That’s because we’re not home. We have vacated the heat of the city. Where we are, it’s a little chilly at night. We have the ultimate luxury. It’s not a central air system. It’s not a super-insulated house. It’s a very small, spartan cottage, on the water of Penobscot Bay in down-east Maine, which I share with my sisters.

My mom, who is in her 80′s lives here in Deer Isle, Maine, year-round, and visited tonight. She was born in Baltimore, and as we discussed the heat wave along the East Cost (consistent with the predictions of climate change), we asked how people managed to tolerate the heat in Maryland in the 1930′s. She said that her rich friends all got out of town and headed for the ocean. She said she grew to hate places like Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Maine where her friends went — she was stuck in Baltimore. She spent her summer afternoons reading quietly, under a shade tree. Perhaps it’s not ironic that she moved here with my dad in the mid-1970′s.

In the 1930′s, only the wealthy were able to travel to cooler climates. My grandfather on my Dad’s side was an English professor at universities in Ohio and Indiana, and it was my grandmother’s family who had found a small island in Maine to go to when the weather became unbearable in the mid-west. The stories of their epic travels, by carriage, train, and eventually by a ferry from Rockport (before they built a bridge) were astonishing. But then again, they came when school was out, for the whole summer.

Even as a child in the 1960′s, the trip from Connecticut by car — down to 10 hours or so once the Interstate system was finished, seemed epic. But we stayed for a month.

My grandfather and mother stayed for the whole summer. My parents came for August. Until recently, my family came for a week, or perhaps two.

I wonder if my children will have the chance to come at all?

The only noise our air conditioning makes is the waves of the frigid Maine ocean water breaking on the beach.

Before we left our Boston home, things were beginning to swelter. We have girded our house in many (if not all) of the ways possible from the elements of winter and summer. Yet my office, designed as a sun room, is not surprisingly, quite hot on a bright day, despite air sealing, insulation on all sides, double insulated glass, awnings, fans, and the like. It’s fine, but it’s not “chilly”.

Having been here a week, and with several more to come (thanks … I guess … to a solid DSL line and WiFi so I can work) I can live for a while in the comfort of the oceanfront. The mountains are good, too.

But of course the majority of folks in our every larger world haven’t such a great and incredible luxury. We had a visit to Europe in July last year, and were pleased to see that few had turned to air-conditioning, and instead lived in houses and apartments sensibly designed for the conditions — stone, shaded, small, and designed for cross breezes. And yes, fans. Rich and poor alike have eschewed air conditioners … and Paris, at least, is not a cool city.

But still, most people don’t live in Paris. Most of us in the US live in places that are downright inhospitable during one part or other of the year.

Why? Indeed, we’re flocking to places like Phoenix. Does this make sense?

Why have we created huge population centers in places that are intolerable for much of the year? Why have they grown and flourished?

Because of heating and air conditioning. And mostly the latter.

Heating is easy: build a fire, whether by wood, coal, gas or oil, we can keep warm just by burning stuff.

The physics of cooling is far more sophisticated. Actually, cooling is just a form of heating, taking the heat out of one part and moving to another (with a good deal of energy required to perform the heat transfer miracle). Other than ice, stored from rivers frozen in winter, there wasn’t cold stuff above ground until air conditioning started proliferating in the 1950′s. And below ground was a little cooler, but pretty moist.

But the cool basement, or an ice house — these are things of the past.

Now, in the cities, towns, houses, and pretty much everywhere, even here in Maine, people are able to easily buy, install and turn on air conditioners, or central air systems to keep their whole house dry and comfortable even when it’s 100°F outside. Just plug ‘em in. Our cars, offices, restaurants, movie houses, and even back-yard patios are air-conditioned.

We sit on our patio in the cool evenings in Boston, where temperatures sometimes fall into the 70′s and listen to the sounds of the central air compressors running, even though there’s cool air to be had just on the other side of that window, if only it would open.

As a boy in Connecticut in the 1960′s, I remember the day when my Dad brought home a window air conditioner. On the hottest days, I would be allowed to sleep in my parents’ room, where it was installed. It was heaven — almost as good as Deer Isle (except noisy as hell). On days other than the hottest days, it didn’t run — it was far too expensive.

This shift to full-time conditioned space is a stunning development, happening wholesale, in the last 50 years or less. Even many of the least well-off folks in the US probably have some air conditioner. Just as they have heat, computer, TV and a car — things not in existence 100 year ago are now a simple necessity.

