your opinions about climate science shouldn’t change what you should do about energy. Whether you care most about national security, or jobs and prosperity, or climate and environment, exactly the same energy actions make sense and make money regardless.
Thus, if we focus on outcomes, not motives, we can build a wide and rapid consensus on what to do, even if we differ about why to do it.
Exactly. And if you're against bold investments in clean energy and efficiency, then what are you FOR?
Do you have an alternative set of energy solutions that will actually work to reduce our dependence on oil and other expensively polluting fossil fuels, which cost the U.S. economy an estimated $160 billion per year in health costs alone? (Lovins didn't mention "health" benefits in the above quote, so I wanted to be sure to add it, given the presence of health insurance reform on America's agenda this week)
Anybody who opposes bold climate change and clean energy legislation should be asked to propose an alternative that will actually work.
"Drill Baby Drill!", you say?! Sorry, our own Department of Energy says drilling in Alaska and offshore will reduce gas prices by maybe 2 cents by 2030. Not even close.
Not to mention that global oil supplies are a sinking ship and staying on board will lead only to more economic, security, health and environmental instability and, likely, disaster. Clean energy and transport is the rescue ship -- the one to jump on to if you want to join us on our ride to the next great industrial revolution.
Thanks to LauraLu for passing the Lovins piece along...