"This region could, if it wanted to, reduce CO2 by as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels, and at a reasonably modest cost over a business-as-usual case, but really only if we begin now."Efficiency is the first step to cutting emission of course, followed by more renewable energy and then coal and carbon sequestration. But my friends over at the Sierra Club North Star Chapter didn't like that, saying that even with carbon capture and storage, coal is still a dirty fuel. That's true of course, but if it's a small piece of the big energy pie, and if it still allows us to cut emissions 80 percent...why is that bad? Isn't the point to cut emissions? I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good and lead to stalemates. Maybe I'm missing something. I'd love to hear other arguments.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
I was listening to Minnesota Public Radio this morning, and they had a story about a coalition of environmental/energy organizations, agricultural interests, Indian tribes and businesses that have developed a roadmap on how to cut global warming emissions in the Upper Midwest 80 percent below 1990 levels "without breaking the bank." My former colleague Rolf Nordstrom over at the Great Plains Institute explained,