It occurs to me that air conditioning (and heating, which happened earlier, since it was easier) has allowed us to live in places not fit for the kind of busy lives we need to live to be productive American consumers.

And what has enabled this? Mostly the ready, accessibility of energy, with a few good dashes of enabling technology, and our increasing intolerance or ability to handle discomfort.

It may be true that we can generate sufficient renewable energy to maintain this rather bizarre and energy intensive lifestyle — one devoid of vacations to the sea, or mountains — one requiring work for all but a week or two of the year. We certainly have plenty of solar and wind, in the long run to power our heating and cooling needs, and we have the technology to make our dwellings and vehicles more efficient and climate controlled. I think it’s good that this is true.

But as I listen to the high tide hit the beach outside, and realize that I am a little chilly, I wonder — isn’t a trip to another place, even if costly in terms of time, travel, alternate spaces, and so on — isn’t it something we need to think about building into our complex modern lives?

Is it easy to say for me? Yes, of course. My sisters and I inherited a beachfront cottage in Maine — a behest not coming to the vast majority of the country or world.

But it makes me think: is there something we have forgotten in our lives? Is home something we cannot leave but for a week or two? Even if we had unlimited energy and super-efficient houses, there’s something else that getting away does for your view of the world.

Has the cheap energy of oil, coal, and gas, and the technology that has built around it changed our way of life to a point where whatever comes next is something that is different, but maybe not better? Could a look at our past give us an idea of what might be better?

• oil
• natural gas
• coal
• hydro
• geothermal
• wind
• solar

When you rank, consider things like

• value
• cost
• climate
• benefit
• alternatives
• risk
• economics
• jobs

What were your criteria? Were they different than they were a few months ago?

Are corporations inherently evil? How about people?

Is mountaintop removal a good way to get coal? Would you pay a little more to get coal other ways?

Have you hear about Gasland? Did you know that natural gas releases about half the CO2 that coal does when burnt. Did you know natural gas prices are falling compared to others?

Does any of this have to do with water (by which I am not just talking about the tap water that is flammable, but really more about the tap water that doesn’t come out of the tap).

Do you remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Do you think we’ll figure out a way to get rid of spent fuel?

Isn’t it bad to flood massive valleys to create hydro power?

Are we concerned about bird deaths from wind? Or what about the idea that putting up lots of wind towers will interfere with wind (Don’t laugh). How about the visual destruction of the landscape?

Isn’t solar a little silly, since it only works on clear days?

Don’t electric cars use batteries that create massive environmental destruction?

How concerned are you about the impacts of climate change? Do you think some of the weird weather and stuff is just normal weirdness? Do you think we’ll find ways to sequester CO2? Will it do any good?

Do you believe in Peak Oil? (or Gas? Coal?). How does that play into things.

Can we resolve any issues that might arise without significant conflict?

What would happen to you tomorrow if the power went out for the day. (In case anyone reads this later, it’s June 26th, 2010)?
How about a few days?

Did you ever watch Mad Max?

These are just a few questions. I think we probably need to be thinking about them. Because there’s really no single good answer.

I don’t have any answers at the moment, but these are some good questions, if you ask me.

It occurs to me that we need more of the kinds of visual displays of quantitative information as promoted by the famous Edward Tufte book of the same name.

So, keepin’ it real, there is very little scale here, very little magnitude, and a lot more fun than much else.

But it worked for me.

Or, so started a post that I began writing a couple weeks ago. Then, in some sort of karmic mind-meld, Peter Troast at EnergyCircle.com wrote a post about Jevons, with almost the same conclusion as I was going to draw. Yeah, right, I hear you say.

So anyhoo, I think this topic is important to the larger discussion of energy, especially renewable energy, so here’s a link to Peter’s post on energy efficiency, which already has a nice thread of comments and observations — take a look, it’s a good read — and, add your thoughts!

I have an opinion about just about everything, including opinions. Daniel Weiss did a nice post on the Climate Progress blog showing how dramatically public opinion has shifted in the month or so since the oil spill started.

In short, people don’t think offshore drilling is such a good idea any more, and they’re willing to trade off economic development for environmental protection.

In my opinion, this shows how little value there is in the opinions of people. I am not trying to be negative, or get attention by being contrarian, smug, or elitist.

Instead, I think we’re at some rather great risk of self-destruction if we keep making policy opportunistically, and avoiding discourse and action until the time is right.

