I thought of an easier solution for the OP. Move near Al Gore.
RE semi-tongue-in-cheek comment on 'funny light bulbs' and 'high-breeds':
Not for yourself but maybe the kids. Seriously, according to the info I read we are at or past a tipping point beyond which the negative effects of GW are inevitable. To me that means accomodation is what we are facing, not avoidance.
I pretty much agree with that. Well, I guess I don't actually
know what the combined effects of carbon/GW will be, and whether we are past a tipping point or not, but the literature does seem to point to the need for adaptation; avoidance may be largely futile (although they don't seem to paint it that way).
From 'Conclusions' in that pdf linked earlier (bold mine):
Florida can avoid devastating harm by taking common-sense actions before it is too late. Florida needs a plan to reduce the power-plant and automobile pollution that causes global warming. The state can begin to do this by using energy more efficiently and cleanly. Florida also needs to develop the capacity to adapt to some global warming threats with minimal disruption and cost. Similar actions are also required at the national level because Florida cannot solve such a broad problem alone.
So just apply some 'common sense actions' and we will avoid all this (they paint a pretty bleak picture in there)? And then secondly, we can just spend a little to adapt.
I still like a lot of the low carbon stuff but primarily because they could lead to energy independence (a national security imperative IMHO) not because I think we could realistically move fast enough to stave off the effects of GW. I drive a hybrid.
I'm all for eliminating waste, reducing pollution, and improving energy efficiency and conservation in ways that make sense. I question whether energy independence is all that important, but it does seem our economy is too closely tied to the price of oil - some energy diversification would probably be a very good thing.
I'd look more closely at a hybrid if I
had to drive a lot of miles. They don't make economic sense for me at this point. I strive to reduce the miles I drive, and a mile
not driven is what saves the most energy and pollutes the least (as in, not at all). The lower pollution levels of hybrids are attractive (assuming the owners conserved miles driven first), even if the economics don't work for someone. That also assumes the extra batteries/motor don't offset too much of the benefit (have yet to see a good study on that).
A few years back, a 'greenie' type friend of ours was 'bragging' a bit about how proud she was that her husband traded in his Cadillac for a Hybrid. I talked a bit about the advantages of a hybrid, how they recover wasted energy from braking, the engine can be a bit smaller as it gets a boost from that wasted energy. So they were happy. Then I asked them - ' But, how many miles is the person who bought your old Caddy driving it? If they put a more miles on it than you did (it was a second car for them), then overall, wouldn't we be experiencing even more pollution and gas consumption than before he traded it in?'
I got the kind of face and expression that reminded me of that Spinal Tap clip... 'but, but, but, these go to
eleven' (but, but, but... it's '
green!)! That was enough 'fun' for me, I quickly followed up with ' Hey, how about another beer!'
I just think there is so much more low-hanging fruit in conserving person-miles than there is in the diminishing return of fuel economy (going from 15 to 30 mpg saves 2x more fuel than going from 30 to 60 mpg). The feds should listen to their own EPA people, and change the fuel economy stickers to show gallons-per-thousand miles instead of mpg. That makes it far easier to compare actual fuel consumption. Comparing mpg requires a 'harmonic mean' calculation, which few people could do, and fewer yet could do in their head. It's an easy comparison with gallons per thousand miles.
-ERD50
