The Reality of Climate Change

English: A colour version of previous map, ranking countries by carbon dioxide emissions in thousands of metric tonnes per annum, based on List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions as of March 2006. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have long been convinced of the importance of Climate Change but more importantly, I think, is that I am also certain of the reality of Climate Change.  I accept the judgement of the vast majority of scientists and observers that we have reached a point of no return and that our Climate is changing and will change enough, soon, that all of our lives will be greatly impacted.  I also believe that smoking causes cancer, that seat belts prevent auto deaths and basically that refusing to heed imminent warnings of "probable" approaching danger is, at least, questionable.  Even given that, however, most people today are unable to get from the first to the second of these understandings.

You will hear someone say that, yes, Climate Change seems to be a likely outcome of our use of hydrocarbons and if Climate Change were to happen it would be horrible, cause great turmoil and we would certainly have to do something.  But they cannot make that leap to Climate Change writ large. That is terribly unfortunate because Climate Change is happening, you see, and its effects will continue to accelerate as long as we continue to feed its unending appetite for carbon dioxide. It will end, not when its supply of carbon dioxide stabilizes but when it drops.,,a lot. Until we start dumping much less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the earth can naturally absorb, the climate will continue to get worse.  That will almost certainly happen and the climate will eventually revert to some level that we can tolerate.  The uncertainty is whether we will stop producing Climate Change's food supply purposefully or stop because we are no longer around to produce it.  Either way it is going to be a very long time.

I am sympathetic with that failure to step up to the reality of Climate Change.  It is not often that man has had to face the possibility of a self induced End-of-the-World scenario.  It is a bit embarrassing to have to come to grips with that, right when we seem to have mastered this whole consume-till-we-drop thing even to the point of designing our whole civilization in order to assure its continuation.  Limits are a tough thing to swallow anytime and it is a particularly unappetizing prospect when you are defining your very existence based on no limits at all. I have not reached the point yet of being able to shout it out to the masses.  I am still holding it close to my chest and wondering what to do.  I was born in the early age of hydrocarbons and raised entirely in its industrial world.  I really don't have another emotional model to fall back on,  Unfortunately, since I am pretty old, that means that probably no one in our modern society has a way to really draw on experience or have access to  another set of values that might see us through.

We need to talk about this now.  We have to have a vision to stand up against what will come.  It will not be a vision we have ever encountered before or even a vision that anyone can tell us about.  We are going to be on our own.

What I am Reading - The Water Knife

Climate Change is an unknown.  No human has experienced a climate like we are in the process of  setting up.  Ever.   I just read a new book by Paolo Bacigalupi that tries real hard to imagine what some of the consequences of this new world might be.  His new book The Water Knife delves into the politics of several U. S. Southwestern States, in the near future, fighting for a very limited supply of a very necessary, and therefore precious, resource - water. The central figure of the novel is an undercover operative for the Nevada water authority and is on assignment in bordering states, covertly trying to gain access to an ancient Native American water treaty while officially grappling with competing water officials and sabotaging water projects unhelpful to the Nevada plan.  In the meantime he comes in contact with an assortment of seamy characters and destitute local citizens trying to make a life in a very degraded environment.  This is the third book I have read of Mr. Bacigalupi's and I have enjoyed them all.  He incorporates a lot of well thought out technical detail and cultural subtleties in his story line.  It is not a pretty world he writes about but he has a way of making it seem possible.  I recommend it to anyone who is interested in thinking about all of the possibilities our new world might bring to the table.

The difficulty with keeping it simple.

Global annual fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions through year 2007, in million metric tons of carbon, as reported by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/home.html. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am still here, folks.  Not active on this site, obviously, but still watching, waiting and learning.  I now believe that the main dilemma we are facing has become less a problem to solve than a forgone conclusion that we must find a way to accept.  We are clearly unwilling, as a species, to restrain our prodigious consumptive habits.  We will not limit our population.  We will not reduce our dependence on hydro-carbons.  We will not throttle our resource-gorging lifestyles.  If we cannot, or will not, do any of these things then the carbon dioxide load of the atmosphere will continue to climb into uncharted territory and the planet will slowly evolve into an unlivable habitat for all life, including humans.

