- real carbon emission reduction targets and programs, with carrots if possible, sticks if necessary, to achieve a 100% reduction in GHG by 2040 using IEER’s Carbon Free/ Nuclear Free Roadmap for a U.S. Energy Policy (www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org ).
- real, mandatory federal/state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and vehicle mileage targets.
- aggressive expansion and prioritized implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources where appropriate, both domestically and internationally; adoption of national energy efficiency portfolio standard.
- methodically planned elimination of nuclear and fossil power plants using steam-cycles (i.e., water-dependent systems) to produce electricity through the Carbon Free/Nuclear Free Roadmap for a US Energy Policy .
- methodical preparation for real, but not necessarily painful or economically disruptive lifestyle changes in areas where technologic or market innovation cannot succeed, exacerbate the old problems, or create/substitute new ones; and per-capita reduction in energy use.
Carbon Free – Nuclear Free DOES Follow the “2 x 4” Rules for Fighting Climate Disruption:
What has NOT received sufficient coverage in the media is that we currently possess a great deal of the technological know-how needed to begin creating an energy future that will be BOTH carbon free and nuclear free — and by the year 2040 according to Dr Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER).
You can download Dr. Makhijani’s book Carbon Free/Nuclear Free Roadmap for a US Energy Policy as a PDF file; or order a printed copy.
“All of the above” is NOT an effective or even rational approach to fighting climate disruption:
It has been suggested by otherwise seemingly bright people, like former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and former President Barack Obama, that we need an “all of the above” approach of energy choices to fight climate disruption. This course of action is dead wrong, as this statement by former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Peter Bradford explains:
“Those who assert that the problem of climate change is so urgent that ― we have to do everything (or, another popular substitute for serious thought, ― seek silver birdshot, not silver bullets) overlook the fact that we can never afford to do everything. The urgency of world hunger doesn’t compel us to fight it with caviar, no matter how nourishing fish eggs might be. Spending large sums on elegant solutions (especially those with side effects) that provide little relief will diminish what we can spend on more promising approaches.”
(Source: Honey, I Shrunk the Renaissance: Nuclear Revival, Climate Change, and Reality, Electricity Policy.com, Oct. 11, 2010).
The “2 x 4 Rule” is a prioritized approach for action, based on a state of crisis, and greatest likelihood for immediate success and impact; not a feel-good press event or academic conference. And if we were truly sincere that “all things are on the table” for debate and consideration, we’d have to finally engage that uncomfortable debate as to whether capitalism is a viable and appropriate economic system in a climate disrupted world, since it causes much of the disruption.
Dr. James Hanson: great atmospheric scientist; lousy energy analyst:
The impassioned pleas of former NASA scientist Dr. James Hanson, and others, attempt to persuade people that the as-yet unbuilt “next-generation” of nuclear reactors will somehow be needed to undo the climate disruption caused by our fossil fuel addiction. This well-intended but totally inaccurate conclusion is best debunked in an article by Joe Romm, published on CLIMATE PROGRESS, titled, “To Those Who Want To See Nuclear Power Play A Bigger Role In Climate Action.” NEIS’ positions as expressed in our Fact Sheets in this section are largely vindicated by this November, 2013 analysis.