The time is right for change only when there’s a disaster of suitably large proportion. While I despair for the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico, and of the economic well-being of many whose livelihoods have been affected by this catastrophe, it is, in the grand scale of things, a “good catastrophe”.

In the blink of an eye, many policies have changed. They are good changes, and I am under no delusion that the Obama administration is bowing under to political pressure — on the contrary, they seized an opportunity to take action. I voted for Obama because he is canny, smart, and knows how to pull off stuff like this. I am happy with these changes.

But there’s a far bigger issue here.

We appear also to be consigned to wait for a suitably photogenic moment before we can act on climate change.

The photos of stranded polar bears are touching, but not enough. The photos of the thinning polar ice caps are not enough. The iconic photos of smog-laden air at sunset are not enough. The two record breaking floods we had this Spring in Boston are not enough. And certainly, the fact that the tree we planted in our yard which was eaten by moths is not enough.

These images and events are all important, abstract, indirect results of climate change. Indeed, the moth-eaten tree may be the most alarming. But none has the power of an exploding oil rig to cause things to happen.

We can take several paths to address climate change. The one we’re on now is better than the one we were on a few years ago. I cannot diminish the impacts of the acts that have occurred in the last several years. They matter. They are good. The direction is right. But while admirable, the changes we have made are stunningly inadequate. Pissing in the ocean.

The second course of response would be more like the one we’re having now to the oil spill. Something big happens for long enough, and with enough direct (not abstract) consequences, that we rise up and act!

The only event I can imagine that would be sufficient to change (or create) public opinion would be a section of glacier sliding off Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean. There may be others, but I fear they may be too slow-motion to hold our attention. Over the course of weeks or months big things happen. People begin to realize that large sections of Florida, New York City, Boston will soon be under water. Our emergency response is triggered. But the game will have been lost.

What else is there? Forest fires — dramatic, but they happen every year. Hurricanes — same deal. Loss of property due to rising sea levels — will affect other countries before ours, and impacts will be more genocide and war which is nothing new to humanity. They have nothing to do with climate change. They’re normal.

None of the many, many things happening now are sufficiently visual or visceral, nor are they sufficiently concretely attached to climate change to cause a meaningful response.

When massive fires happened, we passed laws to change how we manage forests and give away land for development, mostly missing the point. When the storm of the century happens twice a year for a decade, we miss the point and rebuild. When war breaks out, we fear the enemy.

Climate change has the unfortunate characteristic of being glacial in it’s pace. We see very mixed little indicators of change over time. Patterns of up and down continue (a little more of one than the other becomes evident only after some years). Visceral claims of “hottest” and “worst” and “most catastrophic” years are diminished with subsequent years that are not. Up and down. It always does that.

So, the path of minimal, opportunistic, but at least positive change is one path. The other is waiting for just the right massive disaster.

These are some pretty bad options.

Is it possible that there’s an alternative? Could we, as a country and world, actually act before the visual, visceral catastrophe occurs?

Connecting With Nature

I have been a hiker and camped in the wilderness since I was a boy — when you’re climbing a mountain you know how precious water is, but also learn how little of our technology we actually need to survive. This said, I prefer my modern tent, clothing, water purifier, backpack and clothing to what I had forty years ago. But stepping into real, pristine wilderness almost instantly connects me to the systems of the source. I think my strong environmental bent is mainly linked to this life experience.

Millions of us living in the Boston area are using backup water now. It’s far from a catastrophe — the water we’re able to use from other reservoirs is untreated, so we have to boil it to kill the bacteria that might make us ill. I found it remarkable and somewhat heartening to see how quickly we came together to deal with the problem. But for a few days at least, we’ll all have to develop some new habits, put up with some inconvenience, and suffer some economic loss. Will we also stop to think, if only for a moment, that two million of us could have our water supplies and lives affected due to the failure of one pipe? I can imagine much worse scenarios.

The attempted car bomb in Times Square was disruptive in a different way. Little will change, but one can only think the residents of Manhattan had a little chill run up their spine, recalling the impact of terror from 9/11.

In the Gulf of Mexico, a single failure has created a widespread environmental disaster. It will affect the livelihoods of many, and disrupt a sensitive eco-system, likely for many years to come.

Climate Change

We have been talking about climate change for decades now. In the first phase in the 1980′s we began to realize that our domination of nature, through technology and energy was causing a problem. In the second phase by the 2000′s, we realized we had to act immediately to deal with it. Now in the third phase, we are realizing that we have missed our chance to solve the problem and we now also need to take steps to deal with the inevitable consequences.

