Dan Lashof's Blog
Old Think on Energy
July 18, 2008
Posted by Dan Lashof in Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming
And I mean old. A group of 27 old guys weighed in on energy earlier this week with “An open letter to the 44th President of the United States and the 111th U.S. Congress.” This old boys club (they are all men, mostly former defense and energy officials) was organized by something called the “Institute for 21st Century Energy” and is affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is anything but about smart energy policy for the 21st Century. Rather it is all about continuing the energy policies of the last century that got us into the mess we’re in.
The letter is titled “Securing America’s Energy Future” but it calls for a continuation of America’s failed energy policies of the past. It reads like the tired old pursue-every-energy-option energy non-policy policy we used to get out of the first Bush administration. There is something here for everyone, but fundamentally this is about more drilling, more digging, and more fissioning, dressed up with lip service for efficiency and renewables. Not very different from the current gang except that Bush II usually doesn’t even bother with the lip service.
Particularly telling is what they have to say about global warming. Rather than recognizing that responding to climate disruption requires an urgent all out effort to fundamentally change the way we produce and consume energy, as Al Gore did yesterday, this group calls simply for more research:
Invest in Climate Science to Guide Energy, Economic, and Environmental Policy
A deeper understanding of the issues and developing science associated with the environment and climate change will influence national and global energy, economic, and environmental policy choices. Balancing these priorities requires greater consideration of the complex processes driving climate change and increased attention to adaptation measures. We must increase our investment in climate science, which will enable us to adjust policies as scientific understanding advances. …
Blah, blah, blah…
This could have come straight from the talking points of either Bush administration. Not too surprising given that the signers include James Schlesinger, James Watkins, and Spencer Abraham, all former Secretaries of Energy. It's just disappointing that folks like Jim Woolsey, Colin Powell, and Mack McClarty signed on to this drivel. They know better, but I guess it’s hard to resist an appeal from the old boys club.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Dan Lashof
- Director, NRDC Climate Center
- Washington, D.C.
- I am the director of NRDC's climate center. My main focus is solutions to global...
- more→
Comments
Dan Troutman — Jul 21 2008 01:46 PM
Yeah, and if Congress doesn't get its act together and pass the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, they may as well consider themselves part of the "old boys club" too. (The stalled bill extends the production tax credit (PTC) for one year, extends the investment tax credit (ITC) for six years, and authorizes $2 billion for new clean renewable energy bonds to finance renewable energy facilities.) Without the 2 cents/kilowatt production tax credit, the pace of new wind turbine projects here in Texas is going to slow DRAMATICALLY (just like it did in the previous years when the production tax credit wasn't approved.)
The current production tax credit expires Dec. 31, 2008.
I'm surprised that NRDC isn't raising awareness on this issue - especially since it supports renewable wind energy. What's up?
Dr. James Singmaster — Jul 21 2008 07:14 PM
Mr. Lashof: I have sent various NRDC staff an e-mail on action concernig various crises, which have not gotten much attention there. However, P. Lehner on July 11 finally blogged on one crisis about drowning in waste, something I have pointed out in several e-mails to NRDC staff for over two years. I have stressed in recent e-mails that organic wastes are an unrecognized resource in the battle against global warming and pollution that can provide some energy and a supply of organic chemicals.
For some reason no one calling for emission controls recognizes that organic wastes biodegrade to needlessly reemit GHGs that nature had trapped in plant biochemicals. And everyone concerned about pollution causing global health problems seems unable to connect that pollution specifically to the ever expanding organic waste mess loaded with germs, toxics and drugs getting into water supplies across the globe. At the recent G-8 meeting lots of concern was shown for world health problems with some proposals shoved out; none of which called for getting some control of organic wastes.
In the last and previous e-mails to NRDC, I have outlined using pyrolysis to all but "cure" the waste pollution crisis as all germs, toxics and drugs will be destroyed in the heat of pyrolysis, while some charcoal is formed to be actually reducing the carbon dioxide overload. Pyrolysis will also expel a distillate of steam and organic chemicals, and that can be passed through a turbogenerator for electricity and then collected and refined to get chemicals useful in making drugs, cosmetics, disinfectants, etc. free of oil. The hot charcoal can be passed through a heat exchanger to get steam for electricity and could have sonme use in place of soft coal in iron ore smelting so that no new GHGs or mercury emissions occur. By using pyrolysis on them, organic wastes might actually make money.
Yes some energy, perhaps from a fossil fuel, might have to be used giving off some carbon dioxide, but hydrogen as I pointed out in last e-mail may soon be able to fire the pyrolysis.
But that is small price to pay for destroying the germs, toxics and drugs in the never-ending wastes that are making a mess of world water and causing expanding global health problems.
Old think on global warming being controlled by just cutting emissions and even Gore's new proposal for electric energy to come from non-carbon sources still will do nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide overload already in the atmosphere. We have to take advantage of nature's trapping system of plant biochemicals that passed on to organic wastes by using pyrolysis to charcoal, essentailly remaking coal, that can buried easily or used for substituting fresh coal. The old think updating of trapping that gas from burning fuels and from fermentation of biofuel crops has a numerous reports of not being very effective, so let's get going with pyrolysis.
Dr. J. Singmaster, Fremont, CA
Dr. James Singmaster — Jul 21 2008 07:14 PM
Mr. Lashof: I have sent various NRDC staff an e-mail on action concernig various crises, which have not gotten much attention there. However, P. Lehner on July 11 finally blogged on one crisis about drowning in waste, something I have pointed out in several e-mails to NRDC staff for over two years. I have stressed in recent e-mails that organic wastes are an unrecognized resource in the battle against global warming and pollution that can provide some energy and a supply of organic chemicals.
For some reason no one calling for emission controls recognizes that organic wastes biodegrade to needlessly reemit GHGs that nature had trapped in plant biochemicals. And everyone concerned about pollution causing global health problems seems unable to connect that pollution specifically to the ever expanding organic waste mess loaded with germs, toxics and drugs getting into water supplies across the globe. At the recent G-8 meeting lots of concern was shown for world health problems with some proposals shoved out; none of which called for getting some control of organic wastes.
In the last and previous e-mails to NRDC, I have outlined using pyrolysis to all but "cure" the waste pollution crisis as all germs, toxics and drugs will be destroyed in the heat of pyrolysis, while some charcoal is formed to be actually reducing the carbon dioxide overload. Pyrolysis will also expel a distillate of steam and organic chemicals, and that can be passed through a turbogenerator for electricity and then collected and refined to get chemicals useful in making drugs, cosmetics, disinfectants, etc. free of oil. The hot charcoal can be passed through a heat exchanger to get steam for electricity and could have sonme use in place of soft coal in iron ore smelting so that no new GHGs or mercury emissions occur. By using pyrolysis on them, organic wastes might actually make money.
Yes some energy, perhaps from a fossil fuel, might have to be used giving off some carbon dioxide, but hydrogen as I pointed out in last e-mail may soon be able to fire the pyrolysis.
But that is small price to pay for destroying the germs, toxics and drugs in the never-ending wastes that are making a mess of world water and causing expanding global health problems.
Old think on global warming being controlled by just cutting emissions and even Gore's new proposal for electric energy to come from non-carbon sources still will do nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide overload already in the atmosphere. We have to take advantage of nature's trapping system of plant biochemicals that passed on to organic wastes by using pyrolysis to charcoal, essentailly remaking coal, that can buried easily or used for substituting fresh coal. The old think updating of trapping that gas from burning fuels and from fermentation of biofuel crops has a numerous reports of not being very effective, so let's get going with pyrolysis.
Dr. J. Singmaster, Fremont, CA