Though I do not believe he is related to the immortal Peanuts scribbler Charles Schultz (the c is silent), former Secretary of State George Shultz took a sample from the Charlie Brown lexicon when he described the process of trying to install solar panels on his roof. Addressing the Society of Environmental Journalists at Stanford University, where he is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Shultz related a cumbersome bureaucracy-filled process that in the end leaves solar-seeking customers shaking their heads and muttering, "Argh."

But it does not have to be so difficult. In fact, in a number of states, installing solar is remarkably simple. And this the way it should be, since distributed generation solar projects, like the ones Secretary Shultz is seeking, have a number of benefits. The most important being:

• Less reliance on carbon intensive power production methods, like coal
• Lower energy costs for Secretary Shultz.
• Lower costs for all customers, by assisting the grid at peak times (sun is burning brightest/solar panels are working their hardest).

Where are these renewable energy friendly lands? Find out in Freeing the Grid 2007, the Executive Summary of which was released at Solar Power 2007.

Net metering policy isn’t as sexy as looking at solar panels (and, boy, are those sexy). But no significant deployment of distributed, renewable energy can be (or has been for that matter) successful in the United States with out appropriate Net Metering laws.

What is net metering? It is a simple billing arrangement whereby the power a customer can get credit for the power s/he generates at home through clean technologies, like photovoltaics.

It is that simple. But without these laws on the books, the deployment of clean renewable technologies just does not happen. In this way, net metering laws are the Barry White of renewable energy: they get things started.

See, net metering is sexy.

The recent Grist feature is meant to highlight the problem we face with global climate change and, in a darkly comic way, highlight that we can no longer afford to remain as passive as we have on the issue. The crux of the argument is that it was serious legislation that changed the direction of civil rights in this country and not a handful of folks who said, "I have a dream" and so forth. Climate change being an issue of equal importance as civil rights, we need the same sort of federal legislative action to tackle the problem and not namby-pamby "action alerts" that say, "Change your light bulbs. Drive a little less. Do a little more."

I am hesitant to pen this piece, because on the crucial point I do agree with Mike Tidwell: We do need federal legislative action, and we need it very, very soon. It will be the defining moment in solving climate change. But we also need the general public to take individual actions, and it is important that these actions are not trivialized or diminished. Here is why.

Congress and the executive branch are not completely (extra emphasis on completely) independent actors, especially in this age of YouTube and instantaneous polling. There may be national candidates who decide to skip the Iowa caucuses, but try and find one without a polling budget or someone in charge of online media. For good or ill, everything is watched and tested; everything is measured.

Letters from one very specialized and homogenous group will fall on deaf ears if unmatched by the voices of regular light bulb buying consumers saying, "This is an issue that really matters to me and my soccer playing kids."

No significant federal legislation has ever been enacted without there first being significant signals from constituents that this is something worth acting upon. This has been true for the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Act(s), and the Clean Air Act(s).

Every corporation in America is in a scrum to be the next jolly green giant; this is so because the public demanded it of them. Last election cycle we saw the defeat of some politicians, in part, because of their environmental record. We are gaining moment in the environmental movement; is this the time to be telling people that their actions are ultimately insignificant?

Like the n-word, it is time that carbon becomes a nasty word in the American lexicon. This will not happen just because legislative action is taken, but it can not happen without it. Anyone who doubts that individual action does anything help inspire meaningful legislative action need only consider Rosa Parks, who on December 1st, 1955, refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus. We should continue to be inspired by Ms. Parks’ individual action; and, like Ms. Parks, we should all consider taking the bus.

"Blowin’ in the Wind," an homage to Bob Dylan’s 1963 song, has become the cliché for renewable energy advocates. Google "Blowin’ in the wind," and you still get plenty of references to Mr. Dylan; simply add the word ‘turbine," and you get about 256,000 results, nearly all for the renewable power source. Dr. Stanely Fish, in his Sunday blog entry for the New York Times (subscription required), turns the renewable energy community on its head, and brings a tired cliché of a title to a tired cliché of a debate. NIMBY-ism (or "not in my back yard") is pretty old as a line of defense against any form of energy production (don’t see too many coal fired plants in your neighborhood, do you? Well, unless you’re poor of course.). But Dr. Fish’s line of reasoning for why his sometimes-home of Andes, NY should be against wind turbines is so rehearsed that the AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) has a Fact Sheet that addresses every one of Dr. Fish’s concerns.

