Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)

A lot too much IMHO. Our efficiency standards leave a lot to be desired.

Mark
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Haskell [hhaskell@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:35 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)

At 11:30 -0400 04/08/2009, Rick Tarara wrote:
Yes, we can use less energy--but I repeat that reducing by more than 25% is
tough. As a country of 300+ million people, stretching 3000 miles coast to
coast and 1000 miles border to border, with (still) the biggest economy in
the world and a 21st century technology, the U.S. does not do all that bad.
The problem is really not that the U.S. uses too much energy (OK, a little
too much), it is that the rest of the world uses too little to provide a
21st century living standard to their people. The comparison to be made is
between the developed world and the 'third world'--average out the
variations for population, area, population density, percentage of 'home
grown' economy versus imported resources and then do your comparisons.
Spare us, please, from the 5%--25% mantra. It really is not useful.

No one (with any sense, that is) is arguing that we must reduce our
energy use to that of Bangladesh, or something like that. In fact, I
want those developing nations to be able to use more energy to
improve the lives of their populations, but if they do it the way we
and most of Europe have been doing it for the past 100 years, it will
spell real disaster for the world. It is crucial that the development
in the third world be done more sensibly (*much* more sensibly) than
we did it, but unless we lead the way, they will not "do as we say,
not as we do," even though that would be a suicidal decision.

But despite the fact that we are no longer the world's leading CO2
emitter (China passed us in 2007), we are still by far the largest
per capita CO2 emitter, by a factor of about 4 compared to the rest
of the world. but this is exactly why we must reduce our CO2
emissions by more than most anyone else, and in the process, the
poorest nations will inevitably increase their CO2 emissions, because
they are now emitting far below the world average, while we are
emitting far above it. If every nation brought their per capita GHG
emissions to the current world average, most countries would be able
to increase theirs, while we would have to reduce ours by around 85%,
and that would just keep us at the current rate of emissions, which
is commonly accepted by the scientific community to be well above a
sustainable level. What is ultimately needed is for the entire world
to bring its CO2 emission to zero, but still increasing the per
capita energy use to something approximating what is used in the EU
today.

Rick is right that the extent of our country will probably result in
higher per capita energy use than most other nations (Russia, Brazil,
India, Canada, Australia and China all have similar geographic
spreads that will make it necessary to use more energy than average
to maintain an acceptable life-style). But it is not energy use, per
se, that is the issue. It is CO2 emissions, and we are pushing to
move to renewable energy sources ASAP so that we can maintain our
lifestyle while we cut our contribution to the atmospheric GHG load.

We do use too much energy. And reducing our energy consumption by 50%
is not impossible. California manages to do quite nicely using less
than 2/3 of the national per capita average (even less if you figure
the national average without including California). Most of that will
come from the building and housing sector, with less from the
electricity sector and transportation, but the savings are there, we
only need to develop the political and social will to do it. The
5%-25% comparisons merely illustrate how over the top our energy use
is. Ideally, with 5% of the population, we should us 5% of the
energy, and with 20% of the population, China should use 20% of the
energy. Presently they use considerably less. But as their per capita
use increases, ours should decrease. In the process, the total amount
of being used world-wide will increase, hopefully enough to give
everyone a decent life, and not have a small fraction of the world
with more than enough and the rest with not enough to live on.

That is a world I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit.

Hugh

--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them
get away with it!!

Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l