A friend asked me, if you were in charge of solving this problem, what would you do? This is a great question for an engineer. Here are the answers of this engineer. Luckily I am not a Politician that would need to sell these solutions to the public, as it is clear that these solutions would be politically difficult, even if they are the right medicine for the ailment. Here are 10 things I would do:

1. Join the Kyoto Protocol and other international agreements dedicated to a reducing the demand for energy and the generation of CO2. Promise to reduce the US use of energy resources and per capita CO2 generation to half of the current European usage rate by 2035. Do more than our fair share, but pressure China and other growing economies to build green economies with specific targets.
2. Tax all CO2 going into the air at the same rate in $ per lb of CO2. I.e. Tax gasoline, Diesel, coal, firewood, wood pellets, Biofuels, and electricity to the extent it generates CO2. Use the tax money to help us transition off of Carbon. Personally, I never liked the Cap and Trade system as it is fraught with abuse and corruption.
3. Pay US landowners, farmers, or entrepreneurs to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It will be challenging to document the amount of CO2 removal in order to pay in $ per lb of CO2. Start gradually, but continuously raise the CO2 tax to give business managers time to plan and adapt. We know that consumers will respond to higher prices by conserving. It will be very difficult for many people to adapt. We also need to encourage the preservation of the tropical rain forests, as they remove a proportionally much greater amount of CO2 than our temperate forests, roughly 3 times the amount. All imported rain forest products must be certified as sustainably produced.
4. Fund a $50 Billion design competition for large scale solar and wind power generation along with load leveling power storage systems such as pumped hydro, compressed air storage, or other technologies to encourage new and improved technology and to find the most efficient renewable path forward. The winner of this design contest would be given contracts to build up to $50 Billion worth of Solar power plants. It is likely that photovoltaic’s, solar power towers, and solar powered biomass can provide a substantial amount of our power needs, as we know that massive solar energy arrives here every day and is very reliable. The design competition should be structured to encourage our most talented engineering and construction firms to produce the most efficient plant design possible for a continental or Hawaiian US site.
5. Re-label ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles) as standard and raise the bar. Use the CO2 tax to fund a Global Warming rebate for the highest efficient motorcycles, cars, trucks, tractors, and other special purpose vehicles and equipment to encourage a shift to more efficient equipment. The rebate should be based on the predicted overall CO2 emissions regardless of the fuel. We will need durable and safe 100+mpg vehicles and greatly improved transport systems. Why is the marketplace missing the 1000 lb vehicle? I weigh 207 lbs, but cannot buy a light weight heated enclosed vehicle. I will bet on the success of the simple direct low risk Loremo model (157 mpg): http://evolution.loremo.com/content/view/13/47/lang,en/
6. Fund a $50 Billion design competition for clean coal power. In order to use our massive Coal resources wisely, we need to rebuild our refineries and electric power industry together. The likely technology would be the ICCG (Integrated and Combined Cycle and Gasification) with CO2 sequestering. The design competition to construct or retrofit a series of 100-400 Megawatt coal fired power plant that generates only 10-20% of current coal plant CO2 emissions. Working with power companies around the US the successful design would award contracts for up to $50 Billion for the construction of new or retrofitted coal fired plants. Once we get the CO2 footprint for electrical generation down to a small fraction of its current footprint, then we will see electric and perhaps hydrogen cars that actually have a low CO2 footprint.
7. We need a large educational and promotional effect to convince our country and the rest of the world to act on the moral equivalent of war. I would encourage NASCAR and Formula 1, to instigate new programs where cars will be gradually limited to a small fraction of their current fuel consumption, so that the competition rewards fuel efficient cars and driving strategies. This could lead to major improvements in engines, drive trains, and fuels. We need to encourage a new model of cool cars so that Motor Trend, Road and Track, etc. are helping to make us feed good about 100 mpg cars and not just the latest 500HP Corvette. Note that my list of 10 rules do not preclude fast sports cars, but will make it expensive to drive them a lot if they are inefficient.
8. Fund Nuclear Fusion research and development. Provide significant financial and logistical research support for the only magic bullet we have: Nuclear Fusion Power reactors. Programs like ITER can move us past the research stage into the first power reactors on the grid. We need to get the first fusion reactor on the grid. This technology is still unproven, so we cannot depend on it for the next 20 years, but it will eventually be a plentiful fuel source, and the problem is how to construct a lower cost method to generate our power. This technology has only minimal radioactive waste problems compared to the current fission reactors. Personally, I cannot recommend Nuclear Fission technology, in spite of the huge advantage of power without CO2. It is not clear that it is cost effective, as without government subsidies no power company seems interested. We know that accidents like Chernobyl can cause massive worldwide radioactive pollutions, and the breeder reactor program is a tremendous security problem as it creates weapons grade materials. The temporary storage of nuclear waste at current facilities is a big problem and we seem far from having a safe disposal site. We need to get Yucca Mountain or other long term storage sites operational and fix the massive nuclear waste problem that both military and nuclear power have made.
9. Fund research into other options to help regulate the earth’s temperature and develop policies consistent with this understanding. Items such as solar shields, mists or powdered reflecting materials in the atmosphere, changing the reflectance of large surface areas, i.e. converting black-top to white-top for example. These solutions may be the only fast acting alternative, as it is so difficult to reduce the CO2 concentration. Large land areas covered by CO2 absorbers that act chemically to remove CO2 out of the air, might work technically, but seems that costs could be prohibitive. As I imagine a tall design with lots of surface area, it seems to look a lot like trees. Most industrial CO2 removal processes would not be practical with such a dilute concentration. Trees are substantially carbon taken out of the air. Our understanding of the CO2 balance of natural systems is lacking and we need to fund basic research here. It is inherently difficult to measure the average CO2 consumption/production of large natural areas like forests, peat bogs, lakes, or oceans. We really need to better understand which plants, trees, bacteria, fungus, seaplants, or other live systems are best at removing CO2 and make sure we encourage their survival and possible proliferation. These could be a key part of the solution. We need to monitor our declining Bio-diversity, capture genetic materials of vanishing species, and better understand our impact on the habitat of plants and animals both on land and in the seas. We can and should be able to better protect our National Parks and other natural places, by being more conscious of our impact, and living more lightly on the land and sea.
10. Encourage the generation and sharing of real scientific research, reports, and analysis not influenced by political editors. It is hard enough to fix a problem that we understand, but nearly impossible if the understanding of the problems is corrupted by special interests, influencing the science. We need to use the work of other scientists worldwide and encourage the sharing of our data for the overall benefit of mankind. To me we need to put more money into basic university research rather than private research companies beholden to the sponsoring political entity.

