How would you like to win a car? Wait, let me rephrase. How would you like to win a Smart Car by pledging an “Act of Green” and sharing it with your friends via social media?
Author Cliff Schecter has the scoop in this OpenLeft repost.
Let me explain.
I am working with the Earth Day Network (the group that organizes Earth Day every year) to do my small part in joining millions of Americans–minus Jim Inhofe, of course–in moving us towards a more clean, efficient and sustainable-energy economy.
Just for going to the Earth Day Network site, and doing what most readers of this blog likely already do in their own lives, pledging to perform an “Act of Green,” you can win a Smart Car. This act can be almost anything to support improving our environment, from pledging to plant a tree to just washing your clothes in cold water. One of the suggested acts can be selected, or you can get all creative on us and come up with your own Act of Green.
Doing this will make you automatically eligible to win one of two available “smart fortwo” cars, as they’re called. They are not only 100% recyclable, but are the most fuel efficient, non-hybrid gasoline-powered cars in the United States today, according to the EPA.
What I like about this contest is this puts the responsibility for creating a better society in our hands. We’ve all be disappointed by those in Washington who pay lip service to what many of us consider a defining issue of our time, so why not take it upon ourselves to participate in and inspire a Billion Acts of Green. Maybe those living in the Beltway will actually take notice, as We The People, take the lead.
The contest ends on December 31, 2010 and the winners will be announced on January 10, 2011. So go get yourself a car. And in the process, make this a better planet for our kids to inherit.Cliff Schecter
– Cliff Schecter
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Great idea but unfortunately only open to US residents.
2030 NRG consumption of 1.5x 2010. 1990-2010 China et al increased generation cost from 6c/kWh to 8-12c/kWh. CCS or wind is 4c/kWh now and maybe 5c/kWh in 2030. Energy will cost 8-30c/kWh. So assuming CCS baseline of 5c/kWh, you get biz-as-usual AGW cost of 17-70% of NRG costs; around $6T/yr assuming no non-linear GHG feedbacks or wildcards.
Lomborg was right in a way. Worst linear effects of AGW are deaths of destitute (Africa) or potential loss of 3rd world middle class (losing China’s recent expansion means no Walmart and more 1st world poverty).
Most of these effects can be staved off if better agri, better freshwater, better electricity (survive heatwave and facilitates 1st two), and maybe storm/flood proof 3rd world housing. These are all equivalent to CCS or greener NRG.
GHG tipping points and AGW wildcards; I dunno ratio of important to linear AGW: need to have CCS available for immediate war-time scaleup in case permafrost melts…leaky CCS is okay but mature (GMO trees with sequestered wood) CCS maybe key. Suggests massive investment of different CCS solutions and maybe an income for useless oil sands geologists. A truck battery that could drive batteries into Africa would be key. Better disaster response, an all weather battery suitable for household power generation in Africa could be coupled with solar/wind. This side of a carbon price depends on uncertain tech. If we try all mitigation in addition to greenvesting, might bring down $6T/yr 2030 AGW linear cost. To do: cost fat-tails, estimate likelihood of mitigation R+D working.
That’s around $4T/yr ($2-10T) assuming 4/7 2030 sequestered GHGs. Future tech and industry novelties affect our ability to lower GHGs and mitigate. Over a longer time-scale, other events will crowd out key initial tech/innovations, rendering predictions vague. Determining the important points-of-inflection initially, will lengthen reliability of forecasts. Past predict failures: hydrogen salts, batteries, coal and oil cheaply storable vs ethanol, compressed and liquid H2, (methane?!)…impurity finicky and temp range of PEMs…lifecycle emissions of corn and nuclear…rarity of some elements, localized banking variability of wind, CSP, solar…
I just signed up. It’s a wonderful idea, but IMO the implementation needs tweaking – it felt like I was talking to a piece of software.
You select among 7 “green actions”, one of which is “make your own pledge”, but – being a piece of software – it has zero curiosity about what your own pledge *was* – & thus loses an opportunity to collect them, and display a sampling of some of the more interesting ones.