This is a good look at the role of government policy in the adoption of energy alternatives. The author doesn't cite his authorities (or perhaps the style of the NYT doesn't allow this--it certainly seems to the case, with few exceptions.) but they're available in the footnotes and bibliography of his book. For instance, with regard to architecture, I've linked to the kind of policy that saves energy....how they got this passed--that's another story that I wish someone would cover--maybe Hill has already done so in his book.

Not enough sources for these statistics. It's very nice that Europe has achieved these efficiencies, but this piece should have gone further to explain how they did so politically.

Insightful opinion on how Europe has managed to reduce its ecological footprint to half that of the US for the same standard of living. This article provides extensive factual evidence to back its points, with helpful context on why Europe's energy policy has been so effective in reducing its fossil fuel consumption. Sadly, no sources are cited for this story's informative statistics. An eye-opener nevertheless.

This piece doesn't really present a fair picture. There's no mention of the wide use of nuclear in countries like France. Europe has a very different geography than the US, and it's economy functions differently. I would have been far more interested in how Europe innovated politically to achieve some of their energy initiatives. But that would have required actual research.

If true, the information provided in this op-ed piece provides a stark comparison between US and EU energy consumption, policy and perhaps their futures.

Though I've seen these figures elsewhere, it would have increased credibility if Hill had cited where the statistics came from. Other than that, I thought this piece was not only informative, but inspiring.