Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Climate Change: The Power Game Still Lies Ahead!

By Stefan Schurig, World Future Council
January 20, 2009   |   17 Comments
Germany is famous for its successful renewable energy policy, but the major system change that is required for a sustainable world is still to come.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

17 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 17
January 20, 2009
14 percent of the electricity? That's incredible. What percentage of the electricity production capacity is in the renewable sector?

From here it looks as if token amounts of renewable energy and increasing amounts of fossil fuel energy go hand in hand. The people pay heavy taxes on the fossil fuels, and a little of this revenue is spent on renewables.


--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/
Comment
2 of 17
January 20, 2009
Renewable Energy is Happening. There is no stopping it now. It is bigger than the biggest tsunami.

History is Happening. Now !!!

http://www.growingaloha.com
Comment
3 of 17
January 21, 2009
While I admire Stefan's writing, I have to take issue with the UN's gushings on climate change. Climate change, once referred to as global warming, is not.
It is not caused by man. And it cannot be economically controlled by man.

Every solution the climate change alarmists propose will actually make the common man poorer, because he eventually has to pay for it, and makes the climate change alarmists and their puppet masters richer.

One clear example of this is the proposal to levy a tax on cows in the US.
The reason this is considered necessary by the climate change alarmists
is that cows produce CO2. That tax is huge, often over 14% of the gross return on that cow per year. Besides driving the milk and meat cow business into bankruptcy, it ignores the facts that the cow replaced the American bison and when the cows are gone, termites and other detritus feeders will be making CO2 in the same spot.

It also ignores the fact that as our human population zooms from 6 to 9 billion that the economic and ecological systems that support us will collapse long before global warming does us in. For example, more people will die of the complications of water supply in the next 20 years than will die of climate change.

We need to tie renewable energy to clean water supply, fellows.
Comment
4 of 17
January 21, 2009
One has to feel sorry for Mr. Schurig who believes the sea is rising because sand is washing away from a beach. How sad is that?
Geologists know if the sea is rising, and if it is it's tough to measure. Global spin rates help indirectly to determine rise, but doesn't show much, if any. Certainly it's not rising in the Pacific Islands, despite computer model predictions.
That's another thing, we need to shelve the computer models that are all wrong, and get down to basic science. Even the science Editor of the Economist (a believer in CO2 claptrap) noted in his end of year comments that the computer models don't square with the slower temperature rise as really measured, and that that was a serious issue for the models. Global warming has nothing to do with CO2, it's solar driven, and that has been known for many years.
I also don't think politicians in the U.S. will pass CO2 credits or cap and trade unless they want to see a Boston Tea Party kind of politics arise, and I don't think they want to see that in these hard times. Consumers have had it. The best thing would be to concentrate on energy efficiency (which is what the Congress will do) and pollution abatement; that's a full plate of work. And editors of this and similar publicatiionsa should do the same and stop printing such claptrap, it insults our intelligence.
Comment
5 of 17
January 21, 2009
I invite Mr. Shurig to stand on Maine's rocky shores, and examine the worn granite high on the shore and think about an era when the oceans where perhaps a 100' higher than they are now...and when CO2 was lower.

I also invite him to examine the lighthouse records kept by the Maine Geological service that reveal a slow steady rise of only 1.8 mm/yr starting with record keeping in 1912; and plateaued in the 1970's and showing no acceleration correlating with CO2 increases. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cz/2007/Coastal_Zone_07_Proceedings/PDFs/Thursday_Abstracts/3225.Slovinsky.pdf **see graph on pp. 2.

As I look out at nearly 3' of snow and a temp gauge registering 7.7 F; I envy this author and his concerns about the Maldives and Tobago's beach front resorts; and invite him to come to Maine this weekend when we will hit (-) 12 on Sat., and (-) 15 on Sunday; and probably break the avg. snowfall amounts next week.....all ample evidence N. Maine and Eastern Canada aren't warming, but cooling! Russian scientists are right about solar activity and cooling/warming cycles.

It's time to end the G.W. propaganda unless you want to shovel snow first, then, by all means, use my front yard and leave the fossil fuel guzzling 8hp. ARIEN's snow blower alone!
Comment
6 of 17
January 21, 2009
1.8 mm x 0.0393700787in. = 0.07086614166 inches x 100 years = 7.086614166 inches....hmmmm. and don't forget this has plateaued since the seventies!

