to make it cost effective. Natural gas is where we should be heading in the near term.

 

[JimG]

Just know that when the government plows ahead on shutting down a vast majority of our coal plants its going to hurt. Bad. Coal is sitting at around $12 a kilowatt and natural gas is pretty near to that. Wind is up at around $55 a kilowatt. How many people do you believe could handle 4 or 5 times their energy bill right now?

That’s of course assuming you could replace it all with wind which you cannot. It appears the current people running the administration are prepared to shut down coal plants without having anything built to replace it yet, which will only increase demand and further spike costs.

I’m sorry but it remains immoral in my eyes to push this right now. Give the technology some time to develop and for them to make it cost effective. Natural gas is where we should be heading in the near term.

It seems to me that the current administration is intent on increasing the cost of energy. The president has been out bad-mouthing oil, natural gas, and coal, wishing to make these cheaper forms of energy much more expensive, while advocating for higher priced and impracticable forms of energy production.

If, as seems to be the intent, the administration is successful in thus driving up the cost of energy, the economy will suffer, unemployment will grow, and the poor and middle class will suffer most. It is a thoroughly immoral policy.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just know that when the government plows ahead on shutting down a vast majority of our coal plants its going to hurt. Bad.

People really should have been reducing their fossil fuel use since the 1970s when we learned that these are finite resources…with an eye to preserving them for future generations (of course, a high abortion nation is not really into future generations much ). We should have been doing this thru reduce, reuse, recycle, through energy/resource efficiency/conservation. That actually goes for all finite resources, not just fossil fuels.

And I’m guilty and have not done nearly as much as I could have. We have lived closer to work (within a mile or two, at least for one of us) since the 1970s and a few other things. That was about it.

Then in 1990 with the global warming isssue (even though I’d known about the other pollution issues for decades, and shame on me for not acting more), that sort of got me off my rear-end from being a passive to active environmentalist. I really started looking for all possible ways to reduce my pollution, and have been able to reduce our fossil fuel energy use by over 60%. Part of that was going on wind, but a good portion was just reducing thru efficiency and conservation up north, where we didn’t have wind power the 1st 12 years of our eco-endeavors.

It took years to implement these measures (CF bulbs were $10 at the time), time to get around to caulking and waterheater wrapping, etc, plus one heavy upfront investments, like our SunFrost frig that uses one-tenth the electricity AND preserves veggies, including cilantro, A LOT longer, reducing wastage (a surprise bonus). That was $2700, incl shipping from Arcata, CA. But it paid for itself in about 16 or so years due to less electricity and less food wastage and has gone on each year to save us money. God was with us when we bought it, bec for the 1st time in our married life we had the $2700 to invest that year. Now with that and our other savings from enviro actions we are now on easy street. And all along we actually increased (not decreased) our living standard a bit. For instance, my husband got brighter light in the range hood for his gournet cooking with the 15 w CF bulb replacing the 40 w incandescent, and many other stories like that.

The point is people have got to start sometime reducing for a whole host of reasons, not just AGW, tho this could be the jumpstart, as it was for me.

I’m sure the gov will not allow a switch from fossil fuels to alt energy to disrupt the economy. Logistically it is impossible to switch overnight. I imagine it would happen over several decades, during which alt energy should then become equal in cost to fossil fuels (even without the heave fossil fuel externalities costs). And we will still need to be using a lot of fossil fuels, but if we could cut them down by half within 10-20 years that would be great – and that can be done without alt energy, but solely with energy/resource efficiency/conservation measures (see natcap.org ).

The important point is we need to start yesterday, at least immediately now.

 

[Muze]

Are you sure the Holy Father has specifically called catholics to “mitigate global warming” or is that your interpretation of more general calls to be good stewards of creation?

If you could provide specific quotes it would bolster your claim.

Thanks.

Best way is to get scientists to deal with real data and speak truthfully about climate change. Given that they’ve altered the data to make warming appear where it does not exist, and have no evidence to suggest that man’s actions have a significant impact on global temperatures, that’s where we should start: Insist on integrity from scientists.

