The following is a guest post from Glenn Fay, and was originally posted at Oakleigh Vermont
Image Credit: Mr. Transistor, Flickr
Here are the jaw-dropping facts that depict Americans' energy illiteracy according to Public Agenda, a nonprofit research group.
39% of respondents couldn’t name a single fossil fuel.
51% couldn’t name an alternative energy source.
65% thought that most of our oil imports come from the Middle East.
56% believe that nuclear energy contributes to global warming, and 31% believe that solar energy contributes to global warming.
68% believe that “The main cause for increases in gas prices is speculators who drive up the price of oil.”
More than half don’t know that less than 10% of the United States’ energy comes from renewable sources. [If you rule out hydro and biomass, neither of which are likely to scale up, and restrict "renewable" to mean only solar, wind, and geothermal, it's less than 2%.]
17% are classified as “Climate Change Doubters.” Nearly two-thirds of this group, and 44% of the entire sample, believe that drilling the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska would eliminate our need for imported oil.
19% are classified as “Disengaged,” meaning they don’t know and don’t care about energy much at all.
Another part of energy literacy involves understanding the entire process of producing energy. According to Chris Nelder, before we consider whether any alternative energy or future technology is feasible, we must first consider the net energy of the process, its actual scale, its flow rate, or how long it might take to scale. Te net energy is the energy it takes to produce the fuel or technology that will deliver power. For example, hydrogen fuels sounds great, but the cheapest way to produce it is by using fossil fuels and stripping the hydrogen atoms off, purifying them, pressurizing them, storing them and transporting them so they can be sued at fueling stations. Each of these steps uses enormous amounts of electricity and money. It is simply not cost-effective from an energy or financial standpoint, say nothing about the infrastructure involved. And if alternative energy isn't scalable for decades, this does nothing to address increasing carbon levels in the atmosphere.
In regard to addressing carbon, Nelder points out is that carbon cap-and trade policy would be a "disastrous boondoggle" noting that it has not worked well in Europe, and was subject to loopholes, without expected decreases in emissions. Instead, he proposed a carbon tax, as we have here at Oakleigh, although we know the four-letter word tax is not salable with the public or political leaders.
Regardless of what energy policies we end up with and what unintended consequences await us and future generations, one thing is absolutely certain. A better educated public and political leadership on the science of climate change and energy policy is a must. How can this be accomplished? We already have some pretty decent K-12 science standards, although understanding energy and climate is not exactly front and center. Energy and climate need to be at the heart of science learning that goes on, not only K-12 but in colleges, on media, and everywhere. The best data tells us the future of humanity depends on leaders making informed, data-based decisions. We need leaders who are more knowledgeable than we are on energy. If your representatives are not energy-literate, it is time to put them on academic probation. If they don't show that they have become educated over the next few months, in this time of crisis, it is time to elect new leaders who are energy-smart!
May 20th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I agree completely. Most people do not know what alternate energy sources are available, which is a sad. Those stats are pretty shocking as I would never have expected so many people to think solar power causes global warming. I think the media needs to do a better job of covering alternative energy and better educating the public on the topics. Schools are already over taxed as it is, but they could also help contribute.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
ugh. statistics like this make me feel queasy. i had to stop being friends with someone who is a climate change doubter.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Americans are quite naive! Most catch 5 second sound bites on the evening news while eating dinner with out ever knowing the whole story. Chalk it up to ignorance or denial.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Very sad but truth facts. People are way to busy with so other "important" things is life that they don't have time to even look on thing that makes them living, nature..
May 21st, 2009 at 12:00 am
I agree with "pays to live green" the 1st comment here. We need the media to do a better job letting people know about energy alternatives and the effects they have. It wouldn't take much for them to do this. A note for their side,I have seen a lot more commercials talking about different forms of energy but,we NEED A LOT MORE and add how helpful they are! Sorry for being so long.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:44 am
First of all thanks for the wonderful post for giving awareness what is going surrounding to us and we dont know anything and @Kelly Pro, i am agree with you that still people are living there life without paying attention to nature and busy in there own work!
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
WoW, it's a very shocking fact here, Stefanie. It means that 90% of the people didn't know the name of the fossil fuels or renewable energy that they're currently using in daily life!
To be more precisely, 93.9& of the total energy used in U.S.A. is non-renewable.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I'm not too surprised. The data is scary but it's probably more or less like that anywhere around the world. The reason lies in the media need of sensationalism. Ecology is only interesting if we're all doomed and that's a story, if we still have a decade or two before the real agony starts, then it's not a story at all.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
While I'm not TOO surprised, I still loved reading this post! Thanks a lot Glenn. More people should be made away of energy issues and the impact these things have on the globe. Wow, there I go sounding like a stereotypical eco-evangelist.