I’m not sure who isn’t a “conservative idealogue” since both D’s and R’s have occupied the White House and/or controlled Congress since the early 1980s.

Alternative hypotheses that explain renewable energy’s declining share of total consumption include 1) renewable promotion policies have increased renewables but not at a rate faster than consumption has grown; and/or, 2) policies aimed at reducing total consumption have either failed to do so or been inadequate to account for population increase (read “immigration”), i.e., reducing per capita energy use doesn’t reduce total use if there are more capitas, e.g., CAFE standards.

[JR: It ain't hard. Look at the voting records. Reagan gutted renewable funding nearly 90%, eliminating tax credits, etc. When Clinton tried to increase funding, Gingrich stopped it.]

Here’s the source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_5.pdf

Divide the next-to-last column by the last column and multiple by 100.

You’ll see the peak for renewables was 1982 at almost 9%.

Andy

[JR: It really shows you what we could have done if conservative ideologues hadn't taken over our energy policy or blocked progressive policies at ever turn.]

“The new wind projects account for about 30 percent of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally in 2007 and will power the equivalent of 1.5 million American households annually.”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ ens/ jan2008/ 2008-01-31-091.asp

Not a great result, but certainly better than Will’s.

[JR: I'm not sure. You could be right, but it wouldn't change the wind and solar #s by a factor of 3.]

If they want to claim the high ground, they will need to walk the walk and reinvest in quality and substance over style and opinion. The Op-Ed pages of have for too long been given a free pass in otherwise reputable publications.

Why media tell climate story poorly
http://www.thestar.com/ business/ cleanbreak/ article/ 729339–hamilton-why-media-tell-climate-story-poorly

I apologize on behalf of my profession.

scientists such as Betancourt are realizing the climate changes observed are not happening in a gradual, predictable fashion but, instead, in sudden steps. Systems reach a certain threshold of environmental stress and then “pop,” they act quickly to restabilize.

These changes also happen regionally, making it difficult for people in one region of the world to appreciate disruptive changes going on elsewhere.

Not surprisingly, those looking to stall action on climate change – or who altogether deny that humanity is contributing to global warming – are exploiting this complexity and lack of certainty.

with an economic downturn, during which people are concerned most about their finances. There’s also a strong likelihood that people want to hear that maybe this climate change stuff is all a bad dream.

It’s much more difficult to have a story in the newspaper or a TV news segment, explaining the latest study in Nature or Science, than it is to have an unqualified scientist or “spokesman” offer a pithy, controversial quote or sound bite not necessarily grounded in fact.

many journalists under deadline and without the time to verify credentials, journalists who do not follow climate science and the news around it, continue to give these so-called experts a soapbox to stand on. Even those with time to spare often offer up the soapbox out of some misplaced attempt at balance, giving the impression that the scientific community is deeply divided.

Once their comments are published, the blogs take over and public confusion grows deeper. Mark Twain said it best: “A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.” The Internet has only accelerated the speed of travel.

it’s a shame.

I asked Betancourt during his New Mexico talk why the scientific community has not done a better job of battling the misinformation campaign and speaking as a more united front.

The problem, he said, is working scientists don’t tend to be communications specialists but are up against people who are. So, for honest, accurate describing of the science of climate, “it’s more up to the media, and less up to us.”

[JR: Tyler's great. I'll just repost this.]