SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Time For Renewable Energy
May 16, 2009
After years of opposing or ridiculing renewable energy, the giant oil
companies are using a new approach. A recent ExxonMobil advertising
campaign puts it this way:
"Oil, gas, coal, biofuels, nuclear, wind, solar....to fuel the future we need them all."
Not an unexpected maneuver from a fossil fuel company that has owned
Washington and received subsidies and tax breaks for decades. What is
unfortunate is that this is the exact kind of energy pitch coming out
of the Obama Administration and most Congressional Democrats. Indeed it
is right out of candidate Obama's 2008 campaign rhetoric last year.
Then Senator Obama gave every energy source its due although he spent
an inordinate amount of time pushing the mirage of "clean coal" and
keeping nuclear energy on the table.
The problem is that all energy sources are not created equal for
purposes of efficiency, and the well being of consumers, workers, the
environment and posterity. Regardless of their BTU production,
different kinds of energy produce different levels of harms and
benefits, short and long term.
Take atomic power. Wall Street financiers have been adamant for years
that lending billions of dollars to utilities to construct a single
nuclear plant requires a 100% U.S. government loan guarantee. A 90%
loan guarantee by the taxpayers is rejected by the Wall Streeters. They
want a 100% guarantee on the barrelhead.
The well-known physicist, environmentalist Amory Lovins argues against
nuclear energy just on economic grounds. He says he doesn't even have
to get to the safety issues to recommend rejection. I know no one of
prominence of on the other side willing to debate him. If you do, let
me know.
But the safety issues surrounding the nuclear option will not go away.
Neither the unresolved permanent storage of deadly radioactive waste,
nor the national security problems, nor the risk of a class nine
meltdown that could contaminate, in the words of the old Atomic Energy
Agency (of the U.S. government), an area the size of Pennsylvania, are
going away.
Then, of course, there is the missing "source" of energy from the Exxon
ad. This is energy efficiency. Reducing waste. A thousand megawatts you
don't waste is a thousand megawatts you don't have to produce. The same
goes for not having to waste a gallon of gasoline in gas guzzling motor
vehicles. Nothing can compete with the payback ratios of energy
conservation which includes building and engine construction and use.
Yet again and again it is not at the top of the list or on many lists
at all.
Then there are the renewables-wind, geothermal, water and all the
wonderous varieties of solar. A few days ago, the Sustainable Energy
Coalition had its 12th annual Congressional renewable energy and energy
efficiency EXPO + Forum at the Cannon House Office Building in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
This year's EXPO featured over fifty businesses, trade associations,
government agencies and non-profit policy organizations to hear some
members of Congress regale them and converse with visitors.
I found the exhibits and their personable exhibitors to be specific,
comprehensive and seemingly convinced that renewables are finally,
after some failed starts, on an irreversible road to greater market
share.
It was not only the advanced hardware and the use of tax credits that
fed their optimism. Renewables are branching out in ways that are
bringing them nearer to a level playing field with their heavily
subsidized and coddled fossil fuel and nuclear "competitors." More
venture capital, better tax credits, rebates and various state and
local proposals exist to facilitate financing for users.
One spreading incentive comes from my home state of Connecticut which
offers a special solar energy leasing plan for homeowners. The Nutmeg
State claims it is leading "the way with the nation's first rate payer
supporter residential leasing program for solar energy." Catch the
details by visiting ctsolarlease.com or phone 888-232-3477.
The point of this column is to demand thoughtful discrimination by our
policy makers between different kinds of energy. Some are clearly
better than others. From the federal government on down to the state
and local level, a discriminatory approach is a must if the conversion
to renewables and energy conservation from fossils and nuclear is to
accelerate.
The old energy lobbies are very stubborn and have their hooks into too many politicians who mouth the ExxonMobil party line.
There are far more jobs in the new energy economy with far more health,
efficiency, and security benefits than there are in staying with
hydrocarbons and radioactive atoms.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of "The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future" (2012). His new book is, "Wrecking America: How Trump's Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All" (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).
