Polling here (Australia) suggests about 60% are very concerned about Government inaction on Climate change. Our Government still can't come to terms with the fact that disaster relief and economic cost is increasing every year, especially for Queensland. ( massive multi billion dollar flooding sometimes twice a year for the last few years.) Estimates currently are that 1 out of 10 residential properties are unable to be insured Australia wide when previously they could be insured. They expect this figure to climb dramatically in the years to come. The Actuaries are starting to panic...which means no insurance = no investment = no loans = massive economic disruption, if not collapse. I would suggest that all nations around the globe are experiencing similar...especially the USA and EU.
Yes, I would certainly the least prepared industrial nations to start panicking. Some of the European countries have been taking steps, small and large, to develop alternative energy, reduce the use of cars in cities, build and insulate better. No surprise, these are the despised socialist-leaning nations - the ones that have public health insurance, high taxes and gun control. Even China, while trying hard to catch up economically, has some innovative tech in construction and transportation while the USA, pounded by hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards, flooding and burning, is still in deep denial. (Or rather, again. Obama made some positive moves that Trump, of course, has to neutralize and then take more steps back, just to prove he's got a brain to match his tiny hands.) The money-controlled nations are way behind. The big - leviathan - problem with capitalism is that any progressive, clever, useful things it does are done piecemeal; they succeed against hard (not always fair) competition, or fail for lack of sufficient profit sufficiently fast. A good government could co-ordinate the efforts of disparate private enterprises, cut down on replication and waste, support promising starts that are underfunded - and, of course, always, keep the public informed. A bad government does the opposite. (and then we have to cut off their heads again... Has it been 200 years already?)
one thing that seems fairly consistent is that conventional market managers maintain the normal standard deviation toward a known variable outcome. part of this involves the aspect of venture capitalist investment concepts around "the next big trend". if they are unable to move how they steer the market to maintain a sense of sustainability then they are failing to adapt. the irony in sustainability is that insurance is leveraged to sustain manageable loss in the form of lost income of the customer paying for the insurance. is this the flip side of the carbon tax issue ? lack of carbon tax being the driver in affordable insurance ? there is something to ponder out of pure curiosity
They never sustain or adapt. They put on a front of cautious responsibility; tables, graphs, actuaries, risk-assessors, bla blah, blaahh while they lurch from crisis to crisis, dragging the whole economy with them.
Too expensive. Too centralized, too much big government and big industry. Too vulnerable, to basically everything. Go solar.
Solar and wind are intermittent power sources and must be complemented by something more constant like nuclear--- or fossil fuels many small single reactor nuclear facilities are being shut down early and only 2 new reactors are scheduled in the usa
Yes ,decentralization seems a big plus from the pov of energy security. Insulation grants would also go a long way,I have heard. Nuclear as a last resort.
problem you have is opposing factions of ideological profit making and infrastructure. if the people have already paid to build the power station out of their taxes, why should they pay a investment premium profit on top to a private company who do not invest that same capital ? it is a failed system, currently failing in many places. who pays for the insulation ? = working class who gets the insulation and expense saving ? middle class unless = ? government regulation demanding landlords insulate their properties. otherwise it is theft from the working class while spiking the market to collapse
Or storage - normally, one would use storage. Because it's cheaper, less vulnerable, less centralized, etc etc. Why throw away the advantages of solar?
not throw away part of mix solar seems an excellent source for air conditioning and indoor daytime activities---factories, etc... wind seems an excellent choice for heating and as a main supply when the wind is blowing fast enough both would be good for charging batteries, or pumping water uphill to reservoirs. anecdote: A dam was built on the iowa river 5 mi. downstream circa 1962-----they chose not to incorporate a turbine due to the river's low volume and speed. Dams such as this one could be retrofitted to provide power as part of the mix---- neither is a constant energy source our current infrastructure and economy are based on a dependable, constant energy source relying on wind and solar only would require a cultural change that ain't gonna happen architecture should be addressed also for many years high rise buildings were built with no operable windows these buildings are energy inefficient maybe they can be retrofitted? much like alcoholics, the society has to want to change as a first step I see some inclinations in that direction we've come a long way since silent spring and made a lot of mistakes along the way
You are throwing away the advantages, and wasting money (useful for storage) on most of the "mix". Storage. With storage, solar is more dependable and constant than anything else - sunrise being a watchword for inevitability, unaffected by even the largest earthquakes, all but invulnerable to the common hazards of human endeavor. Not that it's going to happen, necessarily. Powerful forces with media access and billions of dollars on the line want anything but distributed solar with storage. Look at the money coming into Kentucky politics from Russia, say.
That might be not be a bad thing. https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/326128-russia-solar-energy Best way to go is to look at the landscape and use the most readily available sources of power - two or three different sources in tandem. Every town and village, every factory, school, church and home should have its own collection and storage capacity. And, of course, all manner of conservation to reduce demand.
Well, that's the thing - it will happen. It can happen now by our choice, or it can happen later after we've done a lot of damage and no longer have a choice. Google Energy Star for buildings.
Yeh, about that: Certified by the certifiable? It seems that: The LCDs have infiltrated every nook and cranny of government. Jeez-------------------DUMMIES One size does NOT fit all very well! .......... Remember the "airtight" craze? When it was thought that every crack and gap should be sealed. And, then: The horrible truth reared it's ugly head. Airtight buildings are more dangerous inside than out. Outgassing by everything from carpets to curtains to paint to cleaning products makes the inside of most houses more polluted than the outside.-----ok, then we have hopelessly inadequate "heat exchangers" which bring in outside air and exhaust your polluted air to the outside---though not nearly enough---then add in activated charcoal filters, and.....etc...etc..ad nauseum--ad infinitum. .............. Perhaps, we would be better served if the EPA tested everything that would go into a home, and set safe outgassing standards? ..................... You could design and build the safest, most efficient building for Baton Rouge Louisiana, and be damned proud------------Put that same building in Minot North Dakota---------and you would be considered a miserable failure. ............. (libertarian rant follows) Kinda why I do not like the thought of the government mandating "best" solutions for the climate. Far too often, it seems that for every good solution they come up with, these jackasses are gonna throw 4 bad ones at you, and mandate compliance. (some days, I feel that I am stuck with the heart of a socialist, and the brain of a libertarian?) .................. but, then again: I could be wrong.
Proposed multiple times over the decades. Shot down by the Republican Party in Congress. Now, with Trump's win, the agenda of defunding and otherwise screwing up the EPA is advancing at a good pace - scientists taken off research and assigned to distant bureaucratic jobs, budgets cut to the point of nonfunction, political hacks installed in positions of oversight and real power, arbitrary and crippling rules imposed on research efforts, communication with the public forbidden to everyone except those hacks, publicly funded data sequestered from public view, and so forth. The same as under Reagan and W, but with the head start built by those administrations. Energy and insurance and finance industry lobbyists have indeed had enormous influence, with the goal of creating dysfunction in all government agencies that threaten to employ scientific research and standards in their oversight. Was there some actual attempt to "mandate best solutions" for the climate? When did that happen? Meanwhile, you will of course never vote Republican again. Of course. Because, having a brain, you have assigned blame to the perpetrators rather than a vague category of "government".
