THOMAS HOBBES, THE GREAT 16TH-CENTURY British political philosopher, wrote in “Leviathan” that humans living without legitimate government would eventually dissolve into a “state of nature.” This state of nature was brutish with violent chaos, evil discord and civil war. Legitimate government, Hobbes believed, had a “social contract” to wield power and authority.
Hobbes’ vision that governmental power be used for the moral good evolved into our current view that government, particularly on the local level, has a responsibility and obligation to protect and maintain the safety of its citizens. Which brings us to present-day Benicia and the return of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project as we anticipate the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR).
Under Hobbes’ social contract, it is the obligation of local government to maintain public safety. Anything that presents a known risk of explosion or other significant health risk is not something that city government should tolerate. To willingly allow a project that presents a public danger to move forward is ridiculous. And to argue that the Crude-by-Rail Project (CBR) is safe is equally ridiculous. A quick Internet search reveals numerous examples of trains carrying Bakken crude derailing or exploding.
The fossil fuel industry has a clear record of putting profits above safety. We have ample local examples, from the Chevron fire in Richmond to the the San Bruno natural gas explosion. With tens of thousands of oil cars carrying volatile crude into the Bay Area, one or more explosions is all but guaranteed to occur. We all know it’s just a role of the dice whether the explosion happens in Benicia or another town along the line.
The conversation will probably build with the release Monday of the RDEIR. No doubt, the discussion will be as heated as ever. Regardless, let’s put some broad strokes on the situation, as there are several factors to consider:
• Firstly, the CBR is an effort by Valero to increase its business and, therefore, its profits. Unfortunately, for that to happen the city must risk its residents’ health and well-being. This is not in your interest.
• Valero, an oil company, benefits from the CBR; the city doesn’t. The idea that Valero, or any for-profit fossil fuel company, is a “Good Neighbor” to Benicia is silly and naïve.
• Benicia’s future, and the city’s future tax base, can no longer be dependent on heavy-carbon industries. The current tax revenue from the refinery is not sustainable, or even desirable.
• The decline in costs for renewable energy will create an energy price deflation that will make oil non-competitive. Ali Al-Naimi, Saudis Arabia’s oil minister, told a climate conference in Paris in June that the world’s largest crude exporter will eventually sell solar power instead of crude. He also renewed the kingdom’s commitment to current levels of production, putting more pressure on U.S. oil producers and refiners.
• Besides the global switch to renewable energy, our local refineries will be under growing pressure from regional air quality regulators to clean up their emissions. And as the international effort to make large emitters pay for their carbon releases grows, carbon taxes or offsets will cut into refinery profits.
• Within a decade or so, Valero and most Bay Area refineries will be shuttered. We need to begin discussions with Valero about what happens when they shut down. How will the refinery pay for the site cleanup and residual hazardous waste?
• Even as the tax stream from Valero declines, Benicia, like most California cities, is also facing exponentially rising retiree benefit costs. The revenue decline cannot be made up with increased resident taxes (as the base gets older, it is harder to raise taxes) — so Benicia will be forced to cut services.
• Also likely: Benicia’s municipal services and government will merge with Vallejo’s or go to a regional model. The era of small, local government is ending for numerous reasons. Small city governments can’t achieve the cost efficiencies or employee productivity needed to keep pace with rising costs and retiree benefit obligations. Large organizations can make better use of technology and smart systems to improve productivity and increase efficiency.
• Small city governments don’t have the resources needed to deal with the future’s looming problems. Valero’s CBR clearly shows how ineffective small cities like Benicia are in dealing with problems that overlap. The same is true as small cities are forced to confront the future’s critical problems of mitigating climate change, wealth inequality (poverty, homelessness, gang violence and terrorism), and restraining agglomeration and urban sprawl. For example, Benicia city government’s ongoing struggles to convert to a new information technology package. Or the City Council’s inability to address even simple environmental issues like eliminating the use of plastic bags, promoting renewable energy or endorsing a pro-environmental or sustainability position. If a city government can’t agree that reducing the number of plastic bags clogging up our landfills is a good thing, how can it promote community respect for the environment — or more complicated values like decency, tolerance or a respect for others?
* * *
FOR MANY REASONS, BENICIA IS AT A CROSSROADS, and its future is worrisome. As a city, we need to come to grips with the reality that the fossil fuel/carbon era is ending, and we have to turn to a pro-environmental, knowledge-based and sustainable economy.