We are fooling ourselves if we think that there is a way to continue our exorbitant lifestyle and, at the same time, find a way to stave off the rapid deterioration of our planet's living environment.  It is really very simple.  Everything we do, or have, in today's consumer society is produced by burning hydro-carbons.  Our food, our utilities, our stuff, medicine, transportation, the internet, even mining hydrocarbons is not possible without using more hydrocarbons.  Burning hydrocarbons, in turn, produce carbon dioxide gases that migrate into the atmosphere (staying there for a very, very long time by the way) which causes heat to be trapped on the earths surface.  If you are still with me here, it follows that virtually everything that is consumed contributes to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and  the resultant Climate Change.

Climate Change, therefore is all up to you (and me too of course).  The more you consume the more you contribute to climate change.  When you consume something, everything that is consumed to produce, distribute, sell and recycle it are part of your consumption as well.  And, don't forget the other part of the equation,  everything your children consume (and their children) is also part of your consumption.  It really is that simple.

The more things change...

Global annual fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions through year 2007, in million metric tons of carbon, as reported by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/home.html. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It has been a long time since I have posted to this blog.  Once again the world has shifted while I was away.  I originally started this blog when I became convinced that we were in the grips of "Peak Oil," and eventually "Peak Everything." Depletion of critical resources was going to topple the Capitalist model and we would all suffer the consequences. This is still a certainty and its damage is probably working its way through our economy as we speak, but as important as this concept is to our civilization, I fear it has moved down in the list of horrors.  In fact, it might have been a cure for our real problem if it had indeed happened sooner, as many projected a few years ago.

Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And what is that real problem you ask.  Climate Change I answer.  By finding ways to prolong our prodigious use of hydrocarbons we have jacked up the probability that the climate will instead be our downfall, probably sooner than most can imagine.  The climate people on the dystopian fringes, clearly not yet the center, are beginning to point out dire clues that the earth has had enough and will now begin its ancient warming tasks in earnest, protected by a newly formed atmosphere fully fortified with a new supply of CO2.  I am told that there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time in man's history, probably for millions of years.  We are in completely new territory here folks.  I am going to stay tuned to this channel and I may bring some of what I find to this blog.  If what I am reading now, however, has any validity whatsoever we are all going to have to tune in soon.

Recent Reflections

I haven't posted for awhile.  It isn't because the problems of resource depletion have gone away, however.  I just lost faith in the power of logic and rational discussion to overcome the insurmountable optimism emanating from the exponents of capitalism and technology.  Uncontrolled resource consumption, and its unavoidable side-effects, resource depletion, climate change and over-population, is not just a consequence of our lifestyle it has become a primary goal for the planet.  There will be no logical stepping away from our idiocy.  There evidently will be no further discussion, period.

In particular, I can see no one in a position of power in our society making a case for reduction in consumption of hydrocarbons.  The discussion is all about more digging (in whatever form that takes with today's extraction technology), energy company tax breaks and removing whatever constraints might be in place to protect our environment from the consequences of this activity.  Politicians are pointing to all of the jobs that are generated producing "harder to extract" oil.  No one has pointed out that all of those new jobs and industrial activity is what is making oil more expensive.  We are locked into this mode of thinking and I really do not think it will ever change in time to provide any sort of relief from resource depletion's worst case scenario.

Time is not on our side.  If we wait until it hurts, there will be no relief.  The crazy weather has already begun.  Probably most of the political unrest in the Middle East and economic upheaval going on in Europe today is related to our unrestrained  consumption.  A few years ago when I became aware of the resource depletion issue and the Peak Oil/Climate Change dilemma,  I was convinced we would recognize the dangers and modify our behavior towards its moderation.  I am no longer so convinced.  There is no real pathway to that outcome.  Any discussion towards that end should probably be categorized as fiction or maybe even fantasy.

