Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Educating the public

Expand Messages
  • pketchand@hotmail.com
    On a side note: Pickups and SUV s do have an Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) Standards; they, however, are classified as work trucks which means that
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 23, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On a side note: Pickups and SUV's do have an Corporate Average Fuel
      Efficiency (CAFE) Standards; they, however, are classified as work
      trucks which means that they have a muck lower overall average as a
      class. This dates from a time when these types of vehicles were
      primarily used on farms and ranches and fields where their four-wheel
      drives and large engines were put to their proper use, a situation
      that is obviously no longer the case. It is interesting to note that
      Chrysler tried to have its PT Cruiser (which gets relatively good
      mileage) classified as a truck to maintain its CAFÉ in the wake of
      releasing some super low gas mileage vehicles.

      I have been following the back and forth on what should actually be
      done to deal with the huge issues that face a community interested in
      changing the way that the people generate, access, and use energy.

      Some of the issues that I see:

      One – there is the problem of engaging and motivating the average
      energy consumer. These people may have a nagging sense somewhere in
      the back of their mind that our current energy situation is headed
      for disaster – but they are not about to do anything major in their
      lives to do anything about it. They have don't have the time, the
      inclination, or the money to effect any sort of serious changes.
      There are ways to engage this class of energy consumer. Given easy
      access to recycling, a large majority of people will make the effort;
      people will do little things. One way to introduce people to PV is
      through Solar Powered Radios and Battery Chargers – these are not
      expensive or labor intensive – but they work well and illustrate the
      principle. Along with the new Sub-CFL's, I see these types of things
      as way into the consciousness of the world at large. They are easy
      to explain and have an obvious, immediate usefulness that dire
      predictions and overall policy issues to not. The challenge is
      getting the word out. We must intrude upon the general public
      consciousness.

      Two – however, there are big policy issues that need to me addressed
      by the percentage of people that are not average energy consumers.
      There are issues of developing more cost efficient renewable energy,
      and effecting change in the way that energy is generated and used.
      In these arenas, not only must proponents get the word out, but they
      must change habits and basic beliefs and values, which respectively
      is hard, harder, and hardest. Somehow, people must caused not to
      burn so much energy, and at the same time remove a concept which has
      become a central tenant of life in the Western World: that people are
      entitled to unlimited and cheap energy. (California illustrates the
      difficulties inherent in such a change. The state is suffering
      rolling blackouts and facing the possibility of even longer power
      outages, yet neither the idea of serious energy conservation nor
      serious price increases have seemed to make inroads as plausible
      solutions. Though is looks as if the price increase will have to
      happen.) It is a change that will require a cohesive vision and
      action.

      Three – the government, that powerful force for the status quo, can
      develop into a force for change, albeit slowly, and without
      threatening major energy concerns in the short terms. Developing
      regulations for the construction of new homes and the remodeling of
      old ones – involving insulating regulations, some architectural
      requirements, power efficiency requirements, can dramatically
      decrease energy consumption over the long term – without threatening
      any major industry – and, in fact, assisting others. All of this
      accomplished with government subsidized capital so beneficially
      employed to create the current city infrastructure.

      Four – we must continue to support and develop new technologies until
      they become viable. Eventually, one will break through and be
      environmentally and economically viable and reliable. Viva la
      revolution!

      Given my four observations:

      It would be advisable to develop two brochure-esque documents. One
      would be for the average energy consumer – outlining the basics of RE
      and conservation, and some easy/inexpensive ways to get involved. The
      second would outline a more broad political and ideological vision
      with a plan for affection overall change.


      Peter Ketchand
      pketchand@...
      Being involved in desktop layout and graphic design – I would be glad
      to help develop any HREG material.


      --- In hreg@egroups.com, ChasMauch@a... wrote:
      > I agree that we need to educate the public about a lot of things,
      some of
      > which seem unrelated, but I don't think we can talk about renewable
      energy
      > without considering the overall energy picture, such things as:
      >
      > 1. Our tax system needs to be revised so that rather than
      subsidizing fossil
      > fuels we give people incentives to insulate their houses and office
      > buildings, drive more fuel efficient cars, use mass transit, etc.
      We give tax
      > incentives to homeowners in the form of interest payment deductions
      to
      > encourage the "American Dream" of owning our own house in the
      suburbs, but is
      > this a good idea? It is really a subsidy to the building industry,
      and
      > promotes urban sprawl and long-distance commuting. We also promote
      large
      > familys by giving a deduction for every dependent, no matter how
      many. This
      > may have made sense when we were a rural nation and needed lots of
      extra farm
      > hands, but now we are primarily urban; do we still need to
      subsidize
      > population growth? More people = more consumption and pollution.
      >
      > 2. Why do the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards
      applied to
      > GM, Ford, etc (which were supposed to be increasing but in fact
      have not for
      > the past 8 years under Clinton) not count trucks, pickups, and
      SUVs, the very
      > vehicles that get the worst mileage?
      >
      > 3. It may not yet be efficient for each of us to power our homes
      with solar
      > cells or fuel cells but we need to require the commercial power
      suppliers to
      > build more wind powered installations. They have made a start in
      this
      > direction but it will be many years before it becomes a serious
      source of
      > energy as the law is now written. We need to find out which
      legislators
      > sponsored this law and work with them and encourage them to do more.
      >
      > 4. Most people do not begin to realize all the hidden costs we pay
      for our
      > addiction to oil. Fighting wars in the Middle East to protect "our"
      oil
      > reserves, environmental damage, health effects for everyone,
      various tax
      > "incentives" to the oil companies - if all these costs were rolled
      into the
      > price we pay at the pump rather than being hidden, we would find
      that we pay
      > between $5 and $15 per gallon for gasoline - but most of it is
      hidden. There
      > have been detailed studies done on this, and I can provide website
      addresses
      > for anyone who is interested.
      >
      > All these factors and many more are part of the overall picture -
      its not
      > just solar cells. We need to think more about how to see the whole
      forest
      > rather than just the trees and try to generate an overall approach
      to the
      > energy problem. It's a big job and there are lots of powerful
      interests who
      > make big political contributions to make sure that we don't deal
      with it in
      > any meaningful way. Both major political parties are deeply
      indebted to these
      > interests, and the incoming administration is very much so.
      >
      > We really have our work cut out for us, but I think it would be
      valuable to
      > try to devise an "Energy Policy for the 21st Century" that included
      these
      > things and whatever else we can come up with, then boil it down to
      a position
      > paper - as short and concise as possible, which we would try to
      spread far
      > and wide. Any energy policy generated by either major party will
      assume
      > continuously increasing energy demand using primarily oil, coal,
      and nuclear,
      > but will have little mention of conservation or renewables. I'm
      sure much has
      > been done on this, and maybe the entire thing - someone somewhere
      may have
      > already worked up such a plan, and we just need to research it and
      find the
      > right statement. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
      >
      > Charlie Mauch
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.