 

[Nate13]

People really should have been reducing their fossil fuel use since the 1970s when we learned that these are finite resources…with an eye to preserving them for future generations (of course, a high abortion nation is not really into future generations much ). We should have been doing this thru reduce, reuse, recycle, through energy/resource efficiency/conservation. That actually goes for all finite resources, not just fossil fuels.

And I’m guilty and have not done nearly as much as I could have. We have lived closer to work (within a mile or two, at least for one of us) since the 1970s and a few other things. That was about it.

Then in 1990 with the global warming isssue (even though I’d known about the other pollution issues for decades, and shame on me for not acting more), that sort of got me off my rear-end from being a passive to active environmentalist. I really started looking for all possible ways to reduce my pollution, and have been able to reduce our fossil fuel energy use by over 60%. Part of that was going on wind, but a good portion was just reducing thru efficiency and conservation up north, where we didn’t have wind power the 1st 12 years of our eco-endeavors.

It took years to implement these measures (CF bulbs were $10 at the time), time to get around to caulking and waterheater wrapping, etc, plus one heavy upfront investments, like our SunFrost frig that uses one-tenth the electricity AND preserves veggies, including cilantro, A LOT longer, reducing wastage (a surprise bonus). That was $2700, incl shipping from Arcata, CA. But it paid for itself in about 16 or so years due to less electricity and less food wastage and has gone on each year to save us money. God was with us when we bought it, bec for the 1st time in our married life we had the $2700 to invest that year. Now with that and our other savings from enviro actions we are now on easy street. And all along we actually increased (not decreased) our living standard a bit. For instance, my husband got brighter light in the range hood for his gournet cooking with the 15 w CF bulb replacing the 40 w incandescent, and many other stories like that.

The point is people have got to start sometime reducing for a whole host of reasons, not just AGW, tho this could be the jumpstart, as it was for me.

I’m sure the gov will not allow a switch from fossil fuels to alt energy to disrupt the economy. Logistically it is impossible to switch overnight. I imagine it would happen over several decades, during which alt energy should then become equal in cost to fossil fuels (even without the heave fossil fuel externalities costs). And we will still need to be using a lot of fossil fuels, but if we could cut them down by half within 10-20 years that would be great – and that can be done without alt energy, but solely with energy/resource efficiency/conservation measures (see natcap.org ).

The important point is we need to start yesterday, at least immediately now.

Maybe its just me, but I see 200 years of natural gas for us to use and thank the Lord for looking out for us because we would have to regress as a society for quite a time if we were forced to go to only renewable resources right now. That is a 200 year grace period in my opinion to get things figured out. If we didn’t have that a lot of people would die between now and however long it took for us to get our act together with renewable energy. It would take longer to make progress as well under a stressed economy as opposed to under an affluent one with the resources to devote to the research.

If we had begun reverting to renewable energy in 1970 as you believe we should have I guarantee you we would actually be farther away from enduring solutions than we are now. Most of the research we have on renewable energy is based in discoveries from NASA as well. We would not have had the ability to fund NASA if not for oil, coal, and natural gas. Oil, coal, and natural gas are the things giving us enough time to figure out a solution that is self sustaining.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here are some discussions of wind v. coal:

zfacts.com/node/244 . (here’s another side to the story: cleantechnica.com/2011/05/01/cost-of-wind-power-kicks-coals-butt-better-than-natural-gas-could-power-your-ev-for-0-70gallon/ )

RE the variability of wind, I’ve heard discussion that it is not as much a problem when
(1) wind generator farms are placed in various regions of a state or the country (there will likely be wind in some areas, even when there is less wind in others), and
(2) solar could be part of the mix – when the sun is shining it is often less windy, and when it is windy the sun is often not shining as much, so the two tend to complement each other.

Another consideration is that some farmers can rent space for wind generators, then farm almost up to the base – at least that’s what Green Mountain told me. So this would increase capacity. The article says we would prob only be able to get 10% of our national power max from wind, but if we’ve greatly reduced our power consumption, that could easily be 20%.