After years of opposing or ridiculing renewable energy, the giant oil
companies are using a new approach. A recent ExxonMobil advertising
campaign puts it this way:
"Oil, gas, coal, biofuels, nuclear, wind, solar....to fuel the future we need them all."
Not an unexpected maneuver from a fossil fuel company that has owned
Washington and received subsidies and tax breaks for decades. What is
unfortunate is that this is the exact kind of energy pitch coming out
of the Obama Administration and most Congressional Democrats. Indeed it
is right out of candidate Obama's 2008 campaign rhetoric last year.
Then Senator Obama gave every energy source its due although he spent
an inordinate amount of time pushing the mirage of "clean coal" and
keeping nuclear energy on the table.
The problem is that all energy sources are not created equal for
purposes of efficiency, and the well being of consumers, workers, the
environment and posterity. Regardless of their BTU production,
different kinds of energy produce different levels of harms and
benefits, short and long term.
Take atomic power. Wall Street financiers have been adamant for years
that lending billions of dollars to utilities to construct a single
nuclear plant requires a 100% U.S. government loan guarantee. A 90%
loan guarantee by the taxpayers is rejected by the Wall Streeters. They
want a 100% guarantee on the barrelhead.
The well-known physicist, environmentalist Amory Lovins argues against
nuclear energy just on economic grounds. He says he doesn't even have
to get to the safety issues to recommend rejection. I know no one of
prominence of on the other side willing to debate him. If you do, let
me know.
But the safety issues surrounding the nuclear option will not go away.
Neither the unresolved permanent storage of deadly radioactive waste,
nor the national security problems, nor the risk of a class nine
meltdown that could contaminate, in the words of the old Atomic Energy
Agency (of the U.S. government), an area the size of Pennsylvania, are
going away.
Then, of course, there is the missing "source" of energy from the Exxon
ad. This is energy efficiency. Reducing waste. A thousand megawatts you
don't waste is a thousand megawatts you don't have to produce. The same
goes for not having to waste a gallon of gasoline in gas guzzling motor
vehicles. Nothing can compete with the payback ratios of energy
conservation which includes building and engine construction and use.
Yet again and again it is not at the top of the list or on many lists
at all.
Then there are the renewables-wind, geothermal, water and all the
wonderous varieties of solar. A few days ago, the Sustainable Energy
Coalition had its 12th annual Congressional renewable energy and energy
efficiency EXPO + Forum at the Cannon House Office Building in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
This year's EXPO featured over fifty businesses, trade associations,
government agencies and non-profit policy organizations to hear some
members of Congress regale them and converse with visitors.
I found the exhibits and their personable exhibitors to be specific,
comprehensive and seemingly convinced that renewables are finally,
after some failed starts, on an irreversible road to greater market
share.
It was not only the advanced hardware and the use of tax credits that
fed their optimism. Renewables are branching out in ways that are
bringing them nearer to a level playing field with their heavily
subsidized and coddled fossil fuel and nuclear "competitors." More
venture capital, better tax credits, rebates and various state and
local proposals exist to facilitate financing for users.
One spreading incentive comes from my home state of Connecticut which
offers a special solar energy leasing plan for homeowners. The Nutmeg
State claims it is leading "the way with the nation's first rate payer
supporter residential leasing program for solar energy." Catch the
details by visiting ctsolarlease.com or phone 888-232-3477.
The point of this column is to demand thoughtful discrimination by our
policy makers between different kinds of energy. Some are clearly
better than others. From the federal government on down to the state
and local level, a discriminatory approach is a must if the conversion
to renewables and energy conservation from fossils and nuclear is to
accelerate.
The old energy lobbies are very stubborn and have their hooks into too many politicians who mouth the ExxonMobil party line.
There are far more jobs in the new energy economy with far more health,
efficiency, and security benefits than there are in staying with
hydrocarbons and radioactive atoms.