Forget those dire predictions; and deal with facts, please!
Comment
7 of 17
January 21, 2009
Whether or not someone believes that global warming is a man made crisis or not, no one can argue that an energy strategy based on the continued reliance on and depletion of fossil fuels alone is a "head in the sand" strategy, placing both current societies and future generations at risk. At worst, continued development of fossil fuel based energy sources should only be allowed with an equal (at least) and ever-increasing investment in renewable sources. If measuring carbon emissions has value as a tool to achieve that, then lets use it.
We should not, however, lose focus on the priority to agressively address the need for renewables by thinking that burying our carbon emissions in the ground is a solution for the long term problem.
Comment
8 of 17
January 21, 2009
Jim Tanners comment on denying the greenhouse effect is totally irrelevant:
The breakdown of the world economy upon depletion of fossil fuels in the absence of sufficient renewable energy will cause an economic catastrophe that will dwarfe the current downturn.
Since coal will be the longest lasting and dirtiest energy source, depleting our soils of trace nutrients through acid rain and killing vegetation, we have to come clean the sooner the better. Subsidies for fossil fuels are payed by the tax payers and should be switched to renewables to make them more affordable.
Northamericans have the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint by 73% at a profit according to the Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook.
Cows by the way are famous for releasing methane , not CO2.
Instead of wailing over the high cost of vanishing fossil fuels Mr. Tanner
could spend the money on energy efficiency measures to replace utilities at a decent payback.
The recent cold wave causes Frank Heller to doubt the greenhouse effect.
This is quite natural if one does not know about the dual greenhouse effect
that causes both positive and negative feed-backs.
The inrush of cold air from the north in our hemisphere occurs after a period
of high temperatures that causes the hot air to rise and to pull in cold air to replace it, penetrating further south as the greenhouse effect increases.
Increased snowfalls can also be explained by more evaporation from warming oceans that also contribute to negative feedback.
What Germany needs is a red -green coalition to get on track to a prosperous future.
Comment
9 of 17
January 22, 2009
Ignoring reality will not make it go away. The effects of global warming are observable in the arctic and antactic regions, especially as measured by the diminishing ice caps on Greenland and around the South Pole. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to deny what is scientifically irrefutable.
Comment
10 of 17
January 22, 2009
A profound mixture of fact and myth. Thank you M Stoyke, methane is a cow problem not CO2; methane a far more powerful greenhouse gas. "global warming has nothing to do with CO2, it is solar driven". Of course it is solar driven. However CO2 has a significant knock-on effect which is why it is called a 'greenhouse gas'. It is like putting a blanket over you at night to keep warm. The blanket is getting thicker and thicker at an alarming rate causing more solar generated energy to be blocked in our atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively stable for 10 000 years until the start of the industrial revolution; around 280ppm(parts per million). Today it is at about 387ppm and growing fast. The first 50ppm took about 200 years to be added to the atmosphere until about 1973. The last 50ppm was added in the last 30 years. All projections point to 550ppm in the coming decades if we continue with business as usual with corresponding global temperature rises estimated to over 6°. Another rapid CO2 increase in the planets history destroyed the dinosaurs and 80% of the planets biodiversity at the time. Global energy demand is expected to grow 1.3% per year until 2030 underpinned by economic and population growth. We are going from a crowded 6 billion population to a much more crowded 9 billion at the same time that developing countries are increasing their energy needs as they pull their citizens out of energy poverty. The population increase will stress all parts of our fragile system despite global warming concerns. We are destroying bio diverse rainforests to produce ethanol, food will be scarce, water will be a source of international disputes very soon. Stress is in our oceans; a huge carbon sink which to some scientists have absorbed 1/3 of the industrial age anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Stress after stress that is known requires as responsible citizens that we attack the problem.
Comment
11 of 17
January 22, 2009
Response continued...
I am very disappointed to see some of the comments that business as usual is just fine. Particularly after I thought there was some hope following Obamas inaugural discussion of providing a sustainable future for the generations that are to follow us. I hope his well of 'hope' is deep as looking at some of the comments, he has a lot of work to do.
As to the argument that tackling climate change will only cost money with no benefits, look at most corporations annual reports that have embraced corporate social responsibility principals and see how many millions they have saved by embracing climate change as an opportunity rather than just a regulatory requirement. Particular mention to WalMart who has made significant strides in reducing packaging and other supply chain problems to provide products with lower cost packaging and transportation costs among other things. However, if nothing is done, as Nicholas Stern points out in his Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of global GDP each year. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of GDP or more." California has managed to grow considerably over the last 30 years and unlike the rest of the US managed to do it without significant increases in their CO2 emissions. Bravo!! It's not a question of paying now, the economic returns exist today. It is a question as to how much you want to charge today's lifestyle on our childrens credit cards.
No one answer and lots of stresses on our planet over the coming years. Recognition and responsible reaction are required.
Comment
12 of 17
January 23, 2009
Well said Andrew. Even for those who believe climate change has nothing to do with humanity's presense, whether its the big oil/big coal crowd, the nuclear industry's lobbiests, or some other sector, there is one thing we can agree on....getting across the energy independence event horizon ASAP will be a tremendously good thing. This being towards our mutual survival in the future when resources can and will become finite, when nation states are more prone to go to war. Not to mention that in this day and age, weapons of mass destruction are continuing to proliferate (if not nuclear, than biological, etc.) which endangers the situation. In the meantime, reliance on other's fossil fuels/energies pumps up economies of nation states that tend to have a lot of friction with U.S. and E.U. which then get fed into their militaries. Another thought is that even if you don't think humanity has anything to do with the current climate change, these technologies involved in renewable energy as well as others will go a long way in stabilizing our environment/atmosphere (something that will threaten humanity if not now, then later). We need to have enough infrastructure in place, that no matter the reason for the climate change, we can modify it since the Earth's history shows (for the majority of its existance) that big climate shifts can/and do occur to unsuspecting populations (which then moves them to the edge of survival over competition for food, water, etc. or into extinction). Call this move an insurance policy if not for you, then for your children, or for your children's children. Even if you believe all of this is an illusion spun up by your opponents, consider it being a jump start for failing economies around the world if nothing else. Some of these technologies will inevitably lead to cheaper, more efficient, and sustainable solutions than those currently provided by fossil fuels or nuclear power. Competition is healthy, monopolies on power are not.
Comment
13 of 17
January 23, 2009
I just checked NASA OBSERVATORY's sat. photo of the Arctic ice caps...and they are bigger than mean in some areas and smaller in others, overall it looks like they are staying the same.