I’m also thinking there should be some small, less noisy home models that could meet restrictions in cities and neighborhoods. I know that you don’t get good and steady wind unless it is high in the air, but at least one could get some of their power contribute to their power needs.

Also solar – innovations are coming up and it is getting cheaper (see wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/03/plastic-solar ). Some folks in our area have shifted to solar already (there’s tremendous sunshine, as well as wind here). An electric engineering prof at our U has the same problem we do – our homes are not oriented correctly for solar on the roof. So he is building a pergola in his yard (which will increase the value of his home) and installing some panels on that. We might also do that…after we again build up funds after buying the Volt . We do have 100% wind from the grid now, but I realize once more people get onto it, there might eventually be a limit…tho Green Mountain has assured me they are installing more and more wind generators (the latest in a county near ours that has strong winds nearly all the time).

Wind and solar certainly can turn out to be cost-effective parts of the overall mix in coming years and decades, which include efficiency & conservation and some 2nd gen biofuels, etc, and with all these together could very greatly reduce our pollution and GHGs, giving life in the future a better chance.

 

[lynnvinc]

Mission accomplished – I dusted off my clothes drying rack and at least hung up MY clothes on it. They’re drying peacefully a few feet away

 

[adoglover1956]

I for one believe that we have been very poor stewards of the world that God has given us. I am not a convinced believer in AGW…but I do my best to try to conserve…recycle and lower GHG emissions where I can.

One of the things I discovered about 2 years ago was that my gas company would do an energy audit of my house for free. After doing the audit they informed me that if I was willing to make one change…install a new exhaust fan in the bathroom…they would provide help. As it turned out they paid $1200 to have vents placed on my roof and blew in insulation that increased my attic to R39. They also provided me with CFL’s and spotlights. They installed an insulated box over my attic entrance. This only cost me $300. My budgeted gas bill went down from $130/mo to $95/mo. So it was a win win situation.

I also know that some electric companies will refund much of the cost for installing solar panels on a roof.

 

[adoglover1956]

There is something I would also like to add. The argument over AGW is only a small part of the plan. We continue to pollute rivers…tear down or burn forests…dump trash in the ocean and emit other pollutants into the atmosphere. All I’m trying to say is that in many cases by taking action to conserve energy and look for other than fossil fuels…we are actually doing more than attempting to mitigate AGW.

 

[Nate13]

There is something I would also like to add. The argument over AGW is only a small part of the plan. We continue to pollute rivers…tear down or burn forests…dump trash in the ocean and emit other pollutants into the atmosphere. All I’m trying to say is that in many cases by taking action to conserve energy and look for other than fossil fuels…we are actually doing more than attempting to mitigate AGW.

Yes but if climate change becomes a non World ending proposition it then begins important that the changes we make are cost effective like your example. The people in charge right now don’t think like that though, they are of the World ending variety. Very few people are going to be upset if you have a new idea that will save people money, perform close to as well or better than the other options on the market, and be better for the environment lol. The problem is the people who believe the World is going to end in 50 years if we don’t get our act together and think we have to make all these changes NOW! They would drive this country into the ground if they got their way.

 

[adoglover1956]

Yes but if climate change becomes a non World ending proposition it then begins important that the changes we make are cost effective like your example. The people in charge right now don’t think like that though, they are of the World ending variety. Very few people are going to be upset if you have a new idea that will save people money, perform close to as well or better than the other options on the market, and be better for the environment lol. The problem is the people who believe the World is going to end in 50 years if we don’t get our act together and think we have to make all these changes NOW! They would drive this country into the ground if they got their way.

I am not a proponent of AGW. That is not the topic of the thread. The OP asked that we not get into that discussion…but asked what we can do to mitigate AGW whether or not we believe it is occurring.

 

[Nate13]

I am not a proponent of AGW. That is not the topic of the thread. The OP asked that we not get into that discussion…but asked what we can do to mitigate AGW whether or not we believe it is occurring.