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of "The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future" (2012). His new book is, "Wrecking America: How Trump's Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All" (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).
After years of opposing or ridiculing renewable energy, the giant oil
companies are using a new approach. A recent ExxonMobil advertising
campaign puts it this way:
"Oil, gas, coal, biofuels, nuclear, wind, solar....to fuel the future we need them all."
Not an unexpected maneuver from a fossil fuel company that has owned
Washington and received subsidies and tax breaks for decades. What is
unfortunate is that this is the exact kind of energy pitch coming out
of the Obama Administration and most Congressional Democrats. Indeed it
is right out of candidate Obama's 2008 campaign rhetoric last year.
Then Senator Obama gave every energy source its due although he spent
an inordinate amount of time pushing the mirage of "clean coal" and
keeping nuclear energy on the table.
The problem is that all energy sources are not created equal for
purposes of efficiency, and the well being of consumers, workers, the
environment and posterity. Regardless of their BTU production,
different kinds of energy produce different levels of harms and
benefits, short and long term.
Take atomic power. Wall Street financiers have been adamant for years
that lending billions of dollars to utilities to construct a single
nuclear plant requires a 100% U.S. government loan guarantee. A 90%
loan guarantee by the taxpayers is rejected by the Wall Streeters. They
want a 100% guarantee on the barrelhead.
The well-known physicist, environmentalist Amory Lovins argues against
nuclear energy just on economic grounds. He says he doesn't even have
to get to the safety issues to recommend rejection. I know no one of
prominence of on the other side willing to debate him. If you do, let
me know.
But the safety issues surrounding the nuclear option will not go away.
Neither the unresolved permanent storage of deadly radioactive waste,
nor the national security problems, nor the risk of a class nine
meltdown that could contaminate, in the words of the old Atomic Energy
Agency (of the U.S. government), an area the size of Pennsylvania, are
going away.
Then, of course, there is the missing "source" of energy from the Exxon
ad. This is energy efficiency. Reducing waste. A thousand megawatts you
don't waste is a thousand megawatts you don't have to produce. The same
goes for not having to waste a gallon of gasoline in gas guzzling motor
vehicles. Nothing can compete with the payback ratios of energy
conservation which includes building and engine construction and use.
Yet again and again it is not at the top of the list or on many lists
at all.
Then there are the renewables-wind, geothermal, water and all the
wonderous varieties of solar. A few days ago, the Sustainable Energy
Coalition had its 12th annual Congressional renewable energy and energy
efficiency EXPO + Forum at the Cannon House Office Building in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
This year's EXPO featured over fifty businesses, trade associations,
government agencies and non-profit policy organizations to hear some
members of Congress regale them and converse with visitors.
I found the exhibits and their personable exhibitors to be specific,
comprehensive and seemingly convinced that renewables are finally,
after some failed starts, on an irreversible road to greater market
share.
It was not only the advanced hardware and the use of tax credits that
fed their optimism. Renewables are branching out in ways that are
bringing them nearer to a level playing field with their heavily
subsidized and coddled fossil fuel and nuclear "competitors." More
venture capital, better tax credits, rebates and various state and
local proposals exist to facilitate financing for users.
One spreading incentive comes from my home state of Connecticut which
offers a special solar energy leasing plan for homeowners. The Nutmeg
State claims it is leading "the way with the nation's first rate payer
supporter residential leasing program for solar energy." Catch the
details by visiting ctsolarlease.com or phone 888-232-3477.
The point of this column is to demand thoughtful discrimination by our
policy makers between different kinds of energy. Some are clearly
better than others. From the federal government on down to the state
and local level, a discriminatory approach is a must if the conversion
to renewables and energy conservation from fossils and nuclear is to
accelerate.
The old energy lobbies are very stubborn and have their hooks into too many politicians who mouth the ExxonMobil party line.
There are far more jobs in the new energy economy with far more health,
efficiency, and security benefits than there are in staying with
hydrocarbons and radioactive atoms.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.