Related articles

• Clinton: Warn voters of scarcity
• Do You Have To Believe In Climate Change? [Casaubon's Book]

What I'm Reading - Windup Girl

If you are reading this blog you have already figured out that I am a peak oil advocate.  I'm not a fanatic, you understand, but I have come to the conclusion that we are going to reach a point of diminishing returns with our hydrocarbon supply very soon and we are going to have to learn to live on much less of everything than we have now.  I have talked about this before.  I am not going to hammer on it right now.

I've just read a book, however, that has jostled my pat little peak oil view a little.  The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi is a science fiction book.  It is the first book that I have read that takes a serious, new look at society's possibilities after the loss of hydrocarbon energy.  It takes place after the Industrial Expansion, even after the inevitable contraction, in a world where industry has still found a way to survive.  Methane from recycling is there, in a limited supply, and electrical power for small devices is generated using springs, hand cranks and the like (think treadle-computers).  Even a few pre-contraction tools of destruction are still laying around to be used by those in power when needed.  It is a unfamiliar and frightening world he puts together but it is believable.

Mr. Bacigalupi is not predicting, he is conjecturing. Like all good Sci-fi authors should be doing.  The genius of this particular piece of work is that he has arrived at a place that I had never been able to get to in my contemplations of the peak oil problem.  When I think about the problems that society would face following  a loss of hydrocarbon energy, I always end up assuming the end of industry, and most of the population, because of the extreme dependence that industry (including food production) has on hydrocarbon power.  My vision has always been sort of a return to pre-hydrocarbon times circa 1700.  Not Mr. Bacigalupi.  He has conjured up a society every bit as technical and power hungry as our own but based on bio-engineered beasts of burden, laborers and foodstuffs.  It is going to take me awhile to digest all of this new insight.  It might end up changing the way I think about the future.  In the mean time it was an amazing read. 

Unconventional Wisdom - An FP Special Report | Foreign Policy

As a statement of society’s plight at this time in history, this article is about as succinct as you can get.  Damned if you do and damned if you don’t (squared).  I believe the human race will survive this dilemma but I don’t think we will solve it.  The trajectory of human society has reached its apex and we should all now relax and enjoy the ride down to the third act which, I fear, will be very much like the first.

Unconventional Wisdom - An FP Special Report | Foreign Policy

Review: Diet for a Hot Planet

"Diet for a Hot Planet:  The climate crisis at the end of your fork and what you can do about it," by Anna Lappe, is a shot across the bow of the industrial farming interests that currently control, not only almost all of today's food production but, all of the dialogue we hear regarding food production.  In this highly researched book Ms. Lappe pits the large industrial farms against todays emerging organic farming community and comes up with some surprising conclusions that go against the prevailing ideas we hold about our present first world farming system.

According to Ms. Lappe the organic farmers can match crop yields for most crops and do so sustainably and in a climate friendly way.  Along the way she suggests many ways we can make changes to our lifestyle to minimize the climate threat.  For instance, she strongly suggests that we need to get rid of our need for meat as it is a primary source of methane, one of the worst chemicals in the climate change battle, and a very inefficient use of our arable land.  I was looking for a bit of a warning about the need for organic farming in a world of reduced availability of hydrocarbons.  There wasn't that kind of a message but it was clear that organic farming is a much lower consumer of hydrocarbons and therefore should be better positioned to weather the peak-oil storm.

Ms. Lappe is clearly a strong advocate for the organic farming revolution.  I hope that she is successful in her quest.  I am pessimistic, however, as I think there are far too many corporate, big money interests in play for this kind of effort to take place peacefully.  Eventually, all farming will be organic, there is no other long term option.  But until we have run up against the wall of hydrocarbon scarcity, we will be stuck with the system that is preferred by the power brokers.

Thinking about Sustainable Behavior

I accept peak oil as a fact. Having done that, I am forced to concede many other consequences that must surely follow. One of those consequences is a future of significantly reduced consumption for everyone. That follows both because the production of consumer goods will be limited directly by energy constraints and also because we will be spending a greater share of our resources in acquiring the energy sources and thus will have less to direct towards the consumption of other things. Here in the U. S. that reality will be particularly jolting since our per capita level of consumption is so high compared to the average world consumption and is treated as a social entitlement.

