If climate change is an urgent problem, as almost all scientists and a majority of the public believe it is, policy-makers need to push solutions that can be implemented quickly.
I would say that it is true, better policy needs to be implemented . So we must use facts. Where is the real problem ? And where do the changes need to be made? My wife and I recently installed solar to offset our electric bill. It sits innocuously on top of an existing building and we offset 2 tons of carbon per month. Conversely, in a ridiculous money grab, 12 acres of prime farmland was given a land use exemption directly next to our property. 12 acres of farmland that will never be reclaimed. The weeds grow, the sun tracking panels seldom track, in fact often face away from the sun. THIS is what happens when government screws with policies. So where is the real problem? Government. And where do the changes need to be made? Foreign countries that polluting in far greater rates than we do. Yes humans by merely existing change the planet, but chasing small gains by following politicians seeking power will never solve pollution issues.
Up to a point I agree with your critique. I share your instinct to distrust government. The list of mismanaged programs is long, which is one reason I favor incentives over regulations - though those can be mismanaged, too, and green energy programs are among those that have been problematic. However, it's not realistic to think enough people independently will make the right decision to make a difference. And there are some legitimate cost and infrastructure issues related to a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. I don't see anyway to address climate change without significant government involvement.
To me the way forward is education. If you give people the tools to make informed choices on their energy footprint without layering on guilt you can cause the shift. But I also believe in stiff surcharges for those who wish to exploit energy usage. You want to drive a Chevy Suburban ? No problem you are going to pay
We have a large solar array on our three-acre homesite which takes up about 800 square feet and is well placed to maximize its electrical generation (not possible on our shaded roof) and cover all of our usage with much left over for future EVs. So I think there is great potential for ground-based solar that can have minimal impact on the preservation of high-value farmland. Oregon's open spaces, especially east of the Cascades, are an asset for solar development that is not receiving the attention -- and incentives -- it deserves.
Well stated, Mark. See my comment below. BTW, I've been digging into the EV conversion issue and except to be writing more about it soon.
I would say that it is true, better policy needs to be implemented . So we must use facts. Where is the real problem ? And where do the changes need to be made? My wife and I recently installed solar to offset our electric bill. It sits innocuously on top of an existing building and we offset 2 tons of carbon per month. Conversely, in a ridiculous money grab, 12 acres of prime farmland was given a land use exemption directly next to our property. 12 acres of farmland that will never be reclaimed. The weeds grow, the sun tracking panels seldom track, in fact often face away from the sun. THIS is what happens when government screws with policies. So where is the real problem? Government. And where do the changes need to be made? Foreign countries that polluting in far greater rates than we do. Yes humans by merely existing change the planet, but chasing small gains by following politicians seeking power will never solve pollution issues.
Up to a point I agree with your critique. I share your instinct to distrust government. The list of mismanaged programs is long, which is one reason I favor incentives over regulations - though those can be mismanaged, too, and green energy programs are among those that have been problematic. However, it's not realistic to think enough people independently will make the right decision to make a difference. And there are some legitimate cost and infrastructure issues related to a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. I don't see anyway to address climate change without significant government involvement.
To me the way forward is education. If you give people the tools to make informed choices on their energy footprint without layering on guilt you can cause the shift. But I also believe in stiff surcharges for those who wish to exploit energy usage. You want to drive a Chevy Suburban ? No problem you are going to pay
We have a large solar array on our three-acre homesite which takes up about 800 square feet and is well placed to maximize its electrical generation (not possible on our shaded roof) and cover all of our usage with much left over for future EVs. So I think there is great potential for ground-based solar that can have minimal impact on the preservation of high-value farmland. Oregon's open spaces, especially east of the Cascades, are an asset for solar development that is not receiving the attention -- and incentives -- it deserves.