For the past several months, I’ve been researching the world’s smart and green cities. Despite the heroic efforts of Benicia’s Community Sustainability Commission, I’m sad to say that my lovely hometown is neither.
I was reminded of this the other evening at a friend’s house that overlooked our bay. The view was beautiful, with the silvery-gray straits glowing in the declining sunlight. But when I looked closer, I saw trash along the waterline, and the water showed traces of oil and pollution in the shallows.
It was so much different than Copenhagen’s harbor. Did you know that the citizens of Copenhagen had the wherewithal a few years ago to clean centuries of pollution and trash out of their harbor? And that every summer, four major swimming areas along that city’s waterfront attract thousands of Danes and other Europeans to bask in the northern sun and swim in the harbor’s clean waters?
Can you imagine going for a swim in Benicia’s harbor?
Copenhagen’s clean harbor points to the sharp contrast in attitudes about the environment held by Europeans and Americans. After decades of neglect, Europe has come around and now takes pride in cleaning up its environment. Most European nations, reflecting the will of their citizens, are mindful of waste and diligently work to reduce carbon emissions. Hamburg, for example, is deeply worried that global warming will raise sea levels and create havoc with their harbor and lowlands. The city has carved out several green zones, added trees to absorb carbon and reduced auto traffic. In Scotland, over 40 percent of the country’s domestic energy use is supplied by renewable energy. Germany is striving for 100-percent renewable energy by mid-century.
But Benicia — a city that sits on the water — doesn’t seem to give a flip about potential flooding from warming seas, or the steady degradation of its remarkably beautiful environment. The lack of concern underscores the general sense shared by far too many Americans — particularly those involved in the carbon industries — who view our environment and atmosphere as one large garbage can.
Grant Cooke is a long-time Benicia resident and owner of Sustainable Energy Associates. He is also co-author of “The Green Industrial Revolution: Energy, Engineering and Economics.” His new book, “Smart Green Cities” will be published in 2016.
Sharing is caring!
obligation to protect and maintain the safety of its citizens.
And:
Anything that presents a known risk of explosion or other significant health risk is not something that city government should tolerate. To willingly allow a project that presents a public danger to move forward is ridiculous.
When we combine those statements we then have to ask: why does the city tolerate having a refinery within city limits?
Or: Why does the author not advocate for the immediate closure of the refinery?
I note from the author’s words :
a clear record of putting profits above safety
the CBR is an effort by Valero to increase… its profits.
Valero, or any for-profit fossil fuel company,
That he views profits as an obscene goal, a comment echoed by the watermelon environmentalists.
His also seems to be a view reflective of a 1960’s mentality of the industry, one which does not recognize or reflect the internal workings of the industry.
It would be refreshing to see someone advocate for “working with” instead of the “obstruction of” Valero.
From the piece: government, particularly on the local level, has a responsibility and obligation to protect and maintain the safety of its citizens.
And:
Anything that presents a known risk of explosion or other significant health risk is not something that city government should tolerate. To willingly allow a project that presents a public danger to move forward is ridiculous.
When we combine those statements we then have to ask: why does the city tolerate having a refinery within city limits?
Or: Why does the author not advocate for the immediate closure of the refinery?
I note from the author’s words :
a clear record of putting profits above safety
the CBR is an effort by Valero to increase… its profits.
Valero, or any for-profit fossil fuel company,
That he views profits as an obscene goal, a comment echoed by the watermelon environmentalists.
His also seems to be a view reflective of a 1960’s mentality of the industry, one which does not recognize or reflect the internal workings of the industry.
It would be refreshing to see someone advocate for “working with” instead of the “obstruction of” Valero.
Sorry for the omission in the first post.
“why does the city tolerate having a refinery within city limits?” Well, if we go back in time the city was destitute in the 1960’s after the Arsenal closed. Moreover, it barely had enough water to provide for the population it had then, even without a drought. The refinery brought revenues to the city and water for a growing population. It is safe to say that the city would be a far different place were it not for the refinery, and it wouldn’t be for the better.
Absolutely accurate Mr. Page.
While no one is overly thrilled to have a refinery in our backyard, Valero has been a good neighbor and provides the city with a much needed revenue base. Our long term solution will be with other economic bases, but an immediate shut down of the refinery would be disastrous. A true, economically feasible green energy economy is probably no more than 100 years away and we are in the midst of a transition. The market will drive this decision.