So let’s consider these current disasters. Needless to say, the events in Boston and New York were trivial compared to the BP Oil Spill. But each stemmed from a single failure of technology that supports our complex infrastructure. Each resulted in a near immediate change in the way we live our lives, whether just for a moment, or perhaps far longer, but change our lives we did. Conveniences and necessities are affected — the impact is greater and longer depending on the scale. Now in 2010, five years after Katerina tore apart New Orleans, the city is beginning to come alive again. It could take years to reverse the impact of the oil spill.

But compared to impacts of climate change that scientists predict, all of these events will be forgotten as blips.

We’re Not Just Surface-dwelling Resource Extractors, We’re People

Take a moment to realize that we survive only when we live as a part of the earth, not just as surface dwelling resource extractors. Our dependence on the proper function of the earth is largely in our hands, and absolutely a matter of life and death. We must take significant action now. Yet we’re dithering on even the most trivial changes.

We can and do come together in times of crisis, and we accept change because we have no other alternative.

The magnitude of the crisis of climate change is vastly larger and longer than any of these current disasters. Yet of course each of these events will cause us to ask, “What could we have done to prevent…” the oil spill, the car bomb, and Boston’s water problem. Committees will investigate. We’ll make changes. These problems are concrete, current, and real.

Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind

The problem with climate change is that it hasn’t really “happened” yet, and never will, in any single event. It is abstract, difficult to measure, and hard to tie to any given event. It’s only in the aggregate … after we start seeing patterns (or see something more dramatic and visual), that climate change will become real to most people.

I fear that as we try to figure out how to prevent oil spills, bombs, and water failure, we are missing the much bigger opportunity to take action. If we reconnect with nature, and look around, perhaps it would be evident that the way to stop oil spills is to find a different form of energy. I fully recognize that this will not happen overnight. But I think we under-estimate ourselves if we say that we can make change happen overnight, or even in 10 years.

We’re pretty good at responding to problems. But we’re terrible at doing what it takes to prevent them. Take a moment to think how powerful nature is, on this lovely spring day, and join in the movement of people who are willing to take action and understand that we need to deal with climate change.

Credit: New York Times

The news media seem to be coming around to my way of thinking. The New York Times is now reporting as the lead story that, um, those 42,000 gallons of oil per day leaking into the sea may be more like, um 210,000 gallons (this is all converted to “barrels” now — an oil barrel holds 42 US gallons, so the initial estimate was 1,000 barrels/day is now 5,000).

Holy hole, Batman!

And it appears that BP’s public relations operation has also gotten bigger.

Fortunately, the problem isn’t that bad. No, really.

A story yesterday said that there are several ways to mitigate the problem. The first is by burning the oil, which they tested yesterday, and which if extremely effective might reduce the amount of oil on the surface of the sea by half. Several other methods are in progress and are expected to take two to four weeks to implement (I am hopeful that these estimates are better than their original leak estimates).

The British Petroleum spokesman said of the safety device that isn’t working

…the blowout preventer was tested 10 days ago and worked. He said a valve must be partly closed, otherwise the spillage would be worse.

(the non-BP expert they consulted characterized “worse” as “orders of magnitude” greater. An order of magnitude is 10x, two orders of magnitude is 100x worse and so on).

The BP spokesman continued saying

…the crude spilling from the well was very light, the color and texture of “iced tea” and implied that it would cause less environmental damage than heavier crude, like the type that spilled from the Exxon Valdez into Prince William Sound in 1989. He said in most places it was no more than a micron thick and in the thickest areas was one-tenth of a millimeter, or the width of a hair.

(Oh and on that point, the Valdez spill released about 10 million gallons of oil. So at the rate currently estimated, the first million gallons has already leaked. And if the oil is contained in two weeks, only 4 million gallons will be released. If it takes four weeks, that brings the total closer to 7 million gallons.)

and then, in a fine bit of reportorial irony, the next paragraph says that the spokesman

…declined to answer questions about any potential political fallout and said BP “will be judged primarily on the response.”

So far so good for BP, as higher oil prices have doubled their earnings, and in a most ironic twist, this disaster is reported to complicate efforts to pass an energy and climate change bill.