The degree to which a person believes AGW is a threat or not a threat at all is going to directly correlate to how far someone is willing to go to mitigate it. If I thought the World was going to end in 50 years if we did not alter the course we are on, an energy cost 5 times higher than what we currently have would be completely justifiable and an acceptable response to mitigating global warming. Motivations definitely matter.

 

[lynnvinc]

There is something I would also like to add. The argument over AGW is only a small part of the plan. We continue to pollute rivers…tear down or burn forests…dump trash in the ocean and emit other pollutants into the atmosphere. All I’m trying to say is that in many cases by taking action to conserve energy and look for other than fossil fuels…we are actually doing more than attempting to mitigate AGW.

This is exactly right. It’s really hard to think of some action that would only mitigate AGW – they all seem to have some other benefits, including for many, money savings (at least in the short or long run).

Since I’ve been at it for over 20 years (saving $1000s), it even occurred to me that if people had been striving in the cost-effective ways to mitigate AGW (and the many other problems these measures mitigate against) instead of “speculating in real estate” (borrowing to the hilt to buy McMansion homes well above what they could afford, thinking the percentage increase in values each year could make them rich(er)), then our economy would not have taken such a nasty downturn in 2008. There still may have been an economic downturn, but I’m thinking it may not have been so terrible. At least people would be saving each month on their energy/resource efficiency/conservative measures, which could have helped them weather the economic storm.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes but if climate change becomes a non World ending proposition it then begins important that the changes we make are cost effective like your example. The people in charge right now don’t think like that though, they are of the World ending variety. Very few people are going to be upset if you have a new idea that will save people money, perform close to as well or better than the other options on the market, and be better for the environment lol. The problem is the people who believe the World is going to end in 50 years if we don’t get our act together and think we have to make all these changes NOW! They would drive this country into the ground if they got their way.

Well, what I have found thru 22 years of trying to persuade people to save money by mitigating AGW is that people just don’t warm up much to the various little things that can save them money AND mitigate a host of environmental problem.

In some cases it’s a matter of behavioral changes (like taking reusable shopping bags to stores…which don’t save money for the individual and not much for the stores, but don’t really require much effort either); and we all know behavior changes are exceedingly difficult, even simple things and even when we have plenty of motivation to change.

I remember reading an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor in the 1990s about how difficult it was for the writer to make such simple changes, even tho he was totally in favor of “saving the environment”; he said it required a lot of prayer and effort on his part to make those changes.

So how can we mitigate AGW? The very first step is prayer – prayer to help us find solutions, and prayer to help us carry them out. How do you think I convinced my husband 2 months ago to buy our Chevy Volt, when what he really wanted as a Ford Taurus. Extreme prayer. I only did the Excel spreadsheet about how it would save money long run after he caved.

I think what’s happening with the political solutions to AGW is that since people have decided not to take advantage of all the money-saving measures of mitigating AGW – maybe bec we are just too rich and it’s too much bother to strain our brain over a few cents here or a few dollars there – some eco-conscientious elected officials are thinking that if they put some fee or cost on those things that pollute – raising the prices – people will at last take note and try and become energy/resource efficient/conservative (so as at least to break even and not pay more, if not to go on to save big $$). But I have my doubts. I’m even thinking many people will eagerly spend more just to prove they are right and others are wrong. I think it’s become an ego thing for many, not an economic thing.

It seems businesses may be more easily persuaded to do the right thing, since they are more focused on the bottom line than on egos. However, you should have seen my husband and me in the 1990s trying to persuade restaurants we went to to switch to CF bulbs. They thought we were crazy, or trying to create some problem for them; they couldn’t figure us out. Now I’ve noticed more and more businesses going for energy efficiency, but there is still plenty of gold in them thar hills of efficiency/conservation.

A penny saved is a penny earned. We have forgotten our traditions.

 

[lynnvinc]

I for one believe that we have been very poor stewards of the world that God has given us. I am not a convinced believer in AGW…but I do my best to try to conserve…recycle and lower GHG emissions where I can.

