China’s growing economic power is a growing concern for many Americans. Can the U.S. continue to compete with China in the global marketplace?
In a new piece for Reuters, EDF President Fred Krupp says “yes” — through the power of comprehensive climate and energy legislation.
Fred talks about the new “tripartisan” effort to pass a climate and clean energy bill in the U.S. Senate.
He also talks about how that effort is our best hope to beat China in the world’s clean energy markets — and win the jobs those markets create:
Along with Sens. Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman, I believe we can match the scale of China’s centralized industrial policy by fully deploying the engine of American prosperity: our marketplace. It is the only tool we have with the scale and capital to compete with China. If the U.S. puts a limit on carbon pollution, we will send a clear signal to the marketplace that will unleash a massive wave of private investment in low-carbon energy sources and technologies like carbon capture and storage that would allow us to compete with the Chinese. Only when American policy creates a profit motive for investors, inventors and entrepreneurs, will we have a chance to win the race.
You can read the full piece here.
4 Comments
This is absolutly stupid. If we are wasting billions of dollars on CO2 sequestering and borrowing trillions of dollars from the China to pay for stupid global warming reseash that will do nothing to change global temperatures because the greenhouse gas effect violates all the laws of physics. We will soon be slaves to the Chinese both financially and physically.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institute fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrate to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm sci-
entifc foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-
house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the
assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
No. China has already taken over much of the business in this world. Plus it now has Nuclear Power plants and recently it wants more to do with Oil in the arctic. I think the Bush Administration really got us in this hole.
The problem not recognized here is that we are in a race with not China, BUT Mother Nature, who is starting up her own infernal combustion machine. This machine was described in a paper in Science Vol. 312, pgs 1612-3(2006) and is fueled by yedoma being exposed under melting permafrost mainly in Siberia. According to the paper this machine’s exhaust mainly of carbon dioxide and methane from the biodegrading of yedoma could grow over some years to eventually total as much as 100 years worth of present day vehicle emissions. China, the USA and the rest of the world need to wake up to what they are really competing with in Mother Nature.
We have to get the sun’s energy utilized much more efficiently to turn off that machine by getting to renewable fuels, much more windpower, solar panels and several other systems. One system would be solar concentrators to get clean water by distilling salt or brackish water or even dirty fresh water. This would be much cheaper than the various osmosis processes presently in use that have not worked very well and could be easily set up in many tropical areas having poor water supply if any. Where we could really take action is by using pyrolysis on the massive ever-growing messes of organic wastes that have trapped CO2 and heat energy that we let get away with present handling of such messes. I have described using pyrolysis on the messes in many comments on EDF blogs and with direct e-mails to EDF staff. Pyrolysis will convert about 50 % of the biocarbon present to inert charcoal that can be used as a soil amendment. Search my name on Google or the NYTimes especially its Green, Inc. blog.
The bigger bonus in view of EPA’s recent announcement of preparing to set limits on several drugs showing up in drinking water is that pyrolysis will destroy the germs, toxics and drugs in the messes. If set up properly pyrolsis systems will also give some renewable fuel and electric energy. Dr. J. Singmaster, Fremont, CA
For a little over 1-year now I have been reviewing all of the various comments, blogs and reports regarding the renewable and clean energy discussion. Anyone that is truly interested in advancing the use of alternative energies needs to understand that it can actually happen if and only if, they start appealing to individual’s “common sense”.
When spoken about from a Political tone or even from a Social and Environmental voice, people tend not to want to listen. The fact is most people are disgusted with the political overtures thrown around the country. Once they get a sense that a politician is speaking of the subject, whether it be for the good or not, they tune out and the movement goes nowhere. The same rings true if spoken by an environmental activist type. The fact here is, most people do not want to be thought of as some “environmental greenie” type. Although, if the discussion were framed as an appeal to one’s “common sense” such as: 1) do you think we should STOP buying/importing oil from overseas…? Everyone spoken to would without a doubt answer emphatically YES! 2) Mention, are you aware that the U.S. uses 25% of the world’s oil but, can only produce 2% – so unless we do something else, we cannot stop importing the oil needed to survive. 3) Ask, are you aware that the U.S. Government, especially the military are currently using all sorts of renewable and clean energy to conduct their various businesses. 4) Express to the U.S. public that in China, only 1% of the population owns a car, yet the Chinese Government is aggressively pushing with big incentives its’ citizens to purchase automobiles, and that China’s population of course, is 3-times the size of ours – then ask, where do you think gasoline prices are going once their driving citizens get onboard? 5) Explain how by going renewable your electric bills will decrease. Of course however, if there is not a great demand for the renewable energy source, the prices are initially higher to the consumer but, if the demand were to arrive, prices would ultimately decrease, alas the way of “flat-screen televisions”.
The tone of the conversation must change if there is to be any headway made in the advancements of renewable energy. EVERYBODY would welcome the change if and only if, the texture of the discussion was different. Take a peek at a new site I discovered online, http://www.reepedia.com
It is my understanding that they are trying to change the texture of the discussion. Good for them, but better for the American people because, the current dialog hasn’t and isn’t getting us anywhere.