Reg,
Those are all very valid reasons to both build the refinery originally, as well as to keep it operating.
Grant has essentially insulted the City leaders by accusing them of abrogating their responsibilities to the residents and taxpayers of Benicia,
I wonder if any of them will have the courage to respond to this hit piece and explain why they feel the City should allow both the rail project and the refinery to operate.
Reality is that if anyone does they will be attacked by those extremists who are ardently opposed (as Grant is) to any reasonable compromises regarding the “for-profit-fossil-fuels” company.
Benicia’s very own “Mr. Enviro Greenie Government Grant Cooke is a very bitter man. I add the Government Grant title because his agenda driven ideals are driven by government grants and subsidies His article is very typical of all the other anti fossil fuel big oil folks. Pure scare tactics. Government Grant offers no long term fixes just negative comments. He is very anti Benicia and its residents and for sure America. He does not want the CBR project to even be heard. Valero is the client and has every right to be heard as do the opposition. Government Grant we are in America not Socialist EU your favorite. He makes some verry strange statements Such as “Within a decade or so, Valero and most Bay Area refineries will be shuttered.” Government Grant does not understand that some of these refineries have been here for a hundred years and the youngest is Valero at 45+_ years. Not going anywhere. Also says California cities are facing rising retirees cost to be made up with increased resident taxes. He does not understand that Benicia lowered its city employee retirement benefit from 2.70 to 2.25 and upped the age on new hires. Government Grant presents no reasons for his comments on the refineries or the city revenue. Says the city will have reduced services.Just pure scare tactics.. He also claims the plastic bag issue is not being paid attention to. Better start going to the grocery store and just see the attention the local residents are giving the plastic bag issue.. Government Grant they bring their own bags. We do not need an ordinace. You have not paid attention how these wonderful residents stepped up and met and beat water reduction issue. Government Grant you have no respect for Benicia residents. You are a one way agenda driven ideals person. Ever heard of compromise? If the client Valero loses the CBR rail issue I assume you think it is OK for the city to assume a big defense law suit which could be very expensive. The city will have to defend in that case. Government Grant talks about potential flooding in the city. Government Grant the straits are receding not expanding. Just where have you been. You are also anti fossil fuel big oil profits. I assume your business is a non profit and runs on grants and subsidies from the governmernt all at tax payers cost. Apparently for your own benefit. Maybe, maybe not I expect to recieve some comments back. Thats good. lets keep this going.
In 1995,Nobel Prize winning scientist Sherwood Rowland asked,
” What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true.?”
Book source::” Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis”
From the above article:” :
“FOR MANY REASONS, BENICIA IS AT A CROSSROADS, and its future is worrisome. As a city, we need to come to grips with the reality that the fossil fuel/carbon era is ending, and we have to turn to a pro-environmental, knowledge-based and sustainable economy.”
Well stated, Mr. Cooke.. Your article is an excellent summation of our present situation.Thank you..
From the post below more information for Mr. Cooke, our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“Top Scientist — Threat of Catastrophic Permafrost Thaw is “Real and Imminent”
“There’s a lot of carbon stored in the Arctic’s thawing permafrost. According to our best estimates, it’s in the range of 1,300 billion tons . That’s more than twice the amount of carbon already emitted by fossil fuels globally since the 1880s. And the sad irony is that continuing to burn fossil fuels risks passing a tipping point beyond which rapid destabilization and release of those carbon stores becomes locked in.”
and:
“… a noted Woods Hole Scientist by the name of Dr. Max Holmes called such a threat “real and imminent” stating:”
“The release of greenhouse gasses resulting from thawing Arctic permafrost could have catastrophic global consequences. The United States must lead a large-scale effort to find the tipping point – at what level of warming will the cycle of warming and permafrost thawing become impossible to stop. The real and imminent threat posed by permafrost thawing must be communicated clearly and broadly to the general public and the policy community.”
http://robertscribbler.com/2015/08/27/top-scientist-threat-of-catastrophic-permafrost-thaw-is-real-and-imminent/
Vested private interests vs. visionary life sustaining public interests, which will it be Benicia?
More information and news about the danger of maintaining our present status quo—
“In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization..”
—Blue Planet Laureates— Distinguished laureates listed below.
Book source::” Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis” Clarity Press, 2015.
