I was driving home from Lincoln, Nebraska, last weekend. (We were there to meet a beautiful new granddaughter.) As I drove back, I remembered another drive back from Nebraska. It was in 2006 or 2007. This time we were in Omaha, visiting our son who was going to Creighton University. We drove home the day after a massive snow/ice storm hit Iowa. As we were driving on I-80 across Iowa, we saw the effects of the storm: piles of snow, semis in the ditch, etc. It was sort of scary, except we were a day after the storm, so the roads were clear, and it didn’t affect our driving.
The only real problem for us was that electricity was out all along I-80, and we were starting to run low on gas. (Note to self: In the winter {or spring or fall}, don’t let your gas tank get too low. You never know when stations might be closed.) Fortunately, we finally found a gas station that was open: It had a generator, so it had electricity and its gas pumps worked. To say we were happy – and relieved – is an understatement.
Which raises an important point about cutting carbon dioxide emissions. I understand we need to do it, but if we are going to be relying even more on electricity than we are today, we need to make sure the grid is reliable. In California, for example, things seem to be getting less reliable, not more. Among the problems (in addition to poor forest management) is what to do when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Batteries may be a solution at some point, but they aren’t now. Which means we may need fossil fuel power plants as backups. That’s going to cost money. Which comes back to a point I have made before: Saving the environment won’t be cheap (and/or can’t just be paid for by “the rich”).
If we are going to cut carbon emissions, we have to convince people it is important enough so they are willing to pay for it – themselves. So far, I’m not sure we have done that. Until we do, it’s not going to happen.
Comments