Montpelier 5/22/2012
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 22, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
72°/54°

Run of Site Leaderboard

youtube

One responseSubscribe to comments

  1. The single most effective measure the state should enact is a strict, ENFORCED, energy efficiency code for houses and other buildings that is similar to the 30 year-old Passivhaus standard. It will reduce household and business energy bills by 50 to 80 percent AND reduce CO2 at far less cost per Btu, or per kWh, than any of the renewables.

    When money is scarce, the low-cost measures should be implemented before others.

    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

    A much more economically-viable and environmentally-beneficial emphasis to reduce CO2 would be increased energy efficiency. It would reduce electric and fuel bills, reduce fossil consumption and pollution, and delay the depletion of fossil resources. The technologies to achieve a 60 to 80 percent reduction in energy consumption/$ of GDP exist and are fully developed.

    It would be much wiser and more economical to shift subsidies away from expensive renewables that produce just a little of expensive, variable, intermittent energy, towards increased EE. Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased EE.

    EE has not scratched the surface and it is by far the best approach, because it provides the quickest and biggest “bang for the buck”, AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it does not destroy pristine ridge lines/upset mountain water runoffs, AND it would more effectively reduce CO2, AND it would create 3 times the jobs per invested dollar than renewables, AND it would not subsidize tax-sheltering at the expense of rate payers, AND all the technologies are fully developed, AND it would do all this without public resistance and controversy.

    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive
    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Climate conference on Dec. 3 to focus on energy issues"