An interesting article about the United States Republican presidential candidates bashing each other with the "L"-word (Liberal). According to candidate Mitt Romney, it would not be good for us (the world's largest consumer of energy) to take the lead in tackling the greenhouse gas problem.
You can find it at the one and only Fox News.
So who should take the lead on tackling the issue of global climate change? I have created a few visuals which may aid you in making an informed decision:
SOURCE: EIA, 2005
SOURCE: EIA, 2005
"But lowering our energy consumption would send us back to the Stone Age!"
Then how is it that Swedes, who live in a colder climate which needs much more artificial light and heat during winter, have a higher standard of living than we do, yet consume 100 GJ/y less energy than we do?
Of course international cooperation is necessary, but this "We won't do it unless they do!" concept will get us nowhere. A lot of those emissions in China we are responsible for. How much coal was burnt in an 18% efficient coal-fired power plant to make every computer peripheral on my desk (and most everybody else's desk in the entire world)? Those emissions coming out of the Chinese manufacturing sector are the responsibility of the U.S., Europe, Japan, and anyone else who uses China's land, labor, and natural resources to manufacture the goods they use. If we put a carbon tax on embodied energy, manufacturers will re-think the China game in an instant. The Chinese electricity mix has more coal to begin with, and the plants are half as efficient as our own. Then there are the transit costs on top of that with the big container ships burning that nice, thick, carbon-rich bunker fuel.
Embodied Energy is the energy required to manufacture and transport goods to the end consumer, as opposed to the energy that the product uses during its time with the end user. For example, compact fluorescent light bulbs have a higher embodied energy (it takes more to make them) than incandescents, but that is outweighed by the longer life and the reduction in electrical consumption.
Why not encourage manufacturers to set up shop right here at home, where our coal-fired power plants are at least 30% efficient! Manufacturing at home means lower carbon dioxide emissions - we have more efficient plants, and there is less distance required for shipment.
