Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Communities Take Initiative to Combat Climate Change

By Stephen Lacey, Staff Writer
April 9, 2007   |   6 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"This stuff just makes plain sense. I don't consider myself an environmentalist, I consider myself a realist."

-- Vivian Myers-Marowitz, Co-Chair, Concord Sustainable Energy Planning Committee
6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
April 9, 2007
Community Initiative

Feds now drag their weary feet,
While towns and cities good laws seat,
Legislate that savings reap,
For buildings with low power designs.

A carbon tax for excess users,
Or huge homes, energy abusers,
Pitkin County's not a looser,
Keeping fossil use in mind.

Environment's just not the case,
Our pocketbook must set the pace,
Security enters the race,,
Realistic is how we're defined.

Renewed sources integration,
Remove power segregation,
Mix and blend for installation,
Clean and carbon choice on line.

Structures for the future years,
Prevent power loss and fears,
Drawn by architecture peers,
Keep our buildings looking fine.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
2 of 6
April 10, 2007
Jim. I agree with you on some of your points. However, even if it is not for detectable change in climate, conservation of resources, protection against unnecessary burning of fuels and good design in future structures should be of help in the future.

I don't think the actions of men can do much right now to avoid global warming; we just have to prepare for its coming. But I do think that we have to do our best to gradually switch over to clean energy as we know that pollutants do affect our health and that fossils cannot and will not last much more than a century or two at the most with the present level of use.

Most scientists may not understand our sun to be the controlling factor in global warming.

I am not for banning trucks, buses or cars but for cleaning them by switching over to electric sources.

I think that Pitkin is trying to establish a different energy attitude for its citizens and not trying to "punish" them.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
3 of 6
April 10, 2007
" Communities Take Initiative to Combat Climate Change" What a Joke!

None of the actions listed above will make any detectable change climate change.

Once again the enviromentalism exists only with fraud and ignorance. Assuming Humans are cause of climate change, it will take enormous action to have an impact on a global scale.

For example, if the state of California banned every car and truck (over a million vehicles) that massive action would like yeild less than 1/100th of a degree change in tempeture over a 100 year period.

That is the scale of action need to have even the most minor impact.

The cities cited in this article have done nothing but punish their own people for not. Why are they lying? They are frauds.
Comment
4 of 6
April 11, 2007
Whether we can effect climate change or not isn't really the question. The energy crisis is the question. Do we want to go on paying $70/barrell for oil (when it should be $20) or do we want to be energy independent? The biggest thing we can do is to conserve energy. everything else pales in comparison. After that we need to electrify America - lights, heat, cooking, hot water, trains, even commuter cars. And we need to get that electricity from renewable sources, such as solar-thermal (not PV yet!), wind, geothermal, tide, etc. The sun and wind are not contollable by our enemies. Our future wealth and security depends on getting our energy locally - and not from taking land out of agriculture, and starving 3rd world nations.
Comment
5 of 6
April 11, 2007
Jim
There are over 20 million cars in CA. If they were taken off the road, GW emissions would be decreased by 1/2 of 1% (.005), which would equate to 2/10ths of a degree temperature change (assuming 4 degrees F).

I'm not advocating taking CA cars off the road, I just wanted to clarify your numbers.
Comment
6 of 6
April 12, 2007
I bet that 'realist' couldn't tell the cost of municipal fleet conversion to meet these goals.

I absolutely agree, that these are token measures at best, affecting global warming.

If anything, the money spent on fleet conversion would be better spent on reforestation to create carbon sinks.

The goal of become energy self-sufficient is a very conservative one; and worthy of working towards almost seperate from 'conquering' global warming through some draconic emission's reduction.

Carbon trading sucks!

Like indulgences and other artifacts of various religions; it only makes carbon traders like Al Gore richer; and allows liberal environmentalists to buy their way out out of their energy wasting lifestyles...'we know we have 4 SUVS but it's o.k. cause we buy green power'.

Hail Mary and al Gore!
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Blue Sky Energy, Inc. Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Renewables Academy AG (RENAC) SunMaxx Solar Rolls Battery Engineering Renewable Energy World Asia SolarTech Solar Leadership Summit 2012
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters