The Governor’s Commission on Climate Change has issued a draft interim report summing up the testimony from five sessions of public hearings. To my mind, the most compelling graphic in the document shows that the intensity of energy use in Virginia is twice that of several advanced European countries.
Virginia — 345 million BTUs per capita (2005)
United Kingdom — 165 million BTUs
Germany — 176 million BTUs
France — 182 million BTUs
While there is undoubtedly some relationship between the intensity of energy consumption and a nation’s (or state’s) standard of living, it is an increasingly tenuous one as some societies pursue conservation strategies and others ignore them. Virginians may enjoy a living standard that is somewhat higher than that of the Brits, Germans and French, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination twice as high. The ineluctable conclusion is that European societies are simply more energy-efficient than our own.
The good news is that we have extraordinary potential to reduce our energy consumption (and greenhouse gas emissions) without significantly impacting our living standards. Indeed, insofar as energy conservation reduces our outlays for energy, we stand to raise our standard of living while also safeguarding energy security and reducing pollution.
The Climate Change commission discusses many strategies for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Ideas range from reforesting marginal crop and pastureland (trees are a “terrestrial carbon sink”) to generating more electricity with renewable fuels (windmills don’t burn fossil fuels), from shifting to hybrid vehicles to embracing land use patterns associated with fewer Vehicle Miles Traveled (both of which reduce gasoline consumption).
The commission has not yet identified which strategies it will recommend in order to meet the Virginia Energy Plan goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2025. The task force is breaking into work groups to weigh the choices. While one group focuses on how Virginia can adapt to higher temperatures and higher sea levels, the other three will recommend ways to reduce greenhouse emissions, concentrating on (1) transportation and land use actions, (2) electricity generation and other sources, and (3) the built environment.
As one would expect from a commission that represents a broad cross section of interest groups, there are differences of opinion on how to drive the economic change needed to combat climate change. According to my sources, one approach emphasizes entrepreneurial creativity and innovation, the other government-mandated command and control. The recommendations that emerge in the final report slated for December will reflect a tug of war between the two.
That final report will say volumes about how Virginia will face the future.