McKibben wins fight to green the White House
The Washington Post is reporting this morning that the Obama administration has finally agreed to install solar panels on the roof of the White House.
The decision perhaps has more import now after legislation to reduce global warming pollution died in the Senate, despite the White House’s support. Obama has vowed to try again on a smaller scale.
Last month, global warming activists with 350.org carried one of Carter’s solar panels – which were removed in 1986 – from Unity College in Maine to Washington to urge Obama to put solar panels on his roof. It was part of a global campaign to persuade world leaders to install solar on their homes. After a meeting with White House officials, they left Washington without a commitment.
The campaign to reinstall solar panels — stripped off the roof by Ronald Reagan at the end of the Carter presidency — was led by Vermont-North Country activist Bill McKibben
Tags: environment
.png)
Hooray for McKibben; and for Carter for having good sense in the first place.
“Last month, global warming activists”
This is too good not to mention. Europe is predicting “the coldest winter in 1000 years”
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
Global warming activists are going to try to rebrand themselves as the “climate change” activists, but too many people are already laughing at them for them to ever gain respectability with the public.
Only the “smartest people in the room” will ever take them seriously again.
So we’re putting 30 year old panels on the WH roof. Will they actually be connected to anything or just sitting there? Seems to me that a good, green minded solar energy company could have donated a complete, modern, efficient system to the WH if the players were serious about this. Instead we get a political statement. Go figure.
I would assume the panels that will actually be installed will be new 21st century panels and not the actual “Carter” panels used in the symbolic march referenced in the article. What would be really cool is if they install integrated panels or even the multi-spectrum panels used on the Mars Rovers which are reputed to be nearly 40% efficient. Since it’s mostly a symbolic gesture anyway, why not use the most cutting edge solar technology available? And I think a few micro wind turbines would be appropriate as well.
Thinking out of box :
While some nearsighted folks are counting cents on the utility bill, the vessel America is sinking right now.
As always, the U.S. stock market has been so busy chasing the economic data while the oil money, the significant chunk of red ink, has been spilling severely and doggedly.
For example, what if a household spending far outweighs its earning ?
To date, the Congress & just about media have been gripped by the infamous lobbyists, in place of FRESH IDEAS, which I feel results in this unimaginable scene.
It is claimed that : ” the U.S. uses about 24 percent of the world’s oil, this equates to 20.9 million barrels a day. If the U.S chooses to embrace renewable energy, the U.S could save $750 billion per year and create about 6 million jobs”.
Sometimes I think that Bill McKibben is not the best spokesperson for this type of cause. He means well, and I know for many NCPR folks just me writing this is sacrilege. But I recently read an article by Bill. It is sort of this Carl Palidino approach to dealing with climate change, “we are madder than heck and are not going to take it anymore” sort of thing. I think it is counter productive. First it get’s him fired up and then he seems to lose his way. For example in the article he criticizes some in congress for using the records snows that fell in the mid-Atlantic states last winter to say that climate change is not occurring. Then he turns right around and says that the record heat this summer in the north east is evidence of climate change? If he really wants to educate people on climate change (especially human induced change) he should avoid these spurious arguments. I think that he is so angry about action on the subject that he is losing it a bit. This “fight” over a few solar panels on the White House is another distraction he should just avoid.
Sorry type: I mean to say “angry about inaction”.
I think its fine I am glad they are putting them on the white house.
But I think the time for symbolism is over, I want to buy a solar panel at Wal-Mart for under $1000 and install it myself. That is what I am looking for. Until we start to get to that point this movement is still like those cars of the future that never really get produced.
Here’s a link to more info. on the White House installation:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20018542-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Mervel,
I’m with you on affordable solar available at your local hardware store……It’s coming as all sorts of new players are entering the solar energy business. This increased activity promises to spur even greater innovation and cost reduction.
JDM,
I’m not sure I understand your criticism. “Global Warming Activists” have been “Climate Change Activists” for years – ever since Al Gore entered the scene. Scientists have known that gradual warming trends would lead to eventual freezing trends because of the gulf stream shutting down. Research on this dates back to the early 1900s. Unfortunately there has been a disconnect between scientists and the general public (Scientists thinking the lay-person won’t understand [also not having the charisma to communicate in small enough words], the public not paying attention to anything that doesn’t go *boom*).
There are plenty of groups, websites, blogs, etc. now that the scientific jargon is translated sufficiently for anyone paying attention. It’s those that choose not to pay attention in the first place that are lost.
From the article above:
“President George W. Bush quietly installed three solar systems on the White House grounds”
That evil Bush!! Where was his spin doctor!
I can hardly wait to hear the response to this from the anti-wind power types. This should be interesting.
They don’t need solar panels in DC. They could better cool the planet by not letting any of the hot air generated by politicians escape from Congress, the Senate and the White House.
But let’s be fair to McKibben. He’s only trying to make a living by delivering huge quantities of hot air.
Pete,
You are right this “effort” does little to solve the climate change problems but it does sell books!
As far as the “political hot air” you might be onto something!
