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
When "Clean Energy" Isn't Clean
Obama's use of the term is misleading, dangerous, and ultimately destructive. It must be challenged.
Jan 27, 2011
"Now, clean energy breakthroughs
will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there
will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge
you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity
will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar.
Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal,
we will need them all and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together
to make it happen." --President Barak Obama
During the State
of the Union address Tueday night, President Obama set forth an ambitious challenge
that by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy
sources. To do this Congress must eliminate the generous subsidies
given to the oil industry, and use the money to invest in tomorrow's
energy.
The idea behind this statement
is right on. The US needs to make a fundamental shift away from
dirty energy to clean sources. Leading that shift through innovation,
research, and education will result in more jobs and a stronger economy
to compete with a growing China and India in a changing world economy.
Yet throwing around the phrase
'clean energy' is misleading, especially in the manner it was defined
last night. The notion that nuclear power, coal, and natural gas
are clean is not only incorrect, but jeopardizes our ability to achieve
necessary long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The
fashionable, yet hollow use of this so-called 'clean energy' will
only continue to exacerbate our climate crisis.
What is 'clean' energy,
anyway, and what is 'dirty' energy? Last night, President
Obama included nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas as sources of 'clean'
energy, but are they really? I would say NO. Clean energy
needs to include the following characteristics:
- Does not create
environmental or public health dangers in extraction or use - Be economically
feasible without large tax-payer subsidies, and able to answer a demand
in the energy market - Be renewable- able
to replenish itself naturally - Carbon free
The problems associated with
energy sources that fall under the label of 'clean' are numerous.
Nuclear reactors emit toxic radiation into the air and water, and cannot
compete with cheaper and cleaner forms of energy without billions in
government subsidies and financial assurances. Clean coal technologies
such as CCS are unproven and do nothing to reduce the environmental
and health impacts that result from the mining process. Natural
gas releases harmful pollutants, and the extracting techniques can be
extremely harmful to local communities. Clearly, these forms of
energy do not meet the criteria of 'clean energy'.
By promoting these harmful
energy sources as 'clean' we risk not only endangering the health
and livelihood, of many Americans, but we undermine the development
and deployment of truly clean renewable energy that is financially viable
and technologically sound. The inclusion of nuclear, coal, and
natural gas into a national energy plan will limit the maturation of
wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources, which are ultimately
preferable because truly clean energy is the only dependable and environmentally
safe way to fuel future energy needs.
Pursuing a 'clean energy'
standard may garner more political support in Congress these days, but
that should not implore us to settle for less. If this is truly
our generation's 'Sputnik moment' we must take the opportunity
to push for policies and incentives that will promote clean renewable
energy sources. If we do this we will be strengthening our security,
protecting our planet, and revitalizing our economy long into the future.
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.
"Now, clean energy breakthroughs
will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there
will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge
you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity
will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar.
Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal,
we will need them all and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together
to make it happen." --President Barak Obama
During the State
of the Union address Tueday night, President Obama set forth an ambitious challenge
that by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy
sources. To do this Congress must eliminate the generous subsidies
given to the oil industry, and use the money to invest in tomorrow's
energy.
The idea behind this statement
is right on. The US needs to make a fundamental shift away from
dirty energy to clean sources. Leading that shift through innovation,
research, and education will result in more jobs and a stronger economy
to compete with a growing China and India in a changing world economy.
Yet throwing around the phrase
'clean energy' is misleading, especially in the manner it was defined
last night. The notion that nuclear power, coal, and natural gas
are clean is not only incorrect, but jeopardizes our ability to achieve
necessary long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The
fashionable, yet hollow use of this so-called 'clean energy' will
only continue to exacerbate our climate crisis.
What is 'clean' energy,
anyway, and what is 'dirty' energy? Last night, President
Obama included nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas as sources of 'clean'
energy, but are they really? I would say NO. Clean energy
needs to include the following characteristics:
- Does not create
environmental or public health dangers in extraction or use - Be economically
feasible without large tax-payer subsidies, and able to answer a demand
in the energy market - Be renewable- able
to replenish itself naturally - Carbon free
The problems associated with
energy sources that fall under the label of 'clean' are numerous.