One of the things I discovered about 2 years ago was that my gas company would do an energy audit of my house for free. After doing the audit they informed me that if I was willing to make one change…install a new exhaust fan in the bathroom…they would provide help. As it turned out they paid $1200 to have vents placed on my roof and blew in insulation that increased my attic to R39. They also provided me with CFL’s and spotlights. They installed an insulated box over my attic entrance. This only cost me $300. My budgeted gas bill went down from $130/mo to $95/mo. So it was a win win situation.

I also know that some electric companies will refund much of the cost for installing solar panels on a roof.

That’s really great. What state and gas co is that? There’s more we could do with our house, but I don’t think there is any help out there for us in Texas to make such changes. (If anyone knows, let me know.)

I was wondering why an energy co would actually try and get people to reduce consumption of their product. Maybe it’s because of the really high cost of building new coal and nuke plants, etc. I’m not sure if the costs are so high with new gas plants, though. Maybe there’s some economic incentive for them to get people to reduce so they don’t have to invest further, or maybe some gov rebates, tax-breaks, etc.

I was a bit upset to learn that there was a rebate or tax-break for a 240 volt charge stations for EVs in Dallas and Houston (I guess bec those places have high air pollution), but not for my town in the Rio Grande Valley. We probably eventually will get the 240 v station (costs about $1200 for station & hard-wire installation), though the savings probably would never pay the cost (it’s about relatively lower amps in the KWH equation…an electrician explained it to me); it would be more for convenience.

 

[lynnvinc]

The degree to which a person believes AGW is a threat or not a threat at all is going to directly correlate to how far someone is willing to go to mitigate it. If I thought the World was going to end in 50 years if we did not alter the course we are on, an energy cost 5 times higher than what we currently have would be completely justifiable and an acceptable response to mitigating global warming. Motivations definitely matter.

You’re probably right.

I’ve always been a fairly passive environmentalist since I was a kid in the 50s, but it was coming to realize in the late 80s and early 90s that AGW could be harming people that got me off the sofa and into action to mitigate – tho at the time the harms were not projected to be as great as they are now projected to be, with tipping points, if not the end of the world coming within perhaps a decade or so. I knew nothing of positive feedbacks then.

But actually it was more than that. I was in process of being called to Carmel and becoming a Carmelite (OCDS). That made me more open to my flaws and faults. I had known about AGW in the 80s, and had learned about the natural GH effect decades earlier, but had not done much about it.

Then early in 1990 I was reviewing a portion of a film I had shown several times become to my anthro students, “Is it Hot Enough for You?” – about AGW. A segment showed how the droughts in Africa (Sahel) may have been exacerbated by AGW even over the past several decades. I had remembered giving $20 to the famine victims in Biafra in the 70s, and it really struck me hard.

I contacted the scientists mentioned in the film and they sent me the article: Bradley, R. S., H. F. Diaz, J. K. Eischeid, P. D. Jones, P. M. Kelly, and C. M. Goodess. 1987. “Precipitation Fluctuations over Northern Hemisphere Land Areas Since the Mid-19th Century.” Science 237:171-175. At the end they wrote that if and when AGW was proven (which came later in 1995), it would help explain those droughts (and also floods in Europe).

I felt devastated to think I may have been contributing to those droughts. It was right around Ash Wednesday 1990. I spent my entire Lent in a state of deep remorse, sorrow, prayer and reflection, striving to find solutions, feeling I was like the Good Thief next to Christ – sorry, but unable to do anything about it, unable to extricate myself from structures of high GHG emissions. Then during Holy Week I realized I was not the Good Thief, but the Roman soldier pounding in the nails, except I knew what I was doing.

