D.J.,
So what you’re saying in this scathing critique is that Forbes is a conservative publication bound to established money making technologies? 
What’s next in this incendiary series?  Sun rising in the morning? The effects of gravity on falling objects?
Cheers,
Norrin

Ben, your points are well taken. 

The fact is the “near term transition period” that you speak of is actually going to be rather long-ish (measured in decades, not years).  There’s no question, we must find ways to make better use of our natural resources.  Conservation and efficiency improvements are now often (and rightfully) referred to as “low hanging fruits,” meaning that they are well within our reach today. Nobody in their right mind is against the idea of finding ways to burn coal in cleaner ways, or improve carbon capture. 

Perhaps I’m slightly critical of the over-use of terms like “clean carbon” which reminds me of the “no child left behind” act—intentionally linguistically structured to be everything that that it’s not, while at the same time being hard to argue against in principle.  It’s actually very clever, or perhaps it is crazy. It really depends on your viewpoint. I’ve always like the expression “crazy like a fox.”  I think that works in this case.

If you want to learn more about improvements in efficiency, Greentech Media is constantly reporting on where capital is meeting innovation in areas of green IT, smart grid, etc.  (There was an interesting piece yesterday on how Power Assure is helping Facebook’s use considerably less energy in cooling its servers.  see: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/keeping-facebook-from-frying—5176.html ).

As for your last question… in the absence of a clear answer, may I suggest doing what I did and getting a Vespa.  You’ll never have so much fun!

Ben, Thanks for your comment. —DJ Leeds

Norrin,  your comment brought me a big smile; I can imagine myself writing something along the same lines. 

I wrote the piece 1) to call attention to a media bias 2) to indirectly enjoy that the next administration seems a lot more forward thinking and 3) because I didn’t having anything more scandalous to report on this week.

If you do have something incendiary you either know about or would like researched, I promise not to hold any punches.

Yours in the field, DJ Leeds

Norrin - it’s not about what Forbes is or isn’t - it’s about critiquing a stance based on its merit (or lack thereof). Blanket statements like “Forbes is conservative” or simply not enough, especially to skeptics or the unsuspecting many who would take a publication of such stature at their word. You have to make the points that have to be made, tirelessly - and DJ’s post is an example of that.

David, I understand your point of the need to move to better energy. But given how we will be using non-renewables for the near-term “transition period”, isn’t it better to improve the non-renewables for more efficiency and less impact, while simultaneously developing the technologies we’d rather have.
As an example, although vehicle tech is improving (plug-in hybrids, fuel cell, etc…), what would you propose for those who can’t afford new/replacement cars ? or who don’t have access to mass transit ? Those old gas/diesel cars will be with us for a while longer…

Nice report; its good to know which national publications are clueless about energy.  The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Fox all fit in this category.