Nuclear reactors emit toxic radiation into the air and water, and cannot
compete with cheaper and cleaner forms of energy without billions in
government subsidies and financial assurances. Clean coal technologies
such as CCS are unproven and do nothing to reduce the environmental
and health impacts that result from the mining process. Natural
gas releases harmful pollutants, and the extracting techniques can be
extremely harmful to local communities. Clearly, these forms of
energy do not meet the criteria of 'clean energy'.
By promoting these harmful
energy sources as 'clean' we risk not only endangering the health
and livelihood, of many Americans, but we undermine the development
and deployment of truly clean renewable energy that is financially viable
and technologically sound. The inclusion of nuclear, coal, and
natural gas into a national energy plan will limit the maturation of
wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources, which are ultimately
preferable because truly clean energy is the only dependable and environmentally
safe way to fuel future energy needs.
Pursuing a 'clean energy'
standard may garner more political support in Congress these days, but
that should not implore us to settle for less. If this is truly
our generation's 'Sputnik moment' we must take the opportunity
to push for policies and incentives that will promote clean renewable
energy sources. If we do this we will be strengthening our security,
protecting our planet, and revitalizing our economy long into the future.
"Now, clean energy breakthroughs
will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there
will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge
you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity
will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar.
Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal,
we will need them all and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together
to make it happen." --President Barak Obama
During the State
of the Union address Tueday night, President Obama set forth an ambitious challenge
that by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy
sources. To do this Congress must eliminate the generous subsidies
given to the oil industry, and use the money to invest in tomorrow's
energy.
The idea behind this statement
is right on. The US needs to make a fundamental shift away from
dirty energy to clean sources. Leading that shift through innovation,
research, and education will result in more jobs and a stronger economy
to compete with a growing China and India in a changing world economy.
Yet throwing around the phrase
'clean energy' is misleading, especially in the manner it was defined
last night. The notion that nuclear power, coal, and natural gas
are clean is not only incorrect, but jeopardizes our ability to achieve
necessary long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The
fashionable, yet hollow use of this so-called 'clean energy' will
only continue to exacerbate our climate crisis.
What is 'clean' energy,
anyway, and what is 'dirty' energy? Last night, President
Obama included nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas as sources of 'clean'
energy, but are they really? I would say NO. Clean energy
needs to include the following characteristics:
- Does not create
environmental or public health dangers in extraction or use - Be economically
feasible without large tax-payer subsidies, and able to answer a demand
in the energy market - Be renewable- able
to replenish itself naturally - Carbon free
The problems associated with
energy sources that fall under the label of 'clean' are numerous.
Nuclear reactors emit toxic radiation into the air and water, and cannot
compete with cheaper and cleaner forms of energy without billions in
government subsidies and financial assurances. Clean coal technologies
such as CCS are unproven and do nothing to reduce the environmental
and health impacts that result from the mining process. Natural
gas releases harmful pollutants, and the extracting techniques can be
extremely harmful to local communities. Clearly, these forms of
energy do not meet the criteria of 'clean energy'.
By promoting these harmful
energy sources as 'clean' we risk not only endangering the health
and livelihood, of many Americans, but we undermine the development
and deployment of truly clean renewable energy that is financially viable
and technologically sound. The inclusion of nuclear, coal, and
natural gas into a national energy plan will limit the maturation of
wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources, which are ultimately
preferable because truly clean energy is the only dependable and environmentally
safe way to fuel future energy needs.
Pursuing a 'clean energy'
standard may garner more political support in Congress these days, but
that should not implore us to settle for less. If this is truly
our generation's 'Sputnik moment' we must take the opportunity
to push for policies and incentives that will promote clean renewable
energy sources. If we do this we will be strengthening our security,
protecting our planet, and revitalizing our economy long into the future.
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.