Many people shrug and say I'm not worried, they will come up with something. It would be fabulous if some secret technology being hidden by the government or the oil companies, etc., would be suddenly revealed and make the energy problem go away. Yes we do have some dreams, and we do have a few brilliant minds working on the problem, but it is looking like our current energy diet will be viewed as extravagent in just a few years. It seems highly unlikely that Fusion power reactors will be operational in the next 10 years. The human population of the Earth shows some slowing, but still continues to increase. Hydrocarbon liquid fuels will continue to sharply increase in price as we reach peak oil within the next 10 years with increasing world demand. The food vs. fuel debate will emerge as an urgent ethical problem as farmland is shifted to BIO fuels. I predict continued Bio-Fuel expansion, but a shift away from ethanol towards more direct conversion to liquid fuels. The pressures for CO2 emission reductions to reduce global warming could result in a carbon tax, expanded Cap and Trade agreements, or other incentives to conserve. I predict liquid hydrocarbon products (gasoline/diesel) related products at over $11 per gallon in the USA by 2018. While this may sound high, consider that the price of gasoline in 2001 was $1.55 and has doubled in only 7years, diesel has doubled in 4 years, and we have not yet reached the point where worldwide production of oil is declining. Also consider that during the Katrina price spike we observed only a 5% reduction of consumption showing how inelastic the US consumption is with changes in prices. Growing Asian economies can and will compete for limited oil. Declining oil production is a new era not unlike the decline in whale oil a century ago. Natural Gas is currently a bargain, and it has a relatively low CO2 footprint, but it would quickly catch up to oil, if restrictions on power plant and industrial use are lifted. Ironically consumer price protection prevents the price of Natural gas from rising, which would stimulate higher production. Coal should be relatively stable as domestic supplies are very large. Regulations to remove CO2 from new or existing coal fired plants would increase the cost of electricity. It is a political question if the power industry will be compelled to capture CO2 on a significant scale in the next 10 years. Electric prices will increase, but at a lower rate than hydrocarbon fuels. Wood and wood pellets could face increased demands to drive up the price as these renewable sources are limited. We risk wiping out our forests if we shift from traditional hydrocarbon fuels to wood for heat and conversion to liquid fuels. All energy prices will increase faster than inflation in general. My guess is that Nuclear Energy will gain new interest, but will not make a large contribution in this timeframe. Nuclear Energy without subsidies would be very expensive. We all remember Chernobyl and the massive damage it caused, never mind the security and pollution concerns that come with existing Nuclear Power technology. Higher energy prices will drive major innovations in auto efficiency, public transport, the use of coal for power and liquid fuels, solar energy, wind energy, farming, and home energy conservation. Reliable and reasonably safe light weight 150 mpg vehicles (like the Loremo) will be available before 2018. Many companies and people will regret not purchasing more efficient equipment especially when they made upgrades in 2008, as they never predicted such high prices in 2018.

So what kind of car should I drive?

The data above show some possibilities. Now depending on your vehicle, your efficiency might be different. Gasoline engines only convert about 25% of the fuel energy into shaft work; diesels convert about 35% and thus have an advantage even when the fuels are priced equal based on energy content. Turbines can be up to about 46% efficient, they can handle high altitude, and with low weight they are a good fit for aircraft. Combined cycle turbines at a stationary power plant can be about 57% efficient with hydrocarbon fuels, and when used in a co-generation mode the waste heat can be put to useful commercial functions like making steam or hot water. Electric vehicle is 80-90% efficient. H2 Fuel cells are in the range of 90% efficient. It is inherently difficult to obtain high efficiency for heat engines, as the second law of thermodynamics limits due to the operational temperatures. Higher efficiencies can be obtained with higher combustion temperatures and lower sink (air) temperatures. External combustion engines like steam engines are a possibility, and a wood powered car is possible, but unlikely unless we can make a much more efficient external combustion engine than the old steam engines. Electric cars will be the future, but only when we convert our power industry to reduce it’s massive CO2 footprint.