A long ways, from an economy driven by Fossil Fuels, to one that runs on Renewal Energy.
BUT it's a transition that the majority of American People want ... So we had better get started, hadn't we?
Section 1: Opinions About Major Issues
Pew Research Center, people-press.org -- February 21, 2013
Climate Change: Public Favors Stricter Emission Standards
By a 54% to 34% margin, more Americans say the priority for addressing the nation’s energy supply should be developing alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen, over increased production of oil, coal and natural gas. Since 2011, the public has prioritized alternative sources over expanding production. Last October, the gap had narrowed: 47% said the priority should be developing alternative sources while 39% said the focus should be on expanding oil, coal and natural gas.
Further, fully 62% favor setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change while 28% oppose this. Those who favor stricter emission standards are far more likely to want new climate change policies this year. Nearly half (46%) of those who favor stricter emission standards say new climate policies are essential this year. That compares with just 15% of those who oppose stricter emission standards; 41% of whom say new climate policies should not be done at all.
Question is, How in the world do we get from Point A to Point B?
From a world dependent on fossil fuels ... to one basically free of them?
Maybe Fossil Fuels Regulation is the answer ...
by Juliet Eilperin, washingtonpost.com -- March 27, 2012
The Environmental Protection Agency issued the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants Tuesday, but stopped short of imposing any restrictions on the nation’s existing coal-fired fleet.
The rule, which is [was] open for public comment for 60 days, will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
Some advocacy groups, however, called the proposal too weak because it failed to cover existing power plants, which emit more than 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year, or roughly a third of the nation’s total.
Michael Livermore, executive director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, called the failure to cover existing plants “a big problem,” noting that the move might encourage utilities to keep conventional coal plants operating longer.
Fossil Fuels Regulation is part of the answer, but it needs to have real teeth.
AND those Regs need to go into real-world effect. Someday ... someday real soon, where those corporate smokestacks of easy-money, are.
How in the world do we get from Point A to Point B?
From a world that runs on fossil fuels ... to one that has been re-tooled to run on Carbon-free sources?
Just like the American people want. Of course for Energy-incentivizing Regulations to work ... they actually have to be enacted, in the real Energy world ... without delay, after tedious delay.
What!? The EPA must first find the "best compromise" -- from among 2 million public comments. Ummm, that could take a while. We'll get back with you. Maybe. Someday. Maybe not.
by Juliet Eilperin and Philip Rucker, washingtonpost.com -- March 15, 2013
The discussions center on the first greenhouse gas limits for power plants, which were proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency nearly a year ago. Rewriting the proposal would significantly postpone any action and also might allow the agency to set more permissive standards for coal-fired power plants, which are roughly twice as polluting as those fueled by natural gas.
Any retreat on the rules would be a blow to environmental groups and their supporters, who constituted a crucial voting bloc for President Obama and other Democrats in last year’s election.
White House spokesman Clark Stevens said suggestions of any sort of decision by the EPA was incorrect, noting the agency was still in the process of reviewing the 2 million comments it had received on the rule.
The move coincides with Obama’s call on Friday for a new federal fund to research clean energy alternatives for cars and trucks. The creation of an Energy Security Trust, which the president outlined in his State of the Union speech, would invest $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing into breakthrough technologies.
“After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future,” Obama said.
How in the world do we get from Point A to Point B?
From a world "addicted" to fossil fuels ... to one that is "quick fix" free?
SO, Maybe now more Clean Energy Research is the answer ... (while the EPA does its due diligence and/or negligence.)
by Philip Rucker, washingtonpost.com -- March 15, 2013
LEMONT, Ill. — President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
“After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future,” Obama said. Speaking of scientific innovation, he added, “We have to maintain our edge. . . . We can’t afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races forward.”
“It feels like you’re getting hit with a new tax, coming right out of your pocket,” Obama said of the increases. He added, “The only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices -- is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks off oil.”
Yes, Clean Energy Research is part of the answer ... basic research is nearly always a good thing.
But does that mean we have to put everything else on hold, while we wait for that magic, silver-bullet to be discovered, to be patented, and hopefully commercialized into something most of us can afford?
Those magic break-throughs usually have that floating 5-10 year time horizon -- that some how never seems to arrive! Out here in the warming, oil-spiking world.
In the meantime, why can't we pursue the things that we already know work?
Things like Regulations -- they worked to end Acid Rain.
Things like a High-Capacity Grid -- that works to move clean Hydro-energy from the Columbia River, all the way to smoggy L.A.
Things like Farming the Wind -- it works to displace and replace those old school Fossil Fuel sources of ease.
Like I said:
It's a long, long road from Here to There. From Point A to B.
But at some point you actually HAVE to start traveling down that dusty Road. ... Like the majority of American People want ...
Have wanted -- for about at least 2 Decades now. SO, what's with all this hurry up and wait, already?
The world's climate is not getting anymore stable, you know; The longer we delay.