I largely agree with your points in this and other posts but there is one small point I’d like to make in return: “Energy” is a broad term. There’s a lot of sunlight, for example, that hits the surface of the earth every second that we don’t make use of, so in a sense we “waste” it because we haven’t built enough solar arrays to capture it. Same thing goes for wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, etc. And in that limited sense, who is or isn’t using a greater percentage of the world’s “energy output” doesn’t really matter, so long as that energy is renewable. If all of the countries of Africa got together to build windmills and solar arrays, something to capture tidal power–what have you–and as a result those percentages shot up (for example, now America is using 25% of the world’s energy output and Africa is using 50% and everybody else combined is using the remaining 25%), that’s all fine. The real problem is when that power comes from non-renewable resources (oil and coal and natural gas, as you state), and when the whole of the world’s economy is dependent upon these non-renewable resources. Then we have a big problem. Natural gas will peak soon after oil, and coal will eventually peak too, as will uranium and everything else.

The only reason I bring this up is that America shouldn’t be knocked for using as much “energy” as it does. It should be knocked for using as much energy as it does that comes from sources that aren’t renewable, have to be imported, etc.

On a lighter note, I did see a ricksaw (two, in fact) in downtown Alexandria the other day. So that’s something. Saw more than a few buses running on Soybean oil, too.

http://www.wecansolveit.org/

which is a site dedicated to Al Gore’s challenge to have clean energy in 10 years. I found the info useful and motivating — they are trying to mobilize people for political action. Like Chris says, we should be demanding leaders who give us a clear vision for positive solutions. And to be fair, both Obama and McCain have talked quite a bit about investing in renewable energy sources etc. I’m sure they will be addressing this more in their upcoming debates.

Chris

Compromise is all good long as the gas and oil credits don’t trump the others. See-see. I hope eventually the US govt will embrace sugar cane as an alternative for energy since corn (heavily subsided and more healthy for consumption!) sucks as the ethanol alternative. I think Brazil is having a better time with their sugar cane based fuel.
-kate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08.....ref=slogin if anyone is registered with NYT, they shdn’t have a problem with the link. A few excerpts to help clarify:

“It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.” This is due to expire in December and according to Friedman, McCain wasn’t present to vote for them (8 times it was presented at Senate for voting) including the one time he was in his senate office and didn’t bother going to vote).

McCain favors nuclear energy over other alternatives and Friedman notes that Obama was there three times to vote in favor of solar and wind credits. And that he wasn’t there on July 30 to vote.

Friedman spoke with a man (and quoted him) from the Stella Group, a group that tracks clean tech legislation in Senate. I haven’t looked them up on the website yet.. hope this helps.