A paragraph explaining how one gets and what is energy efficiency would work well in the article, rather than having to google to find/read it elsewhere. One suggestion to authors:in the areas of economics, this article, some medical and science for general readers, it would be a good thing to use less jargon. It is very hard for someone who is deep into a field to write for the general reader, but it would be a good idea. It certainly would increase the number of people reading the material.

Yes.

Everybody keeps insisting that it wasn't really the new deal that brought us back from the great depression, but the war. However it is well-accepted, or at least was before Milton Friedman, that military expenditures have the worst multiplier effect of any government expenditures. However, when the world was at war and we were brought into it by something like Pearl Harbor every American was quite happy to have the government spend what it took to win, no matter the debt that might be racked up. So government spending on the war effort dwarfed previous spending on new deal initiatives, because there was quite a bit of opposition to it (by the right of the day of course).

Now, imagine what could happen if that kind of war-time investment were made in a non-war-time era on an infrastructure that would return so many times over.

In my mind it is the single approach that will bring us out of the approaching depression, and pay back so many times over in so many ways.

But it will take nothing short of a world-war-type investment and effort.

A renewable energy cheaper than coal could be readily obtained by legalizing cannabis and encouraging homeowners to grow it. Anything else may be nothing more than a pipe dream.

"Obama's primary focus must be on making clean energy cheap" - If we build hundreds of thousands of windmills from Dakota to Texas and along the coasts, with transmission lines, we're all set. Why don't we just do it.

Too much doom and gloom here. The author should visit Kerela, India and learn something about making wise use of resources even with a very dense population.

Thank you! Thank you! Somebody finally gets it!

The costs of energy efficiency, renewable energy and inhibiting global warming are all reducible, and probably will drop, -

- IF -

- IF the Obama Administration goes into the problem with eyes open, and IF they come up with even a reasonable amount of funding. I say IF because Washington sometimes has gum on its shoe and can't walk fast, or move at all.

My unstudied research targets would be, in this order,
1. ecologically low-impact geoengineering,
2. better non-automotive transit,
3. energy-intensive industrial processes,
4. offshore wind energy improvements,
5. electricity storage on a massive scale,
6. nonphotovoltaic solar electricity,
7. production of biodiesel from algae,
8. and home/office heating.

Go after specific products that can be manufactured, or specific improvements with value.

Sioux Rose

How about if the banks just given those chunks of cash are forced (before they get the next "installment") to invest in these greener technologies; and how about if billionaires are told they EITHER enter a higher tax bracket or VOLUNTARILY put a % of their income into these initiatives. Hey, our political version of a mafia keeps giving us (The public) offers we can't refuse... why not the reverse? (Dream on, Sioux.)

I'm a big supporter of renewable energy programs, but I suspect that Mr. Zemel is underestimating both the potential for energy efficiency in this very wasteful country and the economic impact of addressing it. For example, consider how much energy is seeping from homes, office buildings, and factories in this country and how many newly trained specialists would be required to apply state-of-the art measures to end that waste. It's fine to build better faucets, but let's also fix our leaky drains.

I urge Zemel and other people here to visit the website of the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org), long the go-to organization on questions relating to efficiency. It can be an eye-opener.

Many of us live the most extravagant lifestyle ever recorded. (there are more overweight people in the world than underfed/hungry folks) We need to make painful choices at global, national and personal levels. Those advocating imagined technological solutions are taking us on an enormously risky path. The science fiction true believers reminds me of those who until recently believed absolutely in an unfettered free market. The chickens have come home to roost on unbridled casino capitalism. The same is now happening with regards to climate change and other environmental crises. The "technological solution" is unfortunately probably a delusion and form of avoidance. By all means, let's focus on efficiency for the near...and the long term.

Common Dreams must have taken a big bribe from the elite establishment to post these right wing rant articles. Zemel apparently believes the extreme right gutter koolaid that economic growth at all cost is a legitimate priority. Zemel wants to create ever higher tech energy conversion and feed an ever-growing energy demand. He doesn't say it but he may as well claim the USA's military domination of the planet is his ultimate goal because his approach supports that goal more strongly than any other approach whether he knows it or not. Consumption is a very easy sell to people who are kept totally in the dark, that is, 99% of the US population over the past 50 years. But more recently, many more of us have learned that the elites' energy and economics propaganda are gargantuan lies. We now know that we do not need economic growth. So the koolaid is now sour. The economy must submit to the enlightened will of the people. What makes the people happy may or may not grow the economy. The people are not happy with perpetual growth in energy consumption, material consumption, or anything in the economic realm. Running the rat wheel ever faster doesn't cut it any longer. Consuming more doesn't cut it any longer. We have to consume less. Try 1000 lb, 20 hp 50 mph, 150 mpg vehicles for personal transport, using diesel internal combustion, an ancient technology. And equivalent value in the other sectors. Kaka on the elite establishment. We don't need the establishment lies, Common Dreams, so stop posting them, please.

Zemel makes two false assumptions, in my opinion. The lesser is the assumption that because Obama will take office in a time of economic crisis, he will only be able to do a limited number of things. But he doesn't need to "focus" on a small number of programs--this is what he has advisors and agency heads for. He need not study up on the merits of one clean energy technology versus another--he need only assemble his team working on that, listen to their presentations and arguments, choose a course that seems wisest, and say "go do it." And look into results at some later date. As for limited funds, the solution to economic crisis is usually assumed to involve government spending, so he need only choose to direct the monies toward this use.
The more important false (though annoyingly common) assumption is that we will have to be ready for 9 billion people in 2050, and rising levels of consumption in at least the Third World (which will supply virtually all of the increased population). This is based on current trends. But it has been estimated that we are currently exceeding sustainable resource use by 23%. Where will the raw materials for the additional 2 1/2 billion come from? The water, for drinking and sanitation, and everything else--maybe diverted from the irrigation needed to feed those people? How about the land to house them--again, taken from the agricultural land needed to feed them? And then there is the reality that we have achieved the current excessive population only via the subsidy provided by cheap fossil fuels, the distilled and concentrated energy from millions of prehistoric years. Once that's gone, how can we produce the fertilizer to produce crops beyond the size of today's (which are no longer increasing)? And how can we possibly feed the thirty billion people we'll have in 2090, or the trillions we'll have in another two hundred years if you assume that current trends are immutable? Obviously population will have to stop growing some time. Since the evidence is that we are already beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth, I think we need to assume that it will happen SOON.
None of this is an argument that we should NOT invest public monies in renewable energy as well as efficiency and conservation--we absolutely MUST. And we can easily find the money we need, no matter the current state of the economy, if we are at last willing to face directly the gargantuan vampire in the room: the military budget. Since it's more than half of the total budget, and equal to what the rest of the world COMBINED spends on military matters, obviously there is plenty there. It's true that hundreds, possibly even thousands of rich people would lose money if we divert some of this toward constructive uses--but I would argue that this is a small price to pay to avert the deaths of billions, the likely outcome if we cruise along with business as usual.