3 Responses

  1. Ben Courtice March 25, 2012 at 8:00 pm |

    The basic implication of this is that we need to campaign to shut down the fossil fuel sources (coal, oil etc) and simultaneously to campaign for clean energy to be rolled out.

    It’s true that just calling for renewable energy is not good enough. However, I’d caution against labeling renewables as a “techno-fix”. Right now, around the world, the growth of the renewable energy sector is threatened by conservative governments and the lobbying power of the fossil fuel companies – who recognise it as a threat.

    Renewable energy is not a “techno-fix”. Renewable energy is an opportunity, and one that we must mobilise to defend and promote against the coal barons and oil moguls.

  2. Jeff White March 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

    I am not able to read York’s article online for free, but from the abstract that appears at the link Ian posted, it’s evident that the key message is that “each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use.”

    Unfortunately, Ian left out the word “use” in his comment, thereby perhaps giving the impression that York was saying that if we got rid of fossil fuels we would have to generate over four times as much energy from non-carbon sources to replace it.

    Rather than saying that “green energy” – as a set of technologies – is less than a quarter as efficient as fossil energy, it appears York was saying that social and political forces under capitalism conspire to perpetuate the use of fossil energy rather than adopting available green alternatives.

Comments are closed.