I feel much better now. To summarize:

• It’s not nearly as bad as it could have been (even though five times worse than they thought)
• Shortages of iced tea in the South will be relieved
• The oil slick is thin
• It is not as bad as the Valdez spill (only 4 to 7 million gallons)
• Political fallout will be based on how they respond
• BP’s profits will help it pay for this minor little problem
• This may further derail climate change legislation

Sorry, but I have to say this: are all employees of oil companies idiots, or is it just their executives and spokesmen? (Not to mention Sarah “Drill Baby, Drill” Palin).

Not As Important as...

After dinner, I went to the New York Times to read more.

But I didn’t find anything without a search. Granted, lots of news today:

• Goldman Sachs CEO questioned on possible fraud
• Republicans blocking attempt to reform our financial regulations
• Stock market down 2% because Greek credit rating cut to “junk”
• Strict abortion measures enacted in Oklahoma
• Impacts from Arizona’s immigration laws

So I started trolling around the sections. World: nada. Business: nope, all front page stuff, plus Ford makes a big profit. Technology: Apple iPad related story. Science? Nope. Green? Nope. (Really!) Health? Nope. US: fifth story, something about Robots (turns out to be about the oil disaster).

Good thing for British Petroleum, apparently a lot of other big news pushed their little disaster to the back of the book.

OK. If I recall correctly, it wasn’t but a few days ago that there was a bru-ha-ha about Obama taking a rather unexpected stance on offshore oil drilling, which was that it was fine.

Even if it’s just a nice little irony that within weeks of making steps towards drilling for oil that a platform explodes (yes, explodes), killing 11 people, and four days later someone notices that thousands of gallons of oil are leaking into the sea every hour. And that now, three days later, it’s still leaking. So they have robots down there trying to deploy the emergency shut-offs. But they are not working.

Officials had initially said that the operation, which began Sunday morning, would take 24 to 36 hours. But on Monday a Coast Guard spokesman said officials would keep trying as long as the efforts were feasible because “it’s the best option.” The other options — collecting the oil in a dome and routing it to the surface or drilling one or more relief wells — would take weeks or even several months to execute.

So far, the environmental impact is not severe. But that’s because winds are blowing the right direction. For now. The forecast in a couple days doesn’t look so good.

I cannot understand why this is not a bigger news story! Heck, when there’s a house fire in Boston, it makes the top of the local news, but here, a rather dramatic explosion that killed 11 people, has 1,000 people working to fix it, which comes right on the heels of movements to allow other offshore drilling, whose efforts to fix are not making significant progress, and where the backup plan would take weeks or months (all while 42,000 gallons of oil are flowing into the sea — is this not news?

Sure, the political theater of congress questioning the Goldman Sachs CEO whose defense was interesting. But isn’t this oil spill thingy kind of … significant?

Update: since I started writing this at 8PM, the Times posted a story “Concern Grows about Impact of Oil Spill“, and it made the first page (below the fold).

By god, we would like to make money doing it.

Lots, if possible.

Apparently I should feel bad about this.

In today’s New York Times, a front page article raises the specter of how business has crept in to Earth Day.

Earth Day Forged from Idealism and a Vision for the Future

In 1970 when Earth Day was started 40 years ago, there were lots of things that were bad, and pretty much everything in “the establishment” would have been included. Recall there was a wildly unpopular war (Viet Nam was far, far more divisive than our current wars, I think), and Rock ‘n Roll was new far more than music with a back beat, and Nixon was President. There was a great deal of idealism. Baby Boomers were just blooming and asserting themselves (I think I count in that demographic).

The Clean Air Act was signed. An oil crisis happened. Nixon was out, Carter was in with his cardigan and turning the thermostat down to 68° and driving 55 in increasingly clean and efficient cars.

Idealism Derailed

Then, a funny thing happened. We grew up, got jobs, had kids, and some would say “sold out” … or perhaps the better word would have been “bought out”! By 1980, Reagan was president and the silly and annoying acts of the past were tossed (solar panels removed from the White House). Radical groups like Green Peace were doing silly things. The enviros had marginalized themselves. Business was back, baby!

Then, another funny thing happened. It took a while, but after an orgy of growth, consumption, and money, money, money it all came crashing down (almost). So do we love business or hate business? Are corporations good or bad? Is it OK to spend money on things that allow us to consume prodigiously without using so much energy?

Has Earth Day Matured Now That It’s Forty?

And now, 40 years after the first Earth Day, various environmental movements are organized. The ones that have been effective have made a difference. Others have gone by the wayside. There’s still a radical fringe, but as I look around, I realize that there’s a nascent and growing market for “green” stuff. Is that bad?