I do wish that people who post Global Warming propaganda on here would check the facts, as the commenter did by using Maine tide data to demonstrate only a 7" increase in the next 100 years! Repeating media driven hysteria is plain stupid!
Comment
14 of 17
January 23, 2009
Last but not least (if you liked my piece above), go to http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ and enter into the search engine, "It is extremely important to get" which will lead you to a title of an article I wrote called, "Energy Independence and Clean Energy" (you can't do the search in reverse due to the poor design of the site). My hope is that this venue for input about energy topics going to the Obama Administration will not be a 'one-time deal', but instead lead to something that exists in an ongoing fashion. It would likely encourage a lot more citizens getting involved in government than currently do (which is a good thing)(the more conduits, the better). The article talks about three not well known energy technologies that I spied on Science Daily that are cheap and implementable (citations given) AND no I don't have any investments in these or know of anyone connected to them. I brought them to the attention in the article because the media and the powers that be just don't give them the time of day (and they could/should be game changers in my opinion). The site also will not allow any more up or down voting or any comments to be left since the Citizens Briefing Book has already been reviewed and given to the President.
Comment
15 of 17
January 23, 2009
I also checked HANSEN"s NASA global weather map.

Some curious anomalies! like Why is most of RUSSIA in bright red indicating that Siberia is the hottest place on earth? and N. Europe right behind it?

Russian scientists and european weather observers would disagree

Could it be than Hansen has used unverifiable data to tilt the map his way?
Comment
16 of 17
January 24, 2009
#17
I too checked NASA's 2008 temperature anomaly map. The "bright red" indicates that Siberia and N. Europe have the highest positive deviation from average; not the highest absolute temperatures. Global warming may be an alleged hoax but global entropy changes are real and only go in one direction. Unless, of course, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also suspect.
Comment
17 of 17
January 24, 2009
#15 You certainly are correct with your comment

"I do wish that people who post Global Warming propaganda on here would check the facts,"
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

Solmetric Corporation REC Solar Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Trojan Battery Company DNV groSolar Rolls Battery Engineering
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