Paul, you beat me to the punch. So where was all the bravos and such when Bush installed THREE systems? Why is Obama doing it sooooo much better?
Oh, my bad, he’s not Bush…
Brandon:
No. Sorry. Man-made global warming caused by the “greenhouse effect” caused by automobiles, et. al. means the earth is warming. Ice is melting. Coastal areas will be underwater. Polar bears will be swimming instead of sunning themselves on ice bergs. Our fresh water supply will merge with salt water.
You gotta stick with the program. The earth is overheating, according to the script, and we’re to blame.
Many of us realized this was a hoax from the start. We said that man can’t warm the earth, cool the earth, make the sun go up or make the sun go down.
Your group says we can. Well, now you’ve got to live the reality that your experts don’t have a clue what they were talking about, which is the position my side has always held.
The earth isn’t melting due to man-made activity. It’s cooling because of things bigger than man. Man can’t ruin the earth. We can be good stewards, but we can’t melt the glaciers, which is the position my side has always held.
You can go down with the global-warming smart guys. I chose to hit the “ignore” button long ago.
Paul, while the mid-Atlantic states had record snowfall last winter they also had above average temperature for the season. Warmer air carries more moisture.
Mervel, you’re right that we need solar power at more affordable prices. Just as flat panel televisions became much cheaper as demand grew so will the price of solar panels. The problem is that solar panels don’t have huge marketing budgets like most consumer good do.
And all of you who pooh-pooh decent people, like McKibben, who are working very hard to try to make life better for you and your children and your grandchildren, disagree all you want but give a man some respect for trying. As Mario Cuomo once said, any jackass can kick down a barn.
Bret,
I think maybe Bush got no credit because he did it “quietly.” Didn’t want anybody to think he agreed with anything liberal. Or truly conservative. Like conserving. And Obama will get bashed for this by guys on your side, just watch, because he didn’t do it until McKibben publicly shamed his administration. And Obama should get bashed for not embracing the idea when it was presented.
Don’t worry, Mervel. The Chinese or Germans will have reasonably priced solar panels for you soon enough. And just like Cuban trade, our dumb politics will make us a day late and a dollar short of solar’s economic opportunities.
Some good stats here on 2010, on course to be the warmest year on record:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/12/heatwave-record-temperatures-world
At least 17 countries recorded their highest temperature ever. Just one recorded its coldest temperature on record.
And Lake Champlain didn’t freeze over. Again.
We said that man can’t warm the earth, cool the earth
why do you think that, jdm? what’s the basis for it?
hermit:
Not sure if you are asking a serious question.
Do you think we can build an air conditioner large enough to cool the earth?
Last I heard, some of the 14th floor in the Sacramento Municipal building overheats at peak hours.
The warmest ever. The coldest ever. The most snow ever. The least snow ever. What’s a person to think?
The problem with all of these so called extreme facts are several. First and foremost, we are hardly if ever comparing apples to apples. Where are the thermometers placed to do the readings? How accurate are the thermometers? Has their location changed over the years? If at the same location, has the location itself changed? Is any account being taken in for how high and lows for a given day are affected by cloud cover? (Clouds at night keep the temp up, while clouds during the day keep the temp down) Remember, contrary to what your local weather forecaster might say, there is no such thing as a normal temperature. There are only averages. Add the high temp to the low temp, divide by 2 and you come up with the so called average. But the average is only a number. You would get a much more accurate average if you were to add all temp readings for every minute of the day, then divide by all the minutes of the day to come up with a true average temp. Why? Because the temp can swing wildly. There are many cases where the temp is – for example – at 30 degrees for most of the day but briefly shoots up to say 40, then rapidly drops back to 30. Would you really want to say the average temp was 35 when for most of the day it was at 30?
All I’m suggesting is that climate/weather is very complicated and is subject to many factors and thus subject to many interpretations. Keep this in mind. The most abnormal weather you can imagine for a particular day is one where the high temp is the average high temp for the day, the low is the average low for the day, the rainfall or snowfall is the average for the day and the cloud cover is the average for the day. A day like that would be far from normal. It would truly be abnormal!
i am serious, jdm. you just say point-blank that man-made global warming is hoax because man-made global warming is impossible. humans simply can’t do it. i think there are probably a lot of people out there who feel the same way. i’d like to know why you think that. why is human-driven global warming impossible?
Pete, people actually go to school and study this stuff and people research it. Many very smart people have worked really really really hard to figure out ways to measure and check and double check. And they have records from all around the world, some of them stretching back for centuries to compare.
The whole idea of science is that you think of all the ways that your data could be misleading, you try to account for that, then you show your data and results to everyone else. They pick it apart and see if what you’re saying holds water. Guess what? Pretty much every climate scientist agrees except the ones who are paid not to.
The scientists making money off climate change say it’s true, those that don’t say it isn’t. It still comes down to one group saying we have to bankrupt ourselves to change the world, while the rest of the world does nothing, one group that says it’s garbage. Given the choice I side with group B.
Shorter Bret: “lalalalalalllaalllalalalala I can’t hear you.”