No matter how much we grumble, however, as energy limits are reached we will be forced to retool our thinking and behavior with regard to consumption and sustainability. I have spent many an hour imagining how I personally, and we collectively, might approach this new reality. One of the realizations that I came to was that we have developed some pretty bizarre assumptions in our pursuit of profit in a world of “unlimited” resources (that itself, of course, is the most bizarre). One such example, is the notion of “planned obsolescence.” This, to me, is the bi-polar opposite of sustainable behavior. Intentionally designing a product to have a limited life cycle (presumably for the purpose of increasing production/sales/consumption of the product) screams out idiocy in a rational world of real world limits.

Overtly planned obsolescence is a particularly vile example but there are many, more subtle, examples of essentially the same idea. Consider the intent of fashion or style. Fads are the epitome of this construct. This is really planned obsolescence as well, however cleverly it is woven into the social fabric. Nothing should become “so last year” in just a year. Even the marketing concept of trading off quality for price (think of post-war Japanese fare) feeds this insidious cycle of consumption. If you really think it through, you realize that we have structured our entire economic existence on a doctrine of non-sustainable behavior. Harmless enough, and surely profitable, but only in a surreal world of limitless resources.

What would product design look like if we were really interested in sustainable behavior. Let’s try “planned permanence.” A truly sustainable world would use non-renewable resources as if they were precious artifacts. A product that was produced in such a world would be intended to last forever or for as long a possible. These products would be perfectly functional, durable, repairable, maintainable, upgradable and in the end completely recyclable. There would be no economics of scale. Only those that were needed would be made. Finally, when you obtained such a product you would expect to keep it for as long as you had a need for such a product. Imagine inheriting your grandfather’s toolkit and having the builder’s grandson tune it up for you. Until you can accept such a way of life you won’t be happy in a truly limited resource, recyclable world.

Petrophy

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Population Growth Must Stop

 

Population, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow until we either face up to the fact that there are limits on our finite Earth or we are confronted by a catastrophe large enough to turn us from our current course.

I have written about population before.  Most mainstream media sources still won’t touch the subject but it finally appears to be a subject worth approaching in some quarters.  I have a feeling the “population question” will become more loudly discussed in the future.

Most of us don’t want to worry about population.  If we can afford to raise a child, or many children, that should be the end of the discussion.  Why should anybody care?  I live in, and love, America.  In America we are free to make those kinds of personal decisions.  I don’t want to think that it is anybody else’s business either. 

But there are other concerns if we care to think about ourselves as members of the human race.  In fact, living in America means that our babies are going to be using up an enormous share of the resources available to all of mankind.  We like to think that we are free to do that too, if we can afford it.  If everyone in the world consumed as we do in the U. S., however, worldwide consumption would have to increase by nearly an order of magnitude.  It is somebody else’s business I’m afraid.

At some point the unbridled growth in population and the cultural need to consume ever more resources as a mark of the good life will run headlong into the absolute finiteness of our supply of resources.  At precisely that point we will have to answer the “population question” or we will be handed the default solution.  It would be nice to think that we might find a cultural or social way out of this dilemma.  I am not optimistic.

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Population Growth Must Stop

In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig

 

New government and BP documents, interviews with experts and testimony by witnesses provide the clearest indication to date that a hodgepodge of oversight agencies granted exceptions to rules, allowed risks to accumulate and made a disaster more likely on the rig, particularly with a mix of different companies operating on the Deepwater whose interests were not always in sync.

In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig - NYTimes.com

I haven't said anything about the oil spill yet. I couldn't really decide how I felt about it. I was shocked of course. I was saddened. I was mad. But most of all I was scared.

I have accepted the reality of hydrocarbon depletion for a long time now. I don't think I have, however, fully accepted the consequences of that until now. I know that there is no way BP would have been drilling in this incredibly risky environment, a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, unless we were running out of easy places to find oil. This behavior, and others like it, is a direct result of our impending hydrocarbon depletion. But suddenly, I have come to the realization that there is a face to that risky behavior. The end of the oil age is going to be ugly.

