Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Clean Energy - A Few Philosophic and Political Aspects

By Craig Shields
December 14, 2009 | 8 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

Photobucket Hello, I’m Craig Shields, editor of 2GreenEnergy.com. I’m pleased to announce that Stephen Lacey, whom I interviewed for this post I wrote about Renewable Energy World, has invited me to blog here regularly -- and I’m thrilled to accept the invitation.

I’ll begin by making a few comments in places that don’t seem to get a great deal of ink, namely, the philosophic and political aspects of clean energy. I’ve always said that the unlovely confluence of big money and power politics is of far greater consequence to the trajectory of renewables than the technology itself. And this has been confirmed to me many times over in the 20+ interviews I’ve conducted recently in the process of working on my upcoming book on the subject (tentatively called "Renewable Energy – The Facts and the Fantasies") in which virtually everyone has commented on the political factors that are pushing for renewables, as well as those that are pushing against.

In particular, we as a nation can -- and should -- solve several different problems simultaneously, putting large numbers of people to work building and installing solar thermal farms, wind farms, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, etc. – while building out the grid with HVDC. Some people (socialists?) suggest a New Deal-like program organized through the federal government. But almost everyone agrees that the private sector, once a level playing field is in place, will run 100 miles an hour in the direction of clean energy.

So why aren’t we doing that? Why are we borrowing $2 billion dollars a day to support our dependence on foreign oil, while ruining our health, enriching our enemies, befouling our skies and oceans, and melting our glaciers?

Is there anything good about oil and coal? I know there are people who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming. But are there any who don’t believe in cancer? In economic depressions? In terrorism?

The only reason that we cling to fossil fuels is a political system that has simply ceased to work for the vast majority of the people it supposedly serves. It’s an unholy alliance between politicians whose only chance at success means accepting enormous amounts of campaign money from extremely powerful interests. And yes, some of these are the coal and oil industries -- interests that run 180 degrees counter to your and my health and safety – not to mention that of future generations.

I believe that unless there is a grassroots effort that demands dramatic campaign reform, I’m afraid that I can only forecast more of the same. Is this pessimism? Cynicism? It may appear so. On the other hand, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist, looking the facts squarely in the face and making recommendations even when they’re not altogether pleasant. I believe it’s only through confronting the bitter truth that civilization makes any progress at all – and at no time in mankind’s brutal history has it been more required than it is today.

I look forward to your comments. I want to point out that we have some lively chats at 2GreenEnergy as well; I hope you’ll feel free to join in there too.

In any case, I again thank Stephen and RenewableEnergyWorld for the kind invitation.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

8 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 8

December 15, 2009

Campaign reform is a tough hill to climb. I'm hoping that the aggregate pressure of the populace demanding more earth-friendly (and ideally, economical) solutions will force the hand of vested interested and political will towards a more sustainable future.

Comment
2 of 8

AnneButterfield

December 15, 2009

Hi Craig, your musings land up exactly where mine typically do -- at the shores of campaign finance reform. Publicly funded elections -- as pushed by Common Cause. Some also talk about a campaign to get publicly traded companies to institute by laws to include the magic words in their mission statements "to pursue profit but not where doing so would endanger environment and public interest" (my paraphrase). Some have backed a campaign like that. We do need to do a structural change in the way corporations are running our legislation.

Comment
3 of 8

CraigShields

December 15, 2009

Thanks, Anne. What you write there about corporate mission statements is interesting. Of course, the question then becomes how that translates to real-world behavior.

And thanks to GA. You're right that, in the most high-profile cases of corporate malfeasance, public outcry "forces the hand" of vested interests. When it was revealed, for instance, that Beechnut's apple juice contained only chemicals and water (no apples), sales stats understandably nosedived. But many of these acts are more subtle -- and most of this stuff goes undetected.

Comment
4 of 8

jamie-schlinkmann-149155

December 15, 2009

Craig, you're not off base. I however do agree with GA, it's an uphill battle. Here in FL, the clean energy bill that's again on the table for the upcoming session, is either getting offshore oil drilling thrown in or it's not going through.

I do have to say this: clearly there are signs that a substantial but failed movement toward renewable energy occurred in the late 70's. I was not old enough to experience this activity and the public reaction/perception. Today, I am very pleased at the level of attention and support that renewable energy and sustainability is getting. I spoke just today to a group of legislators and the lights are definitely on. I am finding general support for our company's plans under almost every rock I turn.

I hope all the renewable energy community's efforts aren't in vain this time around.

Comment
5 of 8

paul-tousignant-111847

December 16, 2009

Craig: "The only reason that we cling to fossil fuels is a political system that has simply ceased to work for the vast majority of the people it supposedly serves."

Not so, Craig. It is one reason, but more prevalent is the root of all business, not just the energy business: cost.

When the cost for renewables comes down to equal to or better than fossil fuels, the build-out of renewables will skyrocket. The vital aspect for our economy is that the costs must be true - not subsidized by the ratepayers/taxpayers. Only when the free market system chooses renewables based on cost rather than emotion or flawed science will we get the quantum shift in our energy supply.

Comment
6 of 8

CraigShields

December 16, 2009

Astute comments, Paul; thank you. I would say that while you're right in what you say about cost, there are additional factors we need to bear in mind, of which two are:

1) We subsidize things like corn ethanol (the only reason it exists) at the behest of powerful corn-belt senators. What would happen if those subsidies could go to something that made a bit more sense environmentally -- you pick it -- solar thermal, wind, etc?

2) As I frequently point out, our world does not even begin to pay the true cost of fossil fuels. This is the "externalities" argument that I'm trumpeting wherever possible, e.g., here: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2051/2051/

Comment
7 of 8

stefanos-karapetsis-173938

December 17, 2009

Craig,
Coal and Oil have been there for some time hence the leaders in these industries running most of world's energy are powerful. It becomes increasingly clear to common sense that continuing to rely on these sources does bad to humanity that needs to invest in other soruces. The main question is: if the decision of when and how we invest relies on ROI then we will be waitng for energy production costs to decrease and, until then, the existing strong players will dictate their policies, one way or another.
The question is what is the expected "Return"? If it is a simple profit generation then we cannot solve this problem. If it is the concern that humanity faces a very difficult future then the decision should rely entirely on society, on the Governments, the states - democratically elected. Let decisions on energy investments pass therefore in direct control and, why not, ownership of society and not the private sector.

Comment
8 of 8

paul-tousignant-111847

December 17, 2009

Stefanos - if private sector ownership is passed to society (a.k.a. government), you get socialism. With socialism, incentive is lost because good production is not rewarded. Why would anyone work hard, investing time and money, for nothing? If they get paid the same whether they work hard or not, where is the incentive to work hard? I think this is obvious in communist and socialist countries.

Capitalism and democracy works. If there is opportunity, people will take it. It has worked in the US for over 200 years, raising the standard of living in the US such that it has become the most desired place to live in the world - as evidenced by immigration (legal and illegal) in here.

When renewables develop to the point of cost parity with oil and gas, those 'powerful' industries and new ones will become powerful in renewables. Those that are developing renewables are working towards that parity, because there is the opportunity to profit in it - that is where the incentive is, and it would not, could not, come from government ownership.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!