From the above article:” :
“FOR MANY REASONS, BENICIA IS AT A CROSSROADS, and its future is worrisome. As a city, we need to come to grips with the reality that the fossil fuel/carbon era is ending, and we have to turn to a pro-environmental, knowledge-based and sustainable economy.”
Well stated, Mr. Cooke.. Your article is an excellent summation of our present situation.
From the post below more information about our” worrisome future” for Mr. Cooke, our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“The World on Fire: Record-Breaking Wildfires, Greenland Melting and Earth’s Hottest Month Ever”
“John Muir once wrote, “I must break away and get into the mountains to learn the news.” “Today, given we are well along into abrupt anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD), Muir’s quote has taken on an entirely new meaning, as the convulsions wracking the planet are starkly clear when we venture out into nature.”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32556-the-world-on-fire-record-breaking-wildfires-greenland-melting-and-the-hottest-month-ever-recorded-on-earth
http://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/list.html
Vested private interests vs. visionary life sustaining public interests, which will it be Benicia?
“In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization..”
—Blue Planet Laureates— Distinguished laureates listed below.
Book source::” Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis” Clarity Press, 2015.
From the above article:” :
“FOR MANY REASONS, BENICIA IS AT A CROSSROADS, and its future is worrisome. As a city, we need to come to grips with the reality that the fossil fuel/carbon era is ending, and we have to turn to a pro-environmental, knowledge-based and sustainable economy.”
Well stated, Mr. Cooke.. Your article is an excellent summation of our present situation.
.
From the post below more California Assembly news and information for Mr. Cooke, our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
‘Big Moment’ for California as Assembly Votes to Divest From Dirty Coal
“In a significant victory for the fossil fuel divestment movement, the California Assembly on Wednesday passed a bill requiring the state’s two pension systems, CalPERS and CalSTRS, to release their holdings from coal investments.”
“Follow the 43-27 vote, S.B.185 now heads to the desk of Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, “who has not formally stated his position but who is still expected to sign it into law,” Reuters reports. California would then become the first state in the nation to have its public pension funds divest from any fossil fuels.”
“Givens its rank as the world’s eighth largest economy, environmental groups were quick to note that such a commitment from California is no small feat. According to the Fossil Free California campaign, the combined funds have over $300 million invested in coal.”
“This is a big moment for California, and for everyone around the world standing up to the most powerful and destructive industry in history,” May Boeve, executive director of 350.org said in a press statement. “Today’s vote is so meaningful because it sends a strong message: political leadership on climate change means being willing to stand up to powerful moneyed interests, and call out the destructive practices of the companies causing the climate crisis.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/02/big-moment-california-assembly-votes-divest-dirty-coal
The oil refinery vs. having a livable planet. Which will it be, Benicia?
COP 21, 2 degree Celsius and all those nasty greenhouse-gas emissions—
From the post below more climate change news and information for Mr. Cooke, our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“Paris 2015” designates the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) to be held November 30 to December 11. The participants will be seeking a new international agreement on climate with a goal of holding global warming below 2°C (3.6°F) relative to pre-industrial temps. Can they do it? Yes, but will they?”
“All of this background work aims to produce a climate agreement to limit temperature increases below 2°C based upon pre-industrial levels. Anything above 2°C will ring all kinds of nasty bells and toot hideous whistles. Nevertheless, in point of fact, the ecosystem is already demonstrating a preview of numerous awful events whilst temps are not even one-half way to the 2°C limit”
“In April 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that in order to stay below the 2°C limit, global greenhouse-gas emissions (GHG) would have to decline between 1.3% and 3.1% each year, on average, between 2010 and 2050.”
“Decline? The opposite is occurring. Global emissions increased by 1.5%/year from 1973-2000. Since then, emissions have increased by 2.6%/year from 2000-2014 (Hansen), an increase of 73% over the prior decades. This is going in the wrong direction. Who knows, the emissions decline may end up as a practical joke, but it must be done, or the situation is going to heat up real fast.”
“Here’s the bigger uglier picture: According to reputable sources, there’s probably no way to stay under 2°C. In fact, lamentably, the paleoclimate record indicates Earth once experienced a 5°C increase within a couple of decades, but nobody knows exactly why. Something earthshattering must have occurred. Today’s anthropogenic forces on the climate, like CO2, may also be earthshattering. Time will tell soon enough, maybe too soon. Nobody really knows for sure because global warming is brand new to humankind.”
