Steven Chu: "It Could Be Very, Very Bad"

March 9th, 2010 by Susan Kraemer

“It’s not too late; we can minimize the alteration, or we can just plow on as usual … and if we plow on as usual … it could be very, very bad.” So says Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, Steven Chu, who is now Energy Secretary of the Obama administration Department of Energy – at Stanford University this week.

[social_buttons]

“Speaking to the choir” (peer reviewed scientists and the educated already understand the problem) but really addressing the Senate Republicans who need to pass climate legislation, Chu stressed the danger and risks of inaction.

Much of the outcome will depend on the Earth’s response to an anticipated temperature increase of five or six degrees centigrade, an effect that won’t take hold for another 100 to 150 years, he said.

That’s when the oceans, a vast storage sink for carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, are expected to reach capacity and begin expelling gases back into the air.

There are great uncertainties as to the outcome awaiting us if we continue business as usual by relying on a fossil-fuel-guzzling energy infrastructure to meet everyday needs, said Chu.

On the other hand, he argued, switching to clean, safe renewable energy will not only be good for the environment, but will be good for the American economy. But it will take putting a price on carbon. “We have to get people in the United States to skate where the world is going to be.”

The Obama administration did manage to initiate what will be an investment of $80 billion in developing the new renewable energy economy, by leveraging The Recovery Act (ARRA – the stimulus bill) that was passed by congress a few months after the Bush Recession Bank Bailout, to jump-start the green economy. But many of its conditional loan guarantees await additional moves from VC funders or banks to kick into action; like with Nordic Windpower and Sage Electrochromics.

With Senator Franken unconfirmed for 6 months, and Senator Kennedy in hospital for most of 2009, Democrats actually did not actually have the 60 vote super-majority for much of 2009, and those numbers are largely unchanged with Scott Brown, making legislative solutions for anything other than naming post offices just as impossible in 2010 as in 2009.

That is because Republicans’ new and unfair use of a procedural trick to block voting on taking normal up or down votes has been used increasingly over the last two years to prevent any legislation: and especially any renewable energy legislation.

The filibuster has been used so much so that a complacent media now reports the need for a super-majority of 60 as normal procedure. However, that is not how a democracy normally works, and not how this one worked, throughout American history. Till 2007 when Democrats won a Senate majority – 51 has (for 200 years) constituted a majority vote.

“We have to get moving,” Chu warned last night, citing the example of China that invests $9 billion every month in renewable energy. “If we hold off for another 10 years, we’ll fall behind the other countries.” (In China 98% of the educated understand that climate change is a serious issue.)

If only today’s Senate Republicans would hear that: “It could be very, very bad”.

Their constituents like you need to let them know what you want. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224 3121. They won’t listen to just another scientist, Nobel Prize or not.

Source: Aimee Miles at Stanford News

More susan/” target=”_blank”>Cleantechnica from Susan Kraemer: Journalists on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/dotcommodity" target="_blank

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: climate legislation, deniers, filibuster reform, global warming denial, Global Weirding, progressive legislation, Steven Chu, The Recovery Act

About the Author

Susan Kraemer writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times. Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.

assistencia tecnica electrolux

good article, i will add my feeds.
assistencia tecnica electrolux

good article, i will add my feeds.
http://www.web-hosting-search.com Website Hosting

Great Post…. Thanks
http://www.web-hosting-search.com Website Hosting

Great Post…. Thanks
http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

Democrats have been trying to do that since 1993 when Al Gore tried to pass a BTU tax on fossil energy to fund renewable replacements. He has been singled out by the fossil industry for demonization ever since, but, we still try.

Cap and trade is designed to do that. It also caps the allowable carbon. The fees are used to lower consumers costs of electricity during the investment in new replacement clean power plants, and to help the power sector invest in clean power.
LUCAS ROSARIO

Instead of asking for only subsidy, why not ask the government to tax the pollutor (fossil fuels) and use the additional tax to subsidize the renewable energy.
- http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer
  
  Democrats have been trying to do that since 1993 when Al Gore tried to pass a BTU tax on fossil energy to fund renewable replacements. He has been singled out by the fossil industry for demonization ever since, but, we still try.
  
  Cap and trade is designed to do that. It also caps the allowable carbon. The fees are used to lower consumers costs of electricity during the investment in new replacement clean power plants, and to help the power sector invest in clean power.
http://www.yesonsolar.com fireofenergy

Of course we have to do something. It’s cool that research monies have beed granted to develop car EV batteries 10 times more energy dense than li-ion!

However, why is the solar power tower being ditched! Brayton cycle gas turbines would reduce the land, (possible) water, and definatly, the grading requirements. The molten salt storage is at least TEN times cheaper. Speaking of grading, heliostats are post mounted, thus no enviro whining needed!

Therefore, if we “are to do something”, we need to get the costs of the CSP tower down to where it belongs. Why? Because it is the only source that can power humanity like 50 times over without any enviro problems (other than mining for raw materials, but hey, that would be offset by the lesser amounts of coal mining). It would be easy if governments stepped in to guarantee some kind of feed in tariff, only AFTER a cheap dollar per watt target was achieved. This way, us rate payers wouldn’t be paying much more for clean electricity for cars and household. We need to exponentiate this perfect and unlimited form of electrical generation like wildfire `~’

Wind is cheaper, but it’s storage is ten times more. Sure, we need to make batteries that only cost $50 per kWh too… But we can’t just rely on wind.

What really has to be “done” is abolish silly little enviro and nimby laws… Before GW becomes very real

Please ?’-‘?
http://www.yesonsolar.com fireofenergy

Of course we have to do something. It’s cool that research monies have beed granted to develop car EV batteries 10 times more energy dense than li-ion!

However, why is the solar power tower being ditched! Brayton cycle gas turbines would reduce the land, (possible) water, and definatly, the grading requirements. The molten salt storage is at least TEN times cheaper. Speaking of grading, heliostats are post mounted, thus no enviro whining needed!

Therefore, if we “are to do something”, we need to get the costs of the CSP tower down to where it belongs. Why? Because it is the only source that can power humanity like 50 times over without any enviro problems (other than mining for raw materials, but hey, that would be offset by the lesser amounts of coal mining). It would be easy if governments stepped in to guarantee some kind of feed in tariff, only AFTER a cheap dollar per watt target was achieved. This way, us rate payers wouldn’t be paying much more for clean electricity for cars and household. We need to exponentiate this perfect and unlimited form of electrical generation like wildfire `~’

Wind is cheaper, but it’s storage is ten times more. Sure, we need to make batteries that only cost $50 per kWh too… But we can’t just rely on wind.

What really has to be “done” is abolish silly little enviro and nimby laws… Before GW becomes very real

Please ?’-‘?