Being more energy efficient is a good thing as long as you know you cannot effect the weather or climate

All the semi trucks traveling through the central interchange has to be a detriment to the air, and they just pass through, does that count for the transportation bad marks ?

Two problems here: There was a slight, natural global warming trend that ended in 1998. It is not a problem and it was caused by sunspots and other other natural fluctuations. Second, Akron would have to BE beautiful if they want to keep it beautiful. Have they thought about spending some of that "stimulus money" on paint, lawnmowers, and litter collection?

We can all help prevent making greenhouse gases by using Beano. The City should require restaurants to provide it at every table.

"There is no estimate as to how much such emission-reduction steps might cost Akron or where the money to pay for such changes would come from, Davis said."

Anyone want to take a stab at answering this one?

Why does my wallet feel like it is about to get lighter?

:0/

Mayor Don and others will park their cars and ride the bus?

Bergermeister, are you suggesting that global warming is mearly a money making venture?? Wait till Al gore and the rest of the tree huggers hear about this!

20.8 tons of CO2 seems beyond credible. Al Gores own website says the average American is only at 7.5 tons. I took his carbon footprint test and came out at 8.5 tons and I drive an eco-unfriendly SUV. Seems the Brookings study is closer to the truth than this report.

What's the old saying, Numbers don't lie and liars use numbers.

Several months back this Akron Greenprint was written up in the Akron City Magazine. Published with the article was a photo of the 'Green Team' sitting around a huge conference table, in the photo each member had a bottled water sitting in front of them.

Last night I was given a glossy 12 page summary of the Greenprint that contained the same photo and a suggestion to use refillable sports bottles instead of bottled water.

???????

Things are certainly a lot cleaner now than they were in the 70's. Personally I think they had to redefine "pollution" so they would have a neverending supply of it in order "regulate" it forever, since they were running out of industries to pick on. Nobody wants pollution, but the idea that carbon dioxide is "pollution" is not believeable to me, but it does guarentee that there will be a neverending supply of it to tax.

By the way, even the global warming people are no longer making claims of "global warming", and the term is only used by people late in trendiness. "Global warming" was conveniently changed to "global climate change" when it became difficult for even the greatest of spinners to reconcile fact with theory. Current evidence shows a 1/2 degree decline in earth ave. temps since 1998, but they tend to leave that out of discussions.

"Green" is the new "Red.

SORRY MAN - I'M JUST NOT BUYING INTO THIS. THE GLOBAL WARMING HYPE - CARBON FOOTPRINTS - CARBON DIOXIDE IS HAZARDOUS ? "A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH BECOMES THE TRUTH" - LENIN - VLADIMIR NOT JOHN. SO PLEASE ASSURE ME "THE MASSES" ARE NOT EMBRACING THIS TRIPE.

@RittmanInsider - Nicely said.

Whether you believe that the earth's climate is changing is not what's important - the main thing to realize is that this presents us with an opportunity to make our economy operate much more efficiently within the confines of earth's systems while providing tremendous opportunities for job growth in emerging sectors.

Don't politicize the issue here cynics...this is a wonderful opportunity to transform our economy and provide domestic green jobs that can't be outsourced (unless of course, we sit on our thumbs and let successful RE companies establish themselves eslewhere).

The green wave is not only coming, it is here - today. Its great to see a government administration embrace that principle in our hometown and we should be proud of it. For reference, please look at the City of Toledo - they're ON their game.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=6475809&page=1

The carbon footprint concept and the green movement are more dangerous to our society than McCarthy's communist scare of the 1950s or Bid Laden's terrorist scare. The green wave is uniting every nut job in this country over issues they know very little about. It's becoming worse than a religious cult.

Mebbe next Earth Day, we can all pitch in to make the envionment cleaner by planting a few enviro-nazis and politicians.

Love your mother!

@Justanobserver,

C'mon, man! Didn't you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?!? Straight from the Vice Presidents mouth. He's a career politician. He wouldn't lie!This #$%# is real, bro!

:0)

@ Medina Reader,

You're way off.

whodunit, sorry, but today there is no more economically sound source of energy than good 'ol petroleum. Petroleum produces far more energy per dollar invested than any other source, except for one, (nuclear) which is also off the table. "Green energy" only creates green energy jobs. By driving up the cost of energy it destroys far more jobs than it creates. Cheap energy creates jobs, and stimulates the economy far more than any stimulus bill. All you have to do is look at gasoline price spikes (only one of many petroleum uses) in the past 50 years, and look at the economic results following. AND all the petroleum we need is right under our feet if we can only be permitted to access it.

