A new study by Richard York of the University of Oregon shows that it isn’t that simple. Rather than displacing fossil fuels, green energy sources have proven to be mostly additive.

“Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” published last month in Nature Climate Change, discusses what happened when alternative energy sources were introduced in countries around the world, over the past fifty years.

Contrary to the accepted wisdom that new green energy replaces fossil-fuel use, York found that on average each unit of energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than a quarter of a unit of energy use from fossil-fuel sources.

The picture is worse with electricity, where each new unit generated from green sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

York writes:

“Based on all of the results presented above, the answer to the question presented in the title of this paper – do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? – is yes, but only very modestly. The common assumption that the expansion of production of alternative energy will suppress fossil-fuel energy production in equal proportion is clearly wrong.”

Why don’t the new sources replace the old? York identifies two key reasons: the inertia of a huge existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, and the power and influence of the coal and oil corporations.

“The failure of non-fossil energy sources to displace fossil ones is probably in part attributable to the established energy system where there is a lock-in to using fossil fuels as the base energy source because of their long-standing prevalence and existing infrastructure and to the political and economic power of the fossil-fuel industry.”

In other words, eliminating fossil-fuel as an energy source is at least as much a social and political problem as a technical one.

“Of course all societies need energy. So, obviously, if societies are to stop using fossil fuels they must have other energy sources. However, the results from the analyses presented here indicate that the shift away from fossil fuel does not happen inevitably with the expansion of non-fossil-fuel sources, or at least in the political and economic contexts that have been dominant over the past fifty years around the world….

“The most effective strategy for curbing carbon emissions is likely to be one that aims to not only develop non-fossil energy sources, but also to find ways to alter political and economic contexts so that fossil-fuel energy is more easily displaced and to curtail the growth in energy consumption as much as possible.

“A general implication of these findings is that polices aimed at addressing global climate change should not focus principally on developing technological fixes, but should also take into account human behaviour in the context of political, economic and social systems.”

The evidence shows that simply introducing green energy isn’t enough: the introduction must be accompanied by “explicit policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.”

The article is published in a scientific journal, where political and social conclusions can only be expressed in muted form. But Richard York’s research and conclusions reinforce the argument that he and his co-authors (John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark) made more explicitly in their recent book, The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Planet.

“We are confronting the question of a terminal crisis, threatening most life on the planet, civilization, and the very existence of future generations. … attempts to solve this through technological fixes, market magic, and the idea of a ‘sustainable capitalism’ are mere forms of ecological denial, since they ignore the inherent destructiveness of the current system of unsustainable development – capitalism.”

If they’re talking about spraying foam over the top of your ceiling, that’s a different matter. They should absolutely NOT cover the vents.

Regardless, before you proceed with the considerable cost of spray foaming your attic, I strongly suggest you have a professional Energy Audit done to your home.
You need to know whether adding spray is making your indoor air quality better or worse.
The spray foam companies won’t tell you that.

http://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/had-a-few-insulation-companies-come-in-and-they-suggest-foaming-over-my-vents-they-said-ventilation-in-attics-is-a-thing-of-the-past

http://inhabitat.com/13-year-old-makes-solar-power-breakthrough-by-harnessing-the-fibonacci-sequence/

Hi Maria,

That is a great question with a couple of different answers, primarily dependent upon budget and if other projects are scheduled.

The principles of building science tell us to address insulating a home in a specific order.
First, you must create an effective air barrier (more on this later), because insulation does not function well unless it is directly in contact with an air barrier.
Then, you want to upgrade the attic first, crawl space second, and only address walls/windows/doors if needed.
I live in a mild climate (Santa Barbara), where windows/walls can usually be left alone, but I believe it gets much hotter in your neighborhood. Given that is true, wall insulation and windows would generally be good investments for you.
However, if over-heating is a problem, it would certainly be worth looking into shading strategies (like overhangs, trees, trellis, etc.) first.

http://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/how-should-i-add-insulation-to-my-87-year-old-house

“We are very confident that green is here to stay,” says Corie. “Americans can do a lot domestically to help us move towards a sustainable society and economy. Our philosophy is that we should do our part in keeping the US green first. If we are strong at home, we will have the strength, resources and capability to help others either by setting an example or sharing in the fruit of our efforts.”

http://blog.greenamerica.org/2012/04/02/an-ahh-haa-moment-our-april-green-biz-interview-with-clean-conscience/#more-1439

The gaming behavior learned from it can lead to household savings of up to 45% on electricity consumption and create better energy-saving habits.

A competitive player finds ways to reduce energy consumption such as switching off unnecessary lights, using energy-saving bulbs and unplugging electrical equipment.

Once the game is over, energy use in most of the game households increased but remained below the baseline recorded prior to starting the game.

It seems to stimulate energy saving in the short term, with longer lasting effects.

The people at Delft University will next try Energy Battle on larger groups, such as families with children. How about them calling the next version Energy Hunger Games!

http://homeenergypros.lbl.gov/video/habitat-for-humanity-builds-a-leed-platinum-home?xg_source=msg_mes_network