It will be with great pleasure that I’ll walk into the office of my friend Stephen Lacey tomorrow afternoon, a young man who has already contributed so greatly to the cause of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear with renewables.  In the position he held for years at Renewable Energy World (which, if I’m not mistaken, was his first job out of college where he had majored in journalism) he developed a comprehensive understanding of the energy industry with astonishing speed, and went on to conduct interviews and write articles that shed a great deal of light on the promise and challenge of clean energy.

Here, just a few years later, he’s in our nation’s capital, researching and writing for ClimateProgress.org, wrapping his wits around man’s impact on his environment, and advocating for strategies that mitigate that impact.

I’m always impressed with young people who have their heads on straight, and who endeavor to use their talents to make a difference in the world around them.  It will be a great joy to see him again and find out more about what he’s been working on since the last time I ran into him.

Renewable Energy World’s Steve Leone published an article today on solar and its attempts to go mainstream, in which he mentions a great number of developments that will ultimately make solar far more appealing to consumers than it is currently. Some of these notions include transparent PV on windows, as well as PV roof shingles and other forms of building-integrated solar.

It was good to see he noted the role of electric transportation in the equation. I.e., there is clearly a growing number of people who want to control the source of electricity that charges their cars – and what better way to do that than to install that source on their roofs?

If we still have a civilization here in 2050, we will have “gotten there.” The questions are how much damage we will have done, and who’s going to get rich in the process.

Well, that was the “old Stephen,” I’m happy to report. The “new Stephen” has a gig at ClimateProgress.Org, and trust me, these people call ‘em like they see ‘em. Here’s a recent piece based on materials acquired by Bloomberg News, showing how Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, and numerous other corporations paid tens of thousands of dollars to write legislation for lawmakers that would repeal carbon pollution reduction programs in various states around the U.S.

When I spoke with Stephen a few months ago, he seemed very happy; he has the kind of exuberance that a dog experiences when it’s let off its leash. My hearty congratulations. And this new-found freedom will pay off very handsomely for the world of energy journalism; we’re all the better for your job change, my friend.

Eric Mathis is obviously a young man who “gets it.”  He posted a comment on my piece on Joe Biden’s speech that I put on Renewable Energy World, in which he linked to a post he wrote on GreenForAll. In it he discusses why and how the clean energy debate needs to be reframed, and notes:

Moreover, Secretary Chu’s recent statement further unpacks the issue at hand when he stated that the “United States faces a choice today: will we lead in innovation and out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind?” Falling behind is exactly what we are doing and what lies at the heart of this issue is simple: while we are fighting each other within the various Clean vs. Dirty energy debates, our country is being chopped up, sold off and shipped to China.

I hope readers will check out Eric’s post in its entirety.  Again, he gets it.

Here’s Renewable Energy World’s coverage of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, in which non-profit Carbonfund urges the US – especially in light of the midterm elections — to stay home so that progress can be made, unobstructed by the overwhelming force of our business interests.  That’s sad.

My main concern is that the proposed plan has the potential to confuse more than to clarify. When the ratings began, their only real purpose was to inform people as to the fuel costs they would incur with their new vehicle. And certainly, if there has been any change in that concern over the years, it’s been amplified by the economic downturn. Now, however, there is a companion concern: the level of environmental damage done per mile.

So my recommendation is simply that the ratings provide as clearly and simply as possible two numbers:

1) What is the cost of operating this vehicle?

and

2) To what degree is this vehicle environmentally friendly?

Numbers that provide battery ranges or letter grades that invite criticism and doubt need to be replaced with two numbers:

The cost per mile of operating the vehicle. This is the average cost per mile to fuel the car, given the national average prices of gasoline and electricity. If the vehicle has no plug, this is the average price of whatever liquid fuel it takes, divided by the MPG. If it’s a battery electric, it’s the average cost per kilowatt-hour divided by the car’s use of kilowatt-hours per mile. If it’s a plug-hybrid, this is less clear, but should be provided as a range depending on the percentage of miles the owner believes he’ll drive in the battery-only range.

The degree to which the vehicle is environmentally friendly. This should also be expressed as a single number – perhaps pounds of carbon per mile, using the national well-to-wheels averages associated with the fuel – or blend of fuels — in question. Obviously, this will change over time (even if the cars themselves remain constant) as the migration to renewable energy creates a wider discrepancy in favor of EVs.

In my mind, this recommendations represents an improvement over the EPA’s proposed plan in two critical ways:

Clear, numerical expressions of the only two relevant data points, and

No letter grades that might appear subjective or disputable.

I’m counting on seeing this implemented exactly as I’ve written it here, and checking my inbox for a note of thanks. Just kidding.

But at the end of the day, Mr. Casten seems to be to be splitting hairs. Where we are now is a million miles from where we need to be in terms of providing a level playing field for renewables. I simply ask Congress to get us into the right galaxy – then we can start talking about Pareto-efficient markets and cost/price causality. As long as the fossil fuel energy industry receives multi-billion dollar government subsidies, favorable treatment from the Bureau of Land Management, and immunity from the costs of the environmental damage it’s causing, I can’t see the reason to get too heavily into the microeconomics here.

We need to make wholesale changes in the way we view the costs of energy. Until that time, the energy industry is looking on at this discussion and snickering as they continue on their path of rape and ruin.