Earth Day that year (the 20th anniversary) came after Easter. We went to the celebration in the park, and I picked up lots of solutions lit. I watched TV, which had lots of enviro programs, and noted down lots of solutions. It was an innocent time, when there was not such a big anti-environmental backlash, and it was a good thing to be an environmentalist. All this helped me, and 22 years later I feel tremendously blessed for my painful and difficult journey. And bec my husband was not totally on board with me, I was forced to find only solutions that saved money or didn’t cost (or didn’t cost much at all), and that’s all very good, bec now I know thru experience that we can reduce GHGs by 30, 50, even 70% cost-effectively.

Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you. Alleluia, alleluia!

 

[BobCatholic]

The only way to ever make environmentalists happy is if we die.

Three environmentalists wrote a book advocating the extinction of 90% of the human race to save the environment.

 

[lynnvinc]

The only way to ever make environmentalists happy is if we die.

Three environmentalists wrote a book advocating the extinction of 90% of the human race to save the environment.

Like in INDEPENDENCE DAY?

I think there may be some such types of environmentalists – just as some religious fanatics would like to eradicate infidels, etc.

And that is all the more reason why moral, compassionate, and good Catholics should join environmental endeavors, so as to make the fringe anti-human environmentalists (you’d think they would have committed suicide by now) even a smaller proportion.

Now I know most environmentalists are just ordinary moms concerned about their children’s future. Too bad not too many men are environmentalists…guess they’re just concerned about Sat night’s date (if young) or 3rd quarter’s profits (if old).

One of the Catholic environmental stances I take is to question those environmentalists who are pro-abortion. I ask why would we kill children in order to save the world for the children. I doesn’t compute.

However, one of the glitches is this: while one cannot possibly be truly pro-life without also being an environmentalist; it is possible for environmentalists to be pro-abortion – they would like other people to have abortions so their own children can have better lives. This is the easy (and evil) way out of our problems. It is harder to strive and reduce one’s own environmental harms or help teach others how they can reduce their harms through loving persuasion and example, than just kill off a lot of other people (and fetuses) so as to reduce their environmental harms. I guess we all bear the mark of Cain…

We need more Catholics truly concerned about lives and souls standing with us Catholic environmentalists to gently persuade against such wrong thinking, and instill a genuine pro-life environmentalism.

 

[lynnvinc]

Rocky Mountain Institute recently asked for supportive comments on EVs, so I wrote this:

We’ve had our Chevy Volt for over 2 months and love it. I had to convince my husband it was a good investment, like our SunFrost frig we got in 1991, which paid for itself in 16 years from the difference in electricity costs over a reg frig, plus from the unexpected bonus of less veggie spoilage, and is now going on now to save us $100s.

My Excel spreadsheet came up with 7 years to pay for the difference btw the Volt and the Ford Taurus hubbie wanted (including the $7500 tax break we expect next year), and should go on to save us $$. Only bec we drive less than 6,000 miles a year it will take that long. And the rebate could go up to $10,000 cutting down that time - see huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/electric-car-rebate-obama-budget_n_1279852.html

Meanwhile in this mild weather in S. Texas (mainly 70s & 80s since Jan), using the AC only occasionally, we are getting about 42 miles per charge (6 miles more than I put on the spreadsheet), and 45 miles with the radio/screen off. The little green efficiency ball helps us “hypermile” with gentle starts and stops. We do expect to get less miles in the dead of summer when it gets to the 90s & 100s & we need the AC more.

Our electricity is 100% wind generated from GreenMountain, and the cost per 9.6 KWH full charge (42 miles) is $1.30. That’s 3 cents a Volt mile v. 20 cents a Taurus mile, tho I’m not too sure what the price of gas is now

The Volt is not for rich profligate people, but for money-conscience people who can’t afford to lose money, and for those who value life on planet earth.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s an article about a student who reduced her “carbon footprint” from 15.6 tons of CO2emissions to 2.7 tons per year: “Small steps greatly reduce carbon footprint” timesunion.com/opinion/article/Small-steps-greatly-reduce-carbon-footprint-3469768.php

One step she took was to reduce her meat-eating by 2/3s – which I’m thinking might also be a health benefit for her to come decades later during her “cholesterol years.”