Thursday, June 22, 2006

Switching Off Coal

Writing in the New York Times, William Grimes has mostly good things to say about reporter, Jeff Goodell's new book-length expose, Big Coal, which strives to make visible the considerable but largely hidden costs of our dependence on the stuff. In case you didn't know it, we Americans get more energy from coal than any other source. Goodell, it seems, argues persuasively that that will have to change. Where he falters, at least according to Grimes, is in the "how" department. Writes Grimes:
Are Americans willing to pay 20 to 25 percent more to turn on a light or cool their homes? Here the hardheaded Mr. Goodell goes a little soft. Essentially, he is asking average consumers to dig deeper and pay more now for vaguely perceived future benefits. Present pain for future gain does not usually add up to a winning political selling point, so to get it across, Mr. Goodell makes wild promises. A total commitment to clean energy could, he argues, "unleash a jobs bonanza that would make what happened in Silicon Valley in the 1990's look like a bake sale." How this will come about remains a little mysterious. It just will.
Having not read the book, I can't say whether Grimes is being fair in that assessment. But, it's worth noting that the smart money is increasingly betting on Greentech and alternative energy to be, if you will, the Next Big Thing. Having seen the writing on the wall, many major industries are now beginning to plan for a carbon-constrained future. So, I suspect Goodell is right when he compares what's coming to the Internet boom, only bigger. Energy makes the world go round, after all, and whoever comes up with the solutions to our current energy and warming woes, stands to rule the future.

I'm curious. What do other folks think? Will alternative energy be the Next Big Thing?
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real problem with coal is that China has vast quantities. As someone said somewhere, if they burn their coal, we're cooked.

It was never a good excuse for not ratifying Kyoto, but China too needs to be held to some binding treaty on carbon emmissions. And we need to help them find alternatives.

How can there not be money in it?

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, no one could figure out how anybody was gonna make money off the Internet and look how that turned out. With greentech, the profit potential is obvious.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we shouldn't forget that the Internet was publicly subsidized. why not do the same for the green revolution as well? even putting global warming aside, burning more coal is just a bad deal. and oil will soon run out. So, something has to happen. the question is who's going to make it happen and when? one thing this revolution doesn't have is the same low barriers to entry. anyone could profit off the internet, but not so energy. just my two bits.

12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your totally kidding yourselves!!! Its going to bankrupet our economy idiots!

12:24 PM  
Blogger pat joseph said...

Re: above. This little bit of history is worth remembering. Thanks to "Driving the Future" for the following info:

Former General Motors Vice President Ernest S. Starkman claimed, "If GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across-the-board on 1975 models, the prospect of an unreasonable risk of business catastrophe and massive difficulties with these vehicles must be faced. It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to the company, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and communities. Short of that ultimate risk, there is a distinct possibility of varying degrees of interruption, with sizeable dislocations."

Ford claimed in testimony that if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it would cause Ford to shut down and would result in: 1) reduction of gross national product by $17 billion; 2) increased unemployment of 800,000; and 3) decreased tax receipts of $5 billion at all levels of government so that some local governments would become insolvent.

Both companies are still in business and car companies claim credit for reducing automobile emissions by 96 percent since the 1960s.

12:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Compass Main