It is not that I fully disagree with Dr. Fish. It is true that wind turbines do present a challenge to the environment. It is a valid idea that we should consider the effects of our actions every time we look to change ecosystems. But are wind turbines inherently bad? I don’t think this is the responsible question to ask. The proper question(s) should be "What are the risks and benefits associated with the technology?" and "What is the alternative to this available technology?"

So far, we have been riding hard on the old black rock: coal currently accounts for 50% of our electricity. And with global climate change showing no signs of turning around, it is clear we are going to have to cut back on that consumption. Is it wind versus coal? Not quite. But it may be continued (almost singular) reliance on coal, natural gas and nuclear power (the production of which I doubt very seriously would be big hits in quaint Andes, NY) versus a mixture of efficiency and conservation, renewable energy, and some base load production techniques.

Finally, there’s the question of aesthetics. Do people really want to look at these things? Well, on a personal note, an (extremely large) 1.5 megawatt wind turbine went up just a few weeks ago in the center of my home county of Berkshire, Massachusetts. While we the people of Berkshire County do care about the environment, we probably care about the value of our property more. What a great opportunity to see if Dr. Fish has a point. I called Scott Stafford, writer of this article for the Berkshire Eagle covering the mega turbine’s installation, to see if there had been any acerbic responses sent to the op-ed pages of the Eagle.

Well, Scott, has there been? "You know, it’s weird. There hasn’t been anything, really." After all this huffing and puffing, and, yes, blowin’ in the wind, it boils down to one simple point: once the thing is up, people don’t seem to mind it too much.

And this is why anti-something movements fail. When some people look at a wind turbine, all they see is a bottom line: What will happen to the value of my property? Will the sound interrupt my lifestyle? What about my view? Other people, however, look at a wind turbine and see something entirely different: they feel proud to be cutting green house gases and see a (somewhat) limited view as a small price to pay for a much bigger problem.

Of the two types of people, who would you rather spend your time with?

People don’t want a few stories thoroughly investigated, they want a lot of stories barely mentioned.
–John Stewart of The Daily Show

In our line of work (read our mission statement), it is very difficult to get, and impossible to retain, the media’s attention, especially when what you are advocating isn’t always all that sexy. You try saying the words "net metering" without yawning. It can’t be done.

Here is what most media outlets want: A real crisis with two major elements: A villain and a hero. The hero will come wielding one powerful silver bullet.

Fortunately for all of us a crisis is exactly what we have in global climate change. And this crisis is not in retreat:

• In 2004 China was projected to surpass the United States in CO2 production (one area where the United States is NOT envious of Chinese production) in 2024. China outperformed in this arena as well, and surpassed in CO2 production earlier this year. (Data from the International Energy Agency in Paris)
• This would be fine if it meant that the United States was being surpassed because it has cut production of greenhouse gasses. This is not so. Since 1990 the United States has increased greenhouse gas production by 16 percent. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Bonn, Germany).

We have a big task on our hands, to be sure, but do we have a silver bullet wielding hero?

Unfortunately, it is not a silver bullet that is going to save us. There is no one answer. No golden wind turbines, nor magic carbon sequestration practices.

What we need is an ambitious re-thinking of our national energy policy that will diversify our fuel/power mix, cut energy demand, and is founded on the principles of conservation.

You try selling this to generation Xbox. All the journalists out there stopped reading the last paragraph somewhere around the words "there is no one answer."

Diversity, mix, multiple: these words do not fit into the neatly-packed story arc of sinister scheming villain vs. altruistic shining hero. In fact, the idea of villain and hero does not fit, because both the hero and the villain winds up being the same person: US, we selfish consuming individuals.

