The Simple (And Frightening) Climate Math That Not Even Bill McKibben Seems Willing To Do
As a personal challenge for Earth Week, I gave up direct fossil fuel consumption entirely, completely avoiding the use of any fossil fuels for heating, lighting, cooking, or transportation. This meant turning off the heat and hot water in my house, and cooking with an electric crockpot and microwave. I pay a few cents extra for 100% wind electricity at my house, so I didn’t have to turn off the lights. Two days I biked and kayaked to work; three days I rode my electric motorcycle that is charged by solar panels at my house and at the E-House at Pace Law School. The only thing I am really, really missing is a hot shower!
Bill McKibben’s “Fossil Free” campaign means divestment. But, as McKibben points out, the technologies to eliminate fossil fuel use are already available. They just happen to be more expensive and less convenient, so consumers don’t choose them — a classic case of consumer environmental externalities. Why not a “Fossil Free” Campaign for a boycott of the fossil fuels? Now that would really bring the fossil fuel industry to its knees.
"I pay a few cents extra for 100% wind electricity at my house..."
ReplyDeleteSo, his wind power sources were producing wind power 100% of this time? I thought this intermittent form of energy works roughly 30% of the time?
And how many articles on the alleged consequences of AGW have titles with words like "Frightening" and "terrifying" in them. IMO, the overuse of these words is getting sort of comical