Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Bush administration 'best thing to ever happen' to renewables

By Jennifer Zajac
February 26, 2010 | 11 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

I would like to hear from folks on whether they agree with Think Energy's founder and CEO Mark Crowdis, who impressed and somewhat depressed me with his comments and insight.

The George W. Bush administration "was the best thing that ever happened to the renewable energy industry," Mark Crowdis, founder and CEO of Think Energy, an environmental consulting firm headquartered in Silver Spring, Md., said during a renewable energy financing panel discussion Feb. 24 at the Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America, held in Austin, Texas.

The Bush administration's antagonistic position on renewable resources played a part in the flurry of state renewable portfolio standards and federal policies promoting clean energy resources. That's not to say that all of them have or will be effective in terms of getting more renewable projects online. "RPSs can be like Swiss cheese," Crowdis said. Some states initially passed versions that enable utilities to avoid investing in or acquiring new renewable energy resources. He added, however, that several states have revised their RPSs to strengthen their requirements. Crowdis is skeptical that a federal renewable energy standard can be enacted as well. Congress is considering including nuclear energy as a renewable energy resource, "and I don't think it should be a renewable," he said. Echoing most of the industry experts who spoke during the three-day conference, Crowdis doubted that a cap-and-trade bill will be passed by Congress this year. "If it is, it will be a mere footnote," he added. Indeed, he said President Barack Obama's administration has not been good for renewables. "He has a tacit approach towards renewables," he said. Crowdis noted that during the recent State of the Union address Obama said that he supports clean energy, namely clean coal, nuclear and natural gas, but failed to mentioned wind, solar or other renewable resources.

Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Solar Energy, Wind Power

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.

11 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 11

daniel-simon-33441

March 1, 2010

Crowdis must be walking on his hands, becaues my view of the world is 180 degrees different than his.
Although in the sense that everything Bush touched turned to pucky, maybe it was a blessing that Bush keep his hands off renewables.

Comment
2 of 11

matthew-earleywine-173225

March 1, 2010

It seems that my fears about Obama are beginning to come true. Obama gave hope the nation through his inspiring motivational speeches. But like most politicians, now that he has been elected and has to walk the walk, his actions don't seem to support his promises. Granted, most of his lack of follow through can be blamed on congress (the health care bill for example), but it does seem that he isn't as supportive of renewable as he claims to be.
Also, nuclear definitely is NOT renewable by definition. It uses uranium, which is mined from the ground, and cannot be reused or recycled. It does however fall under the category of "alternative energy", and possibly the category of "clean energy" depending on your definition of "clean energy". Nuclear may need to be a necessary transitional step from fossil fuels to renewables, but that's also debatable.
Regardless, I'm continually frustrated at the lack of a sense of urgency among the government and Americans in general. We need to be shifting to renewables as fast as possible in order to combat pollution and climate change and build a better future for the generations to come. Am I the only one in the world that sees that? How do we convince others that renewables are not just a good thing, they are a necessary thing?

-Matt

Comment
3 of 11

ElisaWood

March 3, 2010

This seems to go back to what developers often say -- that what they need is political consistency. Even a less then favorable, but consistent policy, is better than one that leaves them stumped about how to proceed.

Comment
4 of 11

Cliff_Goudey

March 3, 2010

Bush helped renewables just as Hoover helped the New Deal. The phase lag is the trouble spot. In both cases action a few years earlier would have made all the difference in the world. So let's be cautious in handing out credit.

President Obama's game plan has had to change given the pure-obstructionist stance of the Republicans. I hate some of the compromises, but understand the reasons behind them.

Comment
5 of 11

mike-holly-17241

March 3, 2010

Bush was bad for renewables, because he supported only windpower. While he was Governor of Texas, the state became an early leader of mandating windpower. As President, the country was adding about 45% windpower and 45% natural gas (as a backup). The real problem is windpower is not a good thing for renewables, because it is not reliable. The result is nuclear power proposed by Obama, which is probably what Bush planned on all along.

Comment
6 of 11

bilbo

March 3, 2010

Bush was bad for renewables because his administration denied that climate change even existed for 71/2 years, time that we will never get back. He and his followers also confused the American people by throwing in a lot of phony science that seemed to contradict the majority view that global warming was real and that it required urgent national and international policy changes, which gave rise to the "deniers" and the confusion that still paralyzes us today.

Obama is just dead wrong on nuclear and 'clean' coal; we need to push back hard on that. And offshore drilling is another bad idea and a waste of money that should be invested in energy conservation, wind, and solar.

Comment
7 of 11

mike3537

March 3, 2010

In today's economic situation instituting cap and trade would be more harmful to the economy then beneficial to the goals of clean energy. The President has been pushed into a corner by the economy, and every positive action he takes in support of a country free of fossil fuel and petro-terror dollars is used against him by the republican doom and gloom party of no solutions. A party quick to point out problems, but slow to offer solutions, or in complete denial and do not even see a problem that can't be solved by more drilling [ask Sarah Palin].

Comment
8 of 11

peter-kenney-80876

March 3, 2010

If we could step away from partisan thinking: it was during the W administration that we saw major increases in wind development. This was not a coincidence as W is known to be a strong suppporter of wind energy. His ranch is a green-lover's paradise for all its energy (and water) saving sytems. And, it was pressure coming directly from W's White house that pushed Cape Wind through years of combative review by Army Corps and MMS, in spite of the project's many serious flaws...such as having no turbines. It was under Bush and often in spite of congresssional resistance (who controls congress?) that both wind and solar began to taken hold in the market. In fact, as governor of Texas W promoted a scheme for the development of huge wind resources that are now in place, but without the necessary and parallel grid and transmission improvments. I did not say he is smart, just keen on wind.

Comment
9 of 11

phil-manke-79191

March 3, 2010

W was good for renewables like an epedemic is good for medicine. Many loose out while those positioned well will reap rewards at the majority's expense, and new research is stimulated. Like Popeye says, "yer buys yer ticket and yer takes yer ride, tsk, tsk."

Comment
10 of 11

russchessnut

March 3, 2010

All the talk about walk the walk, There will be no change in the political view on either side of the isle until all of us wake up and use Our power of the vote to change Washington. No more lifers in congress or the senate. 2- 4 year terms like the president. This way you don't have as much bribery and corruption that is going on now. We should be ahead of europe in wind and solar technology instead of lagging behind.
Our climate is not warming, and the hurricanes like Andrew and Katrina are not getting worse or comming more often, I don't think we have seen what is ahead of us or we would get busy sending e-mails to our political leaders like I DO!!!!!

Comment
11 of 11

Anonymous

March 4, 2010

International Carbon Market Exhibition and Seminar

For free visitor registration visit our website.

If you want to register in this seminar visit the upcoming events section to register for the seminar.

Seminar Fees for Indonesian Nationals and rest Asian Nationals-USD 200 Plus Taxes
Seminar Fees for the European and Americans-USD 300 plus taxes

For more information visit www.tco2eindia.com

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!

Jennifer Zajac

Add to my network

About: Jennifer Zajac has covered the U.S. electric power sector for more than eight years and was founder/editor of SNL Energy's Renewable Energy Week, a newsletter d... more »