“Beyond that, with GHGs turbocharging 135% faster than 40 years ago at a rate of 2.0ppm/year (Hansen), simple math says big trouble will likely hit by, or before 2040-50. After all, emissions and GHGs are growing exponentially.”
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/08/the-ipcc-caught-in-a-pressure-cooker/#more-59644
Finally, a voice of reason amidst gaggle. As I mentioned, I have spend the last several months, researching and writing about cities that are forward-looking, interested in residents health, focused on carbon emission reductions, and determined to become sustainable. The work has taken me all over the world, and I have been fortunate to work with deeply committed scholars who understand the complexity and difficulties of separating ourselves from carbon dependency. It is not easy to understand that an era like this one of carbon intensive energy is ending. Yet, the citizens of Benicia for the good of their future most come to grips with this reality.
Where did you come up with the majority feel that way. One person? Until you give a report on who, when and where you saw all of this. Your article is just what it is scare tactics.. What scholars? Government Grant you offer nothing but words supported by our “Local Resident Researcher”. That is not a good example.
a voice of reason = Those who agree with Grant
amidst gaggle = Those who disagree with Grant
I’m sure it was fossil fuels that took you around the world Grant.
The terms “watermelon environmentalist” that is, green on the outside, red on the inside, and the notion that sea levels are receding come straight from the fossil fuel industry playbook to obfuscate, distribute rubbish presented as scientific fact and dozens of other techniques first employed by the tobacco industry to avoid responsibility for 50 years and that now have been updated, refined and deployed to sow climate change doubt. I did not come up with that on my own, please see the very effective, well presented and even entertaining film “Merchants of Doubt” available on Netflix and probably other streaming services. We do not have 50 years, anyone who believes rapid climate warming and extreme weather is human caused needs to watch “Merchants of Doubt” to gain insight on what you are up against. It goes deeper than public relations con men throwing out garbage on the issue, it is actually “tribal” and fact alone will not cut through it.
The terms “watermelon environmentalist” …come straight from the fossil fuel industry playbook to obfuscate, distribute rubbish presented as scientific fact”
Actually, the use of such terms, beyond being a method to quickly quantify the real intent of the leaders of the “Green” movement, is a variation of one of Saul’s rules :
5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
He is the one who defined and originated the tactics commonly used on a daily basis by the left, as well as his disciples in elected office today.
to gain insight on what you are up against.
Very important to ‘know your enemy’, as Sun Tzu wrote.
If we are talking locsally the straits are receding. By the way what is your last name Peter D?
Peter D. Good to see you commenting on here.
When it comes to those that make up these “Merchants of Doubt”, a quote come to mind:
“If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”
– Noam Chomsky
A Satch quote would have been better. He played different kind of round ball. One that takes talent..
Robitussin?
I missed that one.
I know, right?
I am not sure you do know.
Inconsequential.
Explains everything
The tussin, the tussin!
Is it helping? Does not sound like it.. I wear a mask when looking at your e-mail.
That’s a mask? It’s so life-like.
not good
“Within a decade or so, Valero and most Bay Area refineries will be shuttered. We need to begin discussions with Valero about what happens when they shut down. ”
In addition to supplying gasoline and diesel for the 13 million cars in California, refineries supply fuel for trucks and locomotives, jet fuel for aircraft, fuel for ships and even propane for all our gas grills. If the refineries are going to shut down in a decade or so, we better get busy building electric cars to replace all our gasoline powered cars, building electric locomotives to pull our trains, putting in electric cables to power those electric trains, and building non-petroleum burning power plants (natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro) to supply the electricity for those electric cars and electric locomotives. Ships will have to move away from fuel oil to natural gas or nuclear power I suppose. We will need to invent some new technology for powering aircraft, which have a long turn-around time from conception to design to construction. SB350 (which has not passed yet) only calls for a 50% reduction in petroleum fuel usage (while exempting fuels made from natural gas) by 2030. We have a lot of work to do and a lot of infrastructure to build if the refineries are going to be shut down in a decade or so.