None of us meant to kill the popular cute cuddly polar bears from Al Gore’s movie. It is not as if when we leave a room and do not switch off the lights, we are thinking sinister global warming thoughts. Or when we participate in NIMBY-ism by protesting against "destructive" wind turbines, we aren’t thinking "Gee, you know, I really hate my grandchildren." It’s just that we are not thinking very much at all.

Confronting global climate change and crafting meaningful solutions is a bit like eating an elephant. The problem fills the room and then our brains switch off, not feeling up to the task.

But that’s what we’re here for, to show you how to take small strategic bites so you play the part of the hero MORE than you play the part of the villain. People make mistakes, but we do not want a system that rewards these mistakes.

Because let’s face it, we all (and I include us know-it-all environmentalists) are going to play the part of the villain at times. Most of us will forget to turn off the lights at least once in the next month, but it would be a lot better if the lights we forget to turn off are, say, energy (and money) saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). So do one thing this week. Go to a store that carries CFLs, and buy one for every fixture in the house.

Personally, I think it is best to wait until your old, incandescent bulbs burn out. (Are we trading some energy efficiency for more consumer waste? You decide). We have a complete consumer guide to CFLs: A Compact Fluorescent Truth (one story, thoroughly investigated).

Okay, so CFLs are the silver bullet of this article. What can I say, I needed a hook and I’ve got some Xbox to play.

There is a television commercial being played during primetime these days that goes a little something like this. We see a great expanse of American prairie land, filled with crowded stalks of corn and possibility. Cutting through this vast green space is one solitary highway. After just a beat, to let us really savor this slice of Americana, a curious thing happens: THE KERNELS START TO POP OFF THE STALKS!

Now littered on the road the seeds then transform into automobiles. But not just any automobiles. Oh, no. E85 consuming automobiles! HO!

It is as if The Cougar himself worked on this 30 second spot.

Big Auto (the big three automakers: Ford, GM, Chrysler) has failed to pay proper attention to market research that drivers are concerned about the volatile price of fuel. Instead, they continued to pump out huge, and hugely inefficient, automobiles.

If we examine GM's E85 fleet, a group of cars that can run on a mixture of gasoline and up-to 85% ethanol, we notice some pretty week fuel efficiency standards. City average less than 11 miles per gallon and Highway less than 15. (See the fleet averages here)

So rather than fix the real problem, an inefficient fleet of cars, the auto industry has decided to paint the problem green by hoping Americans will swallow the ethanol pill.

But it is a dangerous pill to swallow.

This is why The Network for New Energy Choices, along with Food & Water Watch and Vermont Law School has put together The Rush to Ethanol: Not all Biofuels are Created Equal

Here are some of the issues covered in the report:

• Not all biofuels are equal. Corn – now used to produce 95 percent of U.S. ethanol and the only ethanol feedstock prepared to capitalize on refinery subsidies in the Farm Bill – is the least sustainable biofuel feedstock of all raw materials commonly used. Cellulosic ethanol, while not yet ready for market, has more favorable energy ratios than corn and presents more room for productivity gains, making it appealing to investors, farmers, and refiners.
• The capacity of corn ethanol to offset U.S. fossil fuel use is extremely limited. Dedicating the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol production would only offset a small percentage of gasoline demand. Conversely, modest increases in auto fuel efficiency standards, such as those passed by the Senate last month could cut petroleum consumption by more than all alternative fuels and replacement fuels combined.
• Ethanol is not the solution to revitalizing rural America. While higher commodity prices and cooperatively owned ethanol refineries could be a boon to independent farmers, without safeguards, ethanol industry growth could further concentrate agribusiness, draining the economic health of rural communities.
• The report examines the potential impacts of both cellulosic ethanol, which shows much more promise of replacing fossil fuels with fewer negative environmental and economic implications, and corn ethanol on the world food supply, efforts to combat global warming, the need for massive transportation reform.

The Rush to Ethanol will be released July 18th 2007