The bottom line, of course, is that we must have our oil at any cost. We, the industrialized world in general and the United States in particular, have become so enamored of the joys that hydrocarbon consumption can bring to our lives that we will no longer tender any thoughts of an alternate approach. That is not hard to understand since we are so populous now (thanks to all that oil BTW) that we would only be able to support a fraction of our present consumption without it. So we will continue to drill. We will drill until we have nowhere else to drill and you and I will pay whatever it costs to see that it happens.

Now we know, all of a sudden, what that means. It means things like giant oil spills. Look for more of these kinds of things to happen. Look for them to happen in spite of the increased regulation and additional fortunes spent on keeping it from happening. This is where we are. The rest of the oil is out there hiding somewhere. And we are going to find it. No matter how ugly it gets.

Economist Debates: Green jobs

Economist Debates: Green jobs - According to this post, a majority of readers support a government effort to develop green jobs. This is a good thing. It is important to keep the effect that we have on the environment in mind as we go about our daily business. But it is not enough. We must also find a way to reduce our consumption....period.


We have entered into a period in our history that will result in a continual reduction in our ability to extract resources from the earth's supply for the forseeable future. There will simply be less to go around as supplies dwindle and population (at least for awhile) continues to rise. In short, the days of growth in consumption are over. Somehow, we must find a way to wean ourselves off of our consumptive behavior if we are to make an acceptable journey into our future.

I would like to see society recognize that this is the case but I seriously doubt that it will happen. We are hooked, plain and simple. We know what we want and we will try to find a way to get it until the day we can't. Let's start thinking about an identity for a new stingy (and green) society. It will have to be invented from scratch. It has been a long time since it was last needed.

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science

William Kovacs, the US Chamber of Commerce's vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, last year famously called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate change.

As much as we need to find a way to curtail our use of hydrocarbons, this article points out why we probably will never solve our energy/climate problems. Our economy is based on the free flow of cheap energy. In a very real sense, all wealth (in modern society) can be traced back to the use of oil. The owners of that wealth, and those who stand to accrue more wealth as additional oil is burned in the future, are going to fight any efforts that might limit that oil consumption. Because these are the same people that hold all of the power cards in today’s capitalistic, free market world, I think we will not see any significant constraints placed on our use of oil.

It is too bad because all of our real problems are also related to the burning of oil. We are approaching a limit to the amount of oil that can be extracted from this old Earth’s crust and, at the same time, to the amount of residue, from burning oil, that can be absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere without critically disturbing the habitat we all depend on for life. We should be backing off in our use of oil (and other hydrocarbons by the way) in any case.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to spend our creative energy trying to devise a way of life that will not depend on oil, but rather sustainable methods, for the basics of life such as heating, transportation and food production leaving what is left of our hydrocarbon stock as a legacy to future generations. There are some things, such as medicines and plastics, that petroleum can provide that aren’t easily replaced. There are probably many other things yet to be found. It may not be possible to come up with a hydrocarbon-free alternative lifestyle that is acceptable to the vast numbers of people now living and projected to be living in the near future. We need to try, though, because the present lifestyle will certainly not be around for long.

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science Mother Jones

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu!

The cultural taboo on discussing overpopulation renders politicians, scientists and other opinion leaders reluctant to mention population when discussing both causes and solutions of modern challenges.

This is a good thought but I don’t think I give it much of chance for success.  Population control is very much like abortion.  There is absolutely no middle ground.  If the scientists speak out they will merely be ignored or, worse, scorned.

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu! « GrowthBusters

A Decade of Enormous Deficits May Alter American Politics and Power

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.

I was really excited when President Obama was elected. I did not agree with the policies of the Bush Administration and I was eager for the change that he promised. In the year that has passed since that moment of elation, I have come to reverse my optimism if not my support.

As this article points out we appear to be heading for an era of daunting deficit spending and national debt. When I voted for Obama I was hoping that he would be able to make some decisions and throw out some of the ridiculous programs and policies that he was left with and turn the direction of the country towards a more austere and less risky path. This to safely return the wounded economy to a soft landing. Rather than make those priority decisions, however, he seems to be trying to do it all. He is acting as if he can restore the glory that was the bubble.

