Two articles relating to renewable energy and climate change crossed my path this week. The first is about a Reuters poll on what Americans think about climate change. The second is from The Guardian regarding a first time occurrence in the US.
In Reuters,Valerie Volcovici wrote the following about a recent poll of 3,000 Americans in article called “Americans demand climate action (as long as it doesn’t cost much): Reuters poll.”
“According to the poll, 69% of Americans – including 56% of Republicans and 71% of independents – believe the United States needs to take ‘aggressive’ action to fight climate change.
Some 78% believe the government should invest more money to develop clean energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, including 69% of Republicans and 79% of independents.”
When asked if they would accept an additional tax of $100, only a one-third said yes. While I am pleased with the interest, Americans (and all people) do not want more in taxes. Fortunately, the cost of renewables has become very favorable relative to coal energy production cost. This leads us to the second article.
The Guardian posted the following article later in the week about a key first called, “US generates more electricity from renewables than coal for first time ever.” A couple of paragraphs follow:
“The US generated more electricity from renewable sources than coal for the first time ever in April, new federal government data has shown.
Clean energy such as solar and wind provided 23% of US electricity generation during the month, compared with coal’s 20%, according to the Energy Information Administration.”
For several years, I have been reading and commenting the tipping point on the move away from coal has occurred. Natural gas put the first nail in the coffin, followed by other nails from renewable energy.
What I like about these two articles, is the future is here. Climate change is too noticeable to ignore. A politician does so at his or her own peril. Questions must be asked of them as to what do they plan to do about it. The other is politcians need to know renewables are here, the cost has dramatically declined and the growth in market share and jobs is pronounced.
And, we can do much more. The renewable energy technology is here. We just need to invest more in the infrastructure. Plus, we need to do more about the carbon and methane in the air along with other measures to reduce carbon footprints.
musingsofanoldfart 
If the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes the burden wouldn’t fall on the rest of us and more might be willing to pay the measly $100.00 to help save the planet!
Hugh, agreed. It is also a pay me now or pay me later issue. Climate change havoc is already costing us with more flooding, larger forest fires and prolonged droughts. So, that $100 is a bargain. Keith
“Yes we want something done… except if it costs too much and/or is inconvenient.” I remain skeptical that any substantial progress will be made until it’s too late (which it may now be).
Janis, you are right, we are indeed close to the bewitching hour. The cost of insufficient action is much higher than what people are quibbling about now. Keith
A big, big topic! The European Union is about to release a law regarding investments for sustainable investments. The investment products and even the asset managers are getting kind of a tag about the level of sustainability. It is amazing to hear that the US has made such progress. Let’s keep this up everywhere!
Erika, it is indeed. Earlier this year, I read where Germany coal energy now trails renewables. So, seeing the US follow suit is a positive. It would be great to see the White House behind the effort and not blocking it. Here, cities, industries and several states are leading the way. States that follow the president’s lead are shooting themselves in the foot. Keith
Oh, God, yes. If the White House would give its full support… just imagine what big change could be made that way and how this would be of a support worldwide instead of, as you said, blocking the developments.
Thanks, Erika. Since the US president cannot handle negative news calling it fake, it would be great if more foreign newspapers made a case that climate change action is too important to have the US federal government not enabling the fight. I know Prince Charles tried desperately to convince Trump to act, but he found a person stuck in the mud with his lack of understanding of what climate means. Keith
It will end up that a lot of countries will unite in the goal of a cleaner environment even without the US as much as they can. But I hope that in 1 to 2 years that issue is solved!
Erika, good point. As this administration will find, people will (and are) just ignore them and move on. Trump cannot save the coal industry as it is passed the tipping point. Keith
He definitely can’t! Whether he is the president or not. That part of our development is over! But he is welcome to move into a cave and learns hoe to make fire. Hopefully he is never seen again.
Hear, hear.
Note to Readers: In addition to solar, wind and hydro energy, more elegant forms of tidal energy and biofuel energy are gaining traction. Also, please refer to a recent post “Ice on fire,” which defines measures, both natural and artificial, to get more carbon out of the air – growing more and maintaining coastal mangroves, kelp and forests are three more natural carbon eaters, eg.
Note to Readers: I just read today, the US president is encouraging the G20 to soften language. So, leaving the Paris Climate Change Accord making the US a global outlier, the White House incumbent wants to recruit more to board the Titanic with him. I hope the leaders will take a pass on his offer.