New York, And Everywhere, Can Be Fossil Fuel Free Now – Stanford University Study

Stanford University energy expert Mark Jacobson and others have explained how New York state could be powered entirely by wind, water and sunlight, reports Stephen Leahy at Inter Press Service. Powering New York on green energy is “sustainable and inexpensive” and would save lives and health costs, Jacobson said. Air pollution kills 4,000 people in New York State annually and costs the public 33 billion dollars in health costs, says the study by Jacobson and experts from all over the US.  “Converting to wind, water and sunlight is feasible, will stabilise costs of energy and will produce jobs while reducing health and climate damage,” said Jacobson. 40 percent of New York State’s energy would come from local wind power, 38 percent from local solar and the rest from a combination of hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal and wave energy. All vehicles would run on battery-electric power and/or hydrogen fuel cells. Air- and ground-source heat pumps, geothermal heat pumps, heat exchangers and backup electric resistance heaters would heat and cool buildings and power water heaters. “I think the public will be 100 percent behind this,” says Jacobson. All that’s needed is leadership.

Join the swelling numbers of voters TELLING Congress they’ll vote for Clean Energy candidates here: http://signon.org/sign/we-are-the-clean-99?source=c.em.cp&r_by=487176 . This is an ongoing campaign (the next Congressional election is in 2 years!) so please, spread the word. It’s our way of telling Congress that a strong clean energy voting bloc is out there. This is how YOU can make a difference.

 

For more on Climate Change, check out my weekly column at the HuffingtonPost, Climate Change This Week : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=mary-ellen-harte

 

Source

Visions of a sustainable, pollution-free New York by 2030. As usual, midtown Manhattan is packed with whisper-quiet cars and trams while thousands walk the streets listening to the birds of spring sing amongst the gleaming, grime-free skyscrapers in the crystal-clear morning air. Welcome to New York City in April 2030. Inter Press Service. 20 March 2013. http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/visions-of-a-sustainable-pollution-free-new-york-by-2030/

Advertisements

About melharte

Mel (Mary Ellen) Harte is a biologist (PhD) and climate change educator. She co-authored the free online book, COOL THE EARTH, SAVE THE ECONOMY, available at www.CoolTheEarth.US, and writes the CLIMATE CHANGE THIS WEEK column at the HuffingtonPost. Living summers in the alpine Rockies, she is on the frontlines of watching what climate change can do. Her diagnostic digital photographs of wildflowers have appeared in numerous publications.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to New York, And Everywhere, Can Be Fossil Fuel Free Now – Stanford University Study

  1. ‘“Converting to wind, water and sunlight is feasible,…”‘

    If it’s feasible, then non-governmental organizations can do it without subsidies and crackdowns on other forms of energy. If you have to force people through government, then it’s not economically feasible.

    Debate: Alex Epstein vs. Bill McKibben.

    • melharte says:

      It’s not a matter of forcing it thru govt, but rather making it attractive by offering tax breaks and incentives — much the way fossil fuels are made “feasible”. That’s called evening the market playing field.

      • Tax breaks and incentives are force. The government is effectively fining everyone who doesn’t do what the government wants. With differential taxation, government is stealing from some individuals and companies but not others, creating injustice and distorting people’s economic decision-making. (That is, making their decisions economically unhealthy by force.)

        I don’t approve of subsidies or differential taxation for anyone, but can you point me to the special tax breaks that are given to fossil fuel companies and not to solar and wind? What I found was this article: Merrill Matthews: About Those Tax Breaks for Big Oil . . .

  2. melharte says:

    although many of the fossil fuel subsidies are in programs like the US petroleum reserves, and help the poor heat their homes, there’s also a nice slice of tax subsidies directly for fossil fuel industries:
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half-of-all-us-tax-subsidies-go-to-four-industries-guess-which-ones/
    Indeed, a small coalition of mostly democrats but also some republicans realize that we should at least level the playing field, and extend those same tax subsidies to the clean energy industry, and have proposed a bill to do so:
    http://www.coons.senate.gov/issues/master-limited-partnerships-parity-act

    • What matters on that chart you linked to is the “effective tax rate” column, because the “total tax subsidies” is in absolute numbers, not relative to the size of the industry. Of course, bigger industries are going to have larger absolute numbers.

      Yet the “effective tax rate” in that chart for “oil, gas and pipelines” of 15.7%, doesn’t match up too well with this article from CNN:
      “On paper, the five big [oil] companies operating in the U.S. have an effective tax rate of around 40%, said Anne Mathias, director of research at MF Global’s Washington Research Group.
      That’s considerably higher than the U.S. average of 28%, and would mean a company like Exxon Mobil has a higher tax rate than 90% of U.S. corporations.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s