I don’t think we have solved our economic problems. With the help of the bailouts, the financial sector appears to have manufactured a little in-house boom but the rest of the country still waits for the doorbell to ring. If we suffer a secondary downturn in the face of these deficits I am really afraid to think of where the United States might end up.

News Analysis - A Decade of Enormous Deficits May Alter American Politics and Power - NYTimes.com

Banks Brace for Bonus Fury

Banks Brace for Bonus Fury - WSJ.com – I read these kind of headlines with a heavy heart.  America’s largest financial institutions are playing with our country.  If there was any sense of patriotism or nationalism in the hearts of Wall Street’s leaders, most of the money that is going into those bonuses would be focused, instead, on the parts of the economy that are still struggling to maintain life.  Money would be made available to the credit arms of these financial behemoths so that small business and frantic homeowners would begin to see credit flow again.

But that is not happening, is it?  The money is going to those executives that are withholding that help so that the stockholders will feel better about the economy and likewise the company itself. 

It seems obvious to me that these actions show that the companies are not interested in the health of the United States at all.  So why should the government of the United States be interested in pleasing them?  We need to get our priorities straight.  We need to help those parts of our industry that are committed to helping the United States.  Regulations should be put in place to limit outrageous compensation and directing the efforts of the financial community towards facilitating a recovering American economy.

Test Post from Word

I just discovered I can post to blogs directly from Microsoft word. This is a test post to test that possibility.

Well, it looks like it works. Amazing. This is my first upgrade to MS Office in many years. They have definately moved it into modern times. It actually seems to be integrated with the web in many ways.

Trying Windows Live

This is a test of the Writer feature in Windows Live to see how it works with the Blogger system.  Please disregard.

What "Lower Consumption" Means

[Link: The Oil Drum: Campfire | What "Lower Consumption" Means] "The fevered frenzy of Industrial Civilization’s resource consumption appears to have finally reached its apex and begun its decline in this, the first decade of the twenty-first century. A closer look at the physical realities of resource extraction reveals that the resource situation is, in fact, terminal for our high-consumin’ civilization. Resource depletion is a predicament requiring adaptation to an entirely new low-consumption paradigm, rather than a problem to be solved with technological or social solutions. As a country, we need to start the conversation about what a lower-consumption, resource-poor society would look like, and begin the appropriate preparations."

These are the types of discussions we should all be having today. You and I cannot be certain of what the future will hold. It is certainly possible that a new, unpredicted energy source or technological trick will allow us to move on into the future with our existing lifestyle. Possible but not probable. I don't know about you but I have been taught that to assume the improbable is normally not the best way to do your critical planning. Even if we could continue on, the earth and its climate seem to be telling us we can't anyway. I think that we are approaching a point of crisis in society. A point where most of us will understand in our gut that something needs to be done but won't really know what to do. It is thought exercises like these that might allow us to move in the right direction when that time comes.

Big flat TV sales could lead to big stress on power grid

[Link: McClatchy] "But the bigger picture, many say, is one of unnecessary stress on the nation's electricity supply for years to come."

I read articles like this and I have to chuckle. If we are aware of the stress an appliance like flat screen TV's will place on our power grid, and actually think it will be enough to strain it, how in the world can we be contemplating replacing our auto fleet with electric cars. The electricity requirements for a world full of electric cars, charging away between trips, must be horrendous. Has anyone stopped to wonder where all the new energy is going to come from if our grid is already strained in order to accomodate our TV watching.

Come on folks. Those cute little electric cars are going to need thousands of new power plants (most of them coal fired), all generating vast increases in CO2 emissions and other pollutions associated with power generation, to keep charged up. We are essentially going to be trading the pollution of the existing fleet of internal combustion engines with the pollution of coal powered power plants. This doesn't even include the added energy and pollution required to build and maintain all of these new power stations. We don't have a bunch of electrical energy laying around unused. Our TV's need all they can get.