My experience at an Internet start-up was revealing, in some ways, and is instructive.

I was part of one of those Internet start-ups you may recall hearing about — we built a better search engine (started the same year as Google) and I could see what people were searching for. We all realized the Internet was a force, hopefully a good one, but as I watched what people were actually using our search engine for, I realized my noble ideas of the Internet were dampened a bit.

It turned out that a remarkable share of the population used search engines to find porn and all sorts of other not-so-noble things. The things people searched for would make a sailor blush.

Yet over time people are using the Internet for lots of things — some ignoble to be sure, but even the most cynical person must accept that some of the good things we hoped the Internet would bring are coming to pass. It’s a mixed bag, to be sure.

Earth Day Needs A Shrink

So back to various environmental, eco, green and other movements, perhaps kicked off for real 40 years ago on the first Earth Day. We’re still terribly conflicted about our relationship with capitalism, the “establishment” (which we now are), what’s right versus what’s effective, and about money and business.

My personal views have evolved in several ways — I am not a big fan of ExxonMobil, for example, but I do see that corporations can do good things. I graduated from college with a degree in Economics and was effectively a disciple of Ayn Rand — free, unfettered markets solve all. Since then I have come to see that humanity is smarter and willing to do whatever it takes to screw the other guy.

Free markets work best when there’s someone keeping an eye out for the cheaters. But I absolutely believe that the fundamentals of capitalism are not evil, and can indeed allow our smartness as a species to do good things.

Can Business And Idealism Coëxist?

Doing good things is very subjective, of course. So let’s agree that “good things” can turn out to be bad things (“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”).

So let’s get over our ideals about what is right and wrong. It’s not black and white.

I can say with absolute certainty that the company I joined, Energy Circle, is based on the idea that we can, as a business, move along what we believe to be a very important change in our society. We are reading the signals of the markets, taking opportunities where we see them arise, and trying to build a business that helps people make their homes and offices more efficient.

Our goal as people, the members of the corporation, is to be part of the movement that solves what we think is one of the world’s most significant problems. Our goal as a corporation is to survive, and thrive as a business so that we can continue to be part of this movement. Otherwise, we’ll need to get a job for another company.

If you’re angry that Earth Day has turned into a massive commercial opportunity, take a look around and realize that while some, even much, is purely “green washing”, some businesses using Earth Day to sell is motivated by genuine desires to do the right thing. It’s hard to tell which is which, but over time, the idea started 40 years ago turned from a movement to a full-blown part of our society.

In the US this pretty much means that we start businesses and sell things. I highly recommend starting with an energy monitor (free shipping Earth Day Special!), which we happen to sell at my company’s online store.

Gasoline prices are around $2.80/gallon, up from around $2.00/gallon a year ago and rising a little each week over the last month.

Heating oil cost has risen over the year from $1.40/gallon to around $2.20/gallon.

Natural gas is also up year over year, rising from around $3.50/MMBTU to around $4.00, and volatile, closing over $7 for a few days in the winter.

However, domestic US Coal prices are about even, down a little, this year (from $2.21/MMBTU to $2.14) — I guess the energy we produce at home can be less expensive. Too bad burning coal releases about 2x the CO2 of natural gas (and a great deal more than wind and solar).

How We Respond To Energy Price Changes

But it appears that only energy prices drive our behaviors. We tend to over-react in some ways (markets, producers, consumers), yet have remarkably short memories, and seemingly weak abilities to identify coming changes.

I do understand that many people are negatively affected by high energy prices (and that higher prices disproportionately affect low-income families), but I would argue that price volatility, leading to uncertainty is the more painful element of energy prices. Adding renewable energy sources to the mix only helps this, although at today’s levels, we’re not producing enough to really affect the market.

Will Higher Prices Cause Us To Act On Climate Change?

But my real concern is climate change. But climate change is mostly abstract and distant (unless some great chunk of ice slides into the sea). I believe that meaningful legislation for climate change will be wrapped in the more immediately accessible concerns of energy security and green jobs, but those are not enough. It may sound callous, but high energy prices also bring the problem home, even if they create some pain.

Perhaps this time we can plan in advance a little. But I doubt it.

I am cheered and hopeful that the Obama administration does seem to have the courage and skill to act on issues that people are confused about, like health care.

Sources:
Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices (US DOE)
Last year’s DOE Price Projections
Oil and Gas Spot Prices