Ok, sure oil is cheap now. But what about when it isn't? If ya look at this time last year, it was the high energy prices combined with the mortgage disaster that threw our economy into a rough patch in the first place. Your argument echoes that same willfully ignorant, manic, short term standpoint that most petroleum advocates rally behind - that petroleum will always be cheaper. That assessment is flat wrong and outright dangerous. The volatility is what screws us.

Studies consistently show that over the long term renewables provide much more price stability than the latter. If you don't believe me, check the follwoing two reports:

Electricity pricing section in the latest report released by the EIA "Annual Energy Outlook Report, 2009":
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

NREL report on the Price Stability of Utility Green Power Programs:
apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/43532.pdf

Enjoy your reading.

global warming has become a cult religion instead of a fact. why is it you see all these greenie weenie leaders still flying around in jets and driving suv's. ridiculus!

Forgot to mention that plenty of studies prove that renewables produce far more jobs per unit of energy than fossil fuels:

https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/5556

Directly compares local economic impacts of three types of fuels: coal, nat gas and wind.

It finds that wind produces greater economic benefits in almost every scenario when comparing three states: CO, MI and VA

http://nrelpubs.nrel.gov/Webtop/ws/nich/www/public/Record?rpp=25&upp=0&m=1&w=NATIVE%28%27TITLE_V ph words %27%27jobs%27%27%27%29&order=native%28%27pubyear%2FDescend%27%29

The stuff speaks for itself. Save us the conjecture if you can.

...would be nice if someone could add a little more substance to the discussion than the standard "greenie weenies go home" bs...

@whodunit - if renewables are as efficient as you claim, we wouldn't need hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes on fossil fuel energy (carbon), plus billions of dollars in taxpayer subsudies on renewables to make them APPEAR to be economical.

And when you say that "renewables produce far more jobs per unit of energy than fossil fuels", what you're really saying is that "renewables require more labor input per unit of energy produced than fossil fuels". That doesn't make them better, just more expensive.

whodunit- what happens when the wind is calm? do you greenie weenies climb up ladders and blow on the propellers? do you know that if takes fossil fuel to process wind power to energy?

i meant do you know if it takes fossil fuel to process wind power to energy?

whodunit, The reason oil prices are unstable and volatile is because we allow 3rd world dictators, and unstable governments to determine the price by controlling supply. If we developed the oil we are all standing on, we would control our own supply, and the volatility would be gone. There is a reason they wil not allow us to develope American oil, and its because if we had access to our own cheap energy, at its uninflated price, nobody in their right mind would be trying to sell the taxpayes expensive and inefficient alternatives.

Valid point, but not entirely true. You're assuming that the term "renewable" is analagous to to just solar and wind. You're totally forgetting other sources of very reliable, efficient, and plentiful sources of baseload: geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave etc.

EIA Study below:

Subsidies and Support to Electric Production by Selected Primary Energy Sources

Check it out:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm

Sure petroleum et. al is still cheaper - but add in the hidden economic costs of environmental damage (acid rain, smog = health effects, decreased agricultural productivity...coal sludge disaster = billions of dollars worth of damage) and its not quite as cheap as you'd think.

"The reason oil prices are unstable and volatile is because we allow 3rd world dictators, and unstable governments to determine the price by controlling supply. If we developed the oil we are all standing on, we would control our own supply, and the volatility would be gone"

Again, valid point. I'm not entirely opposed to drilling domestically but since you can't change a tankers course on a dime - why would we wait until we've drilled the sh*t out of everything before looking to alternatives? It makes no sense. Its totally unrealistic for hardcore environmentalists to expect that we can channge things over night just as much as ya'll think we can use domestic oil forever. Its not in the cards.

"whodunit- what happens when the wind is calm? do you greenie weenies climb up ladders and blow on the propellers? do you know that if takes fossil fuel to process wind power to energy?"

Thats why you focus on baseload. First Energy, AEP, Southern Company are all in the process of switching out coal-fired power plants for biomass fuel. Read the news.

"An Inconvenient Spoof".

Biomass for baseload generation is reasonable, as long as we don't expect it to replace all or even most coal generation.

The FirstEnergy plant is an interesting case because the conversion to biomass is LESS expensive than installing pollution controls on the existing coal plant. Since doing nothing was not an option, the decision to convert to biomass has a net positive economic impact.

