a little friendly competition

for years, renewable energy advocates in the u.s. have been calling for a renewable electricity standard (res), or a federal mandate to fulfill a specified percentage of the country’s total energy requirements with renewable energy by a certain year. res legislation has yet to pass in the u.s. congress, but these are the kinds of specific goals we need in order to make a significant dent in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and prevent further climate change.

the international kyoto protocol does contain specific goals and numbers — the 37 participating industrialized nations and the european community have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by an annual average of 5% over the period from 2008-2012. the u.s., however, failed to ratify the protocol under the george w. bush administration, rationalizing that if china — although still, technically, a developing nation, did not sign it, then it should not have to, either.

yes, china is the biggest polluter on the planet. however, the u.s. is number two. but is this really how we want to play? the united states became a world superpower by leading by example. why not use the same strategy in the 21st century? china is quickly establishing itself as a leader in renewable energy. the country is already home to solar energy giants such as suntech and yingli and, thanks to the government’s commitment to clean energy, is also set to increase its wind energy production five-fold over the next 10 years.

the united states is a capitalist country — we are motivated by competition. if we really want to establish ourselves in the world economy and maintain our position at — or at least near — the top in innovation and leadership, it’s time to step it up.

partisanship has obviously been a major hindrance to accomplishing any kind of climate-change reform. but if we cannot agree on policy, can we at least agree on a little healthy competition? this is a country based on capitalism and free markets, right? i think even our stubborn and often-narrow-minded congress would agree that we, as a country, should strive to be number one.

when it comes to climate change, is it possible that instead of failing to come to an agreement, that we actually encourage a little competition? could it be a more productive strategy in the long run?

it sounds condescending to our leaders, and definitely overly simplistic, but i propose a plan: let’s make it a competition: can we beat china? what about the eu? instead of playing the childish game of “he’s not; why do i have to?” let’s make it, “oh yeah? look what i can do!” i don’t know of any political representative — of any party — who can’t agree on that mantra.

we can produce all our liquid fuel needs using algae farms and even better more efficient artifical green leave nanotechnology. we would have to develop innovative ways to disperse the removed ocean saline in environmental sound ways. by doing this, we would increase jobs/water/power/fuel, with resultant improvement of us trade balances, increase in tax revenues, strengthing of us dollar and lower global atmospheric co2. we could include into the system devices that trap atmospheric co2 to improve the efficiencies of the system. we could input vast us resources of wind power into this system. who knows, if we can build the system big enough, we could refill depleted underground water reservoirs with excess produced desalinated water and refill depleted oil wells with excess produced oil. once we perfect these upscale models of the system, we export the technology in global areas that have water shortages, like the middle east, africa, asia and australia (some parts of australia). this would lower chances for regional conflicts in these areas.
i think of the sahara desert which stradles the equator. due to desertation the sahara desert is now bigger than the continential us. the only thing the sun power is doing there is baking rock and sand. the potiential of this energy resource is almost unlimited. yet millions of people that live in this region struggle to survive. we can and should do better than this.
the only way to heal the planet is to direct the sun’s power to heal it. after all, all the power we have on this planet comes directly or indirectly from sun power. we just need to plug into it.

80% cuts in u.s. emissions will have only a tiny benefit. the bulk of our effort is best directed at helping the emerging economies conserve energy and move rapidly toward efficient solar, wind and nuclear power. developing cheap carbon capture and sequestration is also a priority. above all, we need to recognize that make-the-west-bear-the-burden copenhagen proposals are meaningless and completely ineffective.

professor richard muller of uc berkeley has prepared an important analysis that should be brought to the awareness of decision makers. information regarding how crucial the new developing economies in asia are to averting climate catastrophe has been compiled into an article by professor muller which can be found at:

http://www.mullerandassociates.com/nakedcopenhagendetail.php