Greg,
Actually, much of what you say that needs to happen to replace oil and carbon-based energy is already happening. Tesla has proven that the electric auto is for real; UC Berkeley scientists have discovered a switch-grass based fuel for use in airplanes. Railroads and heavy trucks are using eco-friendly diesel, which can be converted to methane-derived fuel or biofuel. The biggest energy change over is happening with hydrogen power, and California will have a hydrogen highway in 2016 as does Germany and other parts of Europe. A few months back, I took a hydrogen-powered bus in London and the EU has a big push to develop more of them.. These are all energy sources coming into the market place now, and I haven’t even mentioned the ones in the Silicon Valley labs that are under development. The price of oil has dropped so quickly that it is accelerating the change-over to renewable fuel, which defies logic, but is a growing reality. On-site and distributive energy is growing at much faster rates than scientists predicted and the cost of energy will continue to drop. What continually surprises me is how many people deny that the oil industry is at is ending point, when even the oil industry admits it? As I said, we should be in talks with the Bay Area refineries to help them with the shut-down process and not leave it up to them to suddenly shackle the doors and walk away.
Proving that electric cars are “for real” is different from replacing 13 million existing cars, and putting in the infrastructure to charge them. Discovering a switch-grass based fuel is different from implementing it. What fraction of locomotives and trucks use methane derived fuels and what infrastructure is needed to convert all of them, and develop the capability to fuel them? Hydrogen fuel, like everything else humans do, runs headlong into the second law of thermodynamics and will take more energy to produce than it gives back. Where is the evidence that all this will all occur in a decade or so to such a degree that refineries start shutting down in that timeframe? Like sealevel, which will inevitably rise, petroleum usage will decline. The issue is when. For either to change substantially in a decade or so is a stretch beyond any evidence (sealevel will rise about 1.5 inches in the next decade, when current acceleration rates are included in the calculation). Like I said, we have a huge amount of work to do and infrastructure to build…and at a rate that is several orders of magnitude faster than is occurring now.
Greg,
Thank you for your logical and cogent comments. Your comments on this subject are refreshing in the midst of an irrational sea of illogical true believers vs
equally illogical nay sayers.
I agree but at the same time this guy needs a slap down. Logic is not in his mind set.
“The Frog in a pot is a very popular anecdote and you probably know about it. Still, if you don’t, it is about a frog that rests easy in a pot of water that is warmed slowly. Frogs normally won’t go into boiling water. They’ll jump out and keep themselves away from very hot water. But, if placed in a tub of water at normal temperature that is being heated slowly, according to the anecdote, they don’t react and end up getting cooked in the boiling water”.
“The story is used as a metaphor to tell a cautionary point about life. The moral of the frog story goes something like this – Letting small and seemingly harmless wrongs slip, could kill (or be bad for you). It basically tells you to not be complacent about minor changes that usually seem harmless, but add up to something big/bad.”
The exchange above (comments) Mr. Gartrell and Mr. Cooke two of Benicia’s leading thinkers is interesting.and enlightening.
The post below by professor Michael Klare gives our appointed and elected officials and citizenry as well our leading thinkers more to seriously consider going forward into a very uncertain environmental future…
” Here’s the good news: wind power, solar power, and other renewable forms of energy are expanding far more quickly than anyone expected, ensuring that these systems will provide an ever-increasing share of our future energy supply. According to the most recent projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, global consumption of wind, solar, hydropower, and other renewables will double between now and 2040, jumping from 64 to 131 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs).”
” And here’s the bad news: the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas is also growing, making it likely that, whatever the advances of renewable energy, fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global landscape for decades to come, accelerating the pace of global warming and ensuring the intensification of climate-change catastrophes.”
” The rapid growth of renewable energy has given us much to cheer about. Not so long ago, energy analysts were reporting that wind and solar systems were too costly to compete with oil, coal, and natural gas in the global marketplace. Renewables would, it was then assumed, require pricey subsidies that might not always be available. That was then and this is now. Today, remarkably enough, wind and solar are already competitive with fossil fuels for many uses and in many markets.”
” If that wasn’t predicted, however, neither was this: despite such advances, the allure of fossil fuels hasn’t dissipated. Individuals, governments, whole societies continue to opt for such fuels even when they gain no significant economic advantage from that choice and risk causing severe planetary harm. Clearly, something irrational is at play. Think of it as the fossil-fuel equivalent of an addictive inclination writ large.”
Read the rest of the article to learn/understand what our children and grand-children will be facing in mere decades or put in other words, more about the anecdote of the boiling frog—
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176164/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_fossil_fuels_forever/#more
I think we got your messages Will. I assume it will not change…