"If we don't act now, our orcas and salmon are goners...and then we will be."
You know how about instead of demanding bold action, spend your time researching and formulating a plausible solution for transitioning your state. Youll notice that all of these movements that demand action don’t actually have any real transition plan. Sure you have the goal of transitioning to 100% renewable energy in ten years, but how exactly do you plan going about this transition?
- Do you have any timelines that breakdown percentages of change in your states energy portfolio?
- Do you have plans on the amount of materials or projects needed to increase renewable energy to 100%?
- Do you have signatories from renewable companies that stand by your organization and pledge to increase growth exponentially to provide enough energy for the state?
- Do you have any cost estimates on how much this transition would cost the state?
- Do you have any cost/benefit analysis data that indicates why transitioning in 10 years would provide a net benefit to the state?
- Do you have any data to back up the companies that may support you that would tell the state and its citizens that these companies have a good environmental record and can sustain this period of development?
- Do you have any information regarding the challenges you face in this effort to develop 100% renewable energy?
- Do you have any analysis on the repercussions of prohibiting fossil fuel infrastructure, not only for electricity but for refining, where Washington is 5th most important state for said venture?
Washington State could be the first state to go 100% clean power.
I think that is great idea- have a plan
WA is 85% clean power from our rich hydro. It would be doable to go 100%. Think of the prestige and leadership of 100%. We also have a green governor. It is doable.
I never said it wasn’t achievable, but rather that this “climate countdown” initiative has surprisingly little information on how exactly their idea of transition is going to work. Also, btw many environmental organizations and the US Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard does NOT consider hydroelectric plants to be renewable, due to their large environmental obstruction. This is actually one of the primary reasons I wanted clarification from the “Climate Countdown” activists.
Renewable tag is OPEC era. Clean of dead carbon is the issue.
Additionally the issue with saying “to prevent any new fossil fuel infrastructure in the state” and “A clean energy future is our only future” you are talking about far more than just electricity. Washington does not produce a lot of fossil fuel electricity, but they do in fact produce a large amount of petrochemical product. If you put a moratorium on all new fossil fuel infrastructure you are including refineries that don’t produce electricity, but do produce ethylene, which is used in literally millions of products.
It’s time the fools in Capital Hill wake up and see the plight of Earth and all her children before industrial capitalism destroys the only means we have for living. I myself think it’s already too late but without action, real concrete action, it will be too late for survival. States have to take control and enact policy to assure a 90% cleaner footprint if survival is paramount. The ruling classes can’t have business-as-usual anymore, politicians have to let go of the moneyed teat of businesses and enact meaningful real legislation or it will all go down the memory holes of historical oddities. The future aliens exploring Earth will be struck by how shorted humans were when they actually could have saved themselves without all the greed and excess of the filthy rich.
Plastic is not CO2, more like sequestered carbon.
You do realize all of these processes generate CO2 right? Petroleum isn’t CO2 either, but when its burned you release this pollutant as a byproduct of the reaction.
This is interesting, but in my opinion still inaccurate. To give you an example of good transition plan lets look at the plan for Fayetteville Arkansas:
I still have problems with this plan as there is no clear indication of what specific energy they hope to integrate into their portfolio and at what time intervals, but this gives you a good idea of what an actual energy transition plan should look like. Granted this is made by the government, but there is no reason why a major organization like 350.org can generate marches with thousands of people, yet cant generate a single similar action plan.
That is fantastic.
It’s one thing I would imagine to be doing something good with all that money and assets. It’s another thing just to pile on to make more money for oneself.
Here in Washington State we have a strong attachment to the natural world. To see it vandalized for increased profit or negligence appalls us. You ask laypeople to produce plans our national legislature will not pass because of the corruption of OUR national government. You demand timelines and cost breakdowns that we are not equipped to give. You are a drooling corporate shill with no regard for the planet that gives you life but urge procrastination for a looming crisis that will be unmanageable when it disaccomidates the likes of you. Stuff you and your horse, we do not have time to putz around dithering about but we can use every power we can muster to convince the people we elected that the time for corporate graft is over and the War on Climate change has begun. They asked us to give them the responsibility to get to get things done. Now is the time for them to do it.
Oh, and one other thing, Do you have the sense to get out of a hail storm?
What I am demanding is not anything above what a major organization is capable of. What I am demanding are tools of analysis that every single good project manager has created BEFORE they establish any sort of policy or movement forward. How can you possibly set a deadline if you have no information about the feasibility of your project? How can you possibly claim that your movement is feasible if you have no economic data backing up your activism?
You demand action, but you will never achieve success without a fundamental plan on how your action will actually work.
Lets just do some basic comparison here:
Which of the following sources do you feel as good grasp on the challenge ahead and is more likely to be successful in their energy transition between Alliance for Clean Jobs and Energy for Washington or Fayetteville:
It certainly seems to be in a healthy competition with California for that goal. I guess it depends on which state’s “representatives” are more intrusive.
My field of activism is mass transit and urban/suburban planning. In the 1980’s-90’s I was a home insulation carpenter in a giant industry of small companies that got their start with President Carter’s Home Weatherization Tax Credit program. Enough energy was saved to undermine Western Washington Public Power System (Wwpps, pronounced whoops) plans to build 4 nuclear power plants. Oregon’s Trojan nuclear plant was decommissioned for the same reason: insufficient energy demand to justify operation. Today, I see potential for regional utility grid upgrades to accommodate electric cars, improve grid resilience and provide homeowners with a lifesaving backup power supply. However, the big push today is for self-driving cars, which is, trust me, never going to happen. At the very least, it’s like “putting the cart before the horse” to push self-driving cars before converting whole fleets of new cars to all-battery and hybrid EVs. Condemning self-driving car BS points blame at both political party leaders. And, it turns public attention back to the necessity of mass transit and against the corporate agenda to bankrupt brick and mortar small business, which is what Amazon is doing and has done from its start. Boycott Amazon.