There are other cases though, from ethanol to certain other renewables to carbon legislation, when government intrudes deeply into markets to pick winners, that the political ends can trump sound economic policy at a real cost to society.

So much 'talk' about going 'green' from the government. If they were really serious, they would require all government funded buildings to be LEED certified. Greensburg Kansas was destroyed by a tornado. The new schools are LEED certified. And many of the new government buildings over 4000 sq feet are certified. And, because Kansas is so windy, they are installing 15 wind turbines built by John Deere. Those should be enough to power the town. They are a model to follow. And, as the years go by, you can follow the cost of 'going green'. how energy efficient / green are our new schools?

"Biomass for baseload generation is reasonable, as long as we don't expect it to replace all or even most coal generation."

Agreed. I currently live in the Southeast, a place not particularly endowed with wind or solar like other parts of the country. When you start talking biomass however its an entirely different story. While I don't think you can completely phase coal out of the picture, there is certainly much to be said about replacing a significant amount of it with plant / wood waste thats otherwise thrown in the landfill. Even more interesting is tidal / wave energy. The tides are highly predictable and steady and choked full of mechanical energy. Definitely a lot of potential there as well for coastal states like Georgia.

Maybe this group should assess ways to create new jobs in Akron, rather than worrying about the city's mythical carbon footprint. If you're not making tires, steel, auto parts and plastic, then I don't think you need to be worrying about CO2 footprints, leprechauns or Bigfoot.

Whodunit,
Most waste wood is not just tossed in a landfill. Where there is money to be made, materials are used. Where do you think mulch comes from? Where do you think particle board comes from? Where do you think fireplace logs come from? How do you think we get paper?

Biomass is not a baseload option unless you have no problem with massive deforestation and increased electricity rates. Coal and nuclear power are the only viable options for baseload generation in much of the country right now.

Remember when our carbon foot print was bigger....

and Akron meant jobs?

We need more global warming... it almost snowed last night.

When did I ever insinuate that wood wasn't used for those things? Stop reading too far into m posts for the sake of "debate." I work in the renewables industry and yes - you guessed it - for a company that develops biomass power plants. A lot of the wood we use is from agricultural operations, forest clearings, construction debris and other types of waste wood that otherwise gets landfilled. Furthermore, my job deals directly with interfacing with pulp and paper companies that - again, you guessed it - use waste sawdust and pulp waste that otherwise gets landfilled to produce power. If you paid any attention to my posts I never once insinuated that biomass could completely replace coal and nuclear, only emphasized that a heck of a lot more could be used to provide baseload power instead of being thrown away.

What do you think we do with all the waste from those industries where the materials you speak of come from? Where do you think we place it all? What else do you think we could use it for?

Sheesh.

Not to mention that the price of coal has more than tripled in recent years in some areas. Why do you think First Energy is trying to raise the price of electricity so high?

evolve.

Why do you "assess" your carbon footprint??

That's right class, you'll soon be forced to buy carbon credits to pay for your sins to the planet. Al Gore and the rest of the Environmental Wack jobs will soon own you.

I think we should continue to clean up the environment. So, lets start shutting down any remaining manufacturing plants,machine shops, printing presses, auto repair shops to name a few evil villainous polluters. No one will have jobs, but we can proudly stick our noses up into the air and take a breath of fresher cleaner air. Oh yeah, foreclosures will rise too...but heay, at least the air will be cleaner.

A great starting point I think.

@Bob - Akron isn't an ugly city. Have you seen Detroit lately? What a craphole.

Is this the "How much is your Carbon Footprint Hoax?" We buy our new 'green' lightbulbs from WalMart. yep, they save electricity. But what is the real environmental and human cost of these things? First off. They are made in a non-efficient plant polluting plant in CHINA. They are shipped in a polluting cargo ship to the USA. (one mile on a cargo ship is the pollution equivelant of 18,000 miles in a car!). Then shipped around the USA by train or truck. American light bulb manufactures close and lay off thousands of 'over-paid union' American workers. Yet we are told to believe all is better in the world.

I still don't see a footprint..

but will it lead me to bigfoot?

DAVE T- and don't forget that the new squiggly looking light bulbs contain mercury, so don't break them or al gore and his eco-tards will climb in your lower posterior.

^5 DaveT

They wouldn't let a climate expert testify with Gore today in Congress because he would embarrass Gore and expose his lack of knowledge.