Seriously, I agree that you can change the system such that you can put up any energy technology you want. However, if the technology does not yet exist you will run into the proverbial brick wall. An entire grid filled with current wind and solar technology will simply not work without an adequate amount of energy storage. And no matter which economic/social system you employ materials need to be obtained/processed and energy must be expended to maintain the current global population. Yes we need to do better (more recycling, minimize mining, no-till soil techniques, etc), but the physical needs are real.

I must also have been misunderstood: I am NOT in favor of keeping people in poverty. It is the march of development that is one of the drivers behind greater energy demand in the developing world. Besides the industries described by Ryan, public health facilities such as water treatment and hospitals require energy too.

Translation= their suffering and very lives are worth less because their labor produces less valuable commodities

“It is not an exaggeration to say that, at the present day, one of the main dangers of civilization arises from the inability of minds trained in the natural sciences to perceive the difference between the economic and the technical- Lionel Robbins 1957″

I agree it is critically important not to fall back on “preconceived” notions about social institutions. If there is one thing my studies of political economy over the past several years have taught me it is that our current economic system not only reproduces greater and greater inhumane conditions but also is incapable making the needed changes for sustainability. I will not try to convince those who believe otherwise here in this limited space, but I would reiterate the urgency of addressing the tired defense of this system which has increasing been the only defense over the past 15 years: the endless mantra of TINA- There Is No Alternative. We must create alternatives, and there are stories across this page of entrepreneurs and activists making strides far faster when they are geared towards meeting our needs rather than a competitive profit margin.

That is not to say we should not try to influence corporations, politicians, and academics/scientists or to suggests that people are not capable of seeing past their own interests. However, increasingly:
“[W]e have to see “officialdom” as people who are judged and judge themselves in terms of the functional goals of the bureaucratic structures for which they work. Their sense of self worth, their income levels, status and life chances are in good measure tied to whether their agencies get that land, build that dam, or strip that coal. We thus cannot appeal to their “better natures,” because to do so implies that they commit a sort of sociological suicide and resign from their perceived organizational communities. They are in good measure beyond reach; they are Heath’s robots in action. At best we can try to redefine their interests for them; more likely we will have to oppose them.”-
Plaut, Thomas. 1978. “Extending the Internal Periphery Model: The Impact of Culture and Consequent Strategy”. Colonialism in Modern America: The Appalachian Case. Lewis, Johnson, and Askins Eds. Appalachian Consortium Press P.362

Both opposing and redefining the interests of the powerful and complacent will require a popular base ready to use force (not to imply that this force must be in the form of violence). We will not mobilize such a base with plans of “minimal invasiveness” that seek to maintain as many of the worlds inequalities as possible. We may judge the protests of our plans’ inefficiency by privileged and respected members of business and economics by their claims as to what is most efficient (and consequently what Mr. Margolis has apparently been trained to consider non-”controversial”).
According to Lawrence Summers (Former President of Harvard University, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, former U.S. Treasury Secretary under Clinton, and nephew of Paul
Samuelson and former son-in-law of Kenneth Arrow, both winners of the Nobel Prize in economics.):

“Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging
more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
(1) … should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country
with the lowest wages.
(2) … I’ve always thought that under-polluted countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably…low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City…
(3) … The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-a-million chance in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to
get prostate cancer than in a country where under-5 mortality is 200
per thousand…

The high-priests of economics whose empty scriptures produce sermons like the one above (excerpted from the Economist Magazine) are kept well funded and comfortable by the 1% of the population who control nearly half the world’s wealth. To them and theirs I would say:
“You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

The food riots occurring around the world this week as food is consumed in profit maximizing biofuels schemes which do nothing for the climate and the looming recession in the US are just the beginning of the crises young people today will face. Don’t get to bogged down worrying about about the “foot-draggers” there are so many more poor and working class people in the world who don’t require pleading and persuasion, only some education and organization, to spring into action.

I would also be interested in knowing if the ten year clock is based on scientific consensus or the worst case figures.

I would think the fastest methods with current technology would be LNG and nuclear along with advanced soil techniques to capture CO2. They might buy the time to see if energy storage can be made to work for the longer term for integration with renewables.”

Certainly it will be difficult, but we’ve faced larger difficulties before. However, I think it’s important to evaluate priorities and investments. The grid needs and overhaul, as it’s deteriorating already. Xcel Energy announced last month that it would prototype the first “smart grid” in Boulder, CO. Meanwhile, permitting for nuclear takes about 20 years and the government will pay for any and all insurance and risk. If nuclear is to be part of the solution, we would have to start permitting today, and frankly, I don’t think most of the American public is going to buy it. So what’s more feasible on the short term?

I’m not willing to completely discount nuclear and carbon capture, nor the effectiveness of corporations (Xcel itself serves some eight states). Each of these structures have something to offer. I would turn back to the quote offered above. “History indicates that the best partnerships happen when both sides have reason to be on board. Our job is to be noisy and joyful and footsore and clever and devoted enough to create that reason. Onward!” Only through collaboration and the aligning of interests can we achieve the significant change that is needed.

By continually pushing the boundaries of what’s “acceptable, favorable or profitable” for corporations, activists change the playing field and incentivize better solutions. Yes, we must be watchdogs as Nader warns us, but we must also not fall back on preconceived notions of “good” and “evil” institutions. I don’t agree with the power structures ingrained in corporations, but that we can still work together with the understanding that everything is dynamic. It doesn’t mean compromising our interests or losing our greater mission; it just means using the most effective ways to produce the greatest and most needed change in the shortest period of time.

Let’s look at it in a different light. Investment in renewable energy technologies is the growing at unbelievable rates and allowing companies to install massive clean energy capacity. “Why don’t students invest in clean energy?” these investors may ask.

Of course, examples abound of people in post-student lives acting and influencing in positive ways, beyond investment. Look at the politicians suing the EPA for the right to regulate CO2 emissions. Granted, it would be better if it didn’t have to be a drawn-out court battle, but people with legal knowledge, regulatory powers, and political capital are working to make change in what amounts to the relatively extreme measure of suing the Federal Government. Is this not activism?

Maybe their resources can be put to better use than blog entries and protests.

In summary, I would conclude that the main difference between environmentally-conscious generations is the sensitivity to the rate of change. We all know that global climate change necessitates immediate action, and I believe that we are reaching the critical mass required to begin making serious strides towards a sustainable energy economy. Older generations might see political, technical, and economic change as more of a process than a revolution.

But please, please consider these contributions before you degrade their efforts.

I will have to look up how quickly the TVA built grids in the 1930s, but it will be difficult at best to change over the grid to a distributed system in ten years. If I understand your timetable and goals, you propose to switch over the grid in about ten years (including transportation as I recall V2G as part of the energy storage). And I know everyone hates the corporations, but can all this be accomplished quickly with small non-profit cooperatives?

I would think the fastest methods with current technology would be LNG and nuclear along with advanced soil techniques to capture CO2. They might buy the time to see if energy storage can be made to work for the longer term for integration with renewables.