I happened to run across this one from Noam Chomsky just now:

All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.

But, as Tom Rooney points out in his recent article Why Conservatives Are Bad on Energy, the financial analysis of clean energy is largely based on misconceptions. A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal referred to photovoltaic solar energy as a “speculative and immature technology that costs far more than ordinary power.” The author went on to point out that the only thing holding the industry together were subsidies. Didn’t this guy get the memo? A few weeks ago, the International Energy Agency said worldwide, fossil fuels receive $550 billion in subsidies a year — 12 times what alternatives such as wind and solar get.

I know I’m arguing against a brick wall when I urge our leaders to make decisions based on a wider set of costs of fossil fuels, i.e., long-term environmental damage, increased healthcare costs, etc.  This concept is gaining strength, as noted in this report from the National Resource Council – but let’s shelve that argument for right now. You’re still looking at a cost/price structure that unfairly tilts the playing field in the direct of oil and gas. Can’t we simply knock that off?

Having said that, I think it’s imperative to ensure we never lose sight of the dangers. To that end, I call attention to the fact that the federal government is warning residents in a small Wyoming town with extensive natural gas development not to drink their water, and to use fans and ventilation when showering or washing clothes in order to avoid the risk of an explosion. It seems that EPA researchers found benzene, metals, naphthalene, phenols and methane in wells and in groundwater.

When you think of an environment whose attributes make EVs a slam dunk, it’s hard to imagine better circumstances than most of the island nations – or, in this case, island states: low speeds, expensive gasoline – and, best of all, finite ranges that are easily accommodated by a reasonably sized battery pack. If Leaf drivers get anywhere close to 100 miles on a charge, there will be very little range anxiety to dampen the Aloha spirits of native Hawaiians and their tourist customers.

It’s interesting how  many different prognostications there are about the adoption curve for renewables.  One reads some some really wild stuff.  I’m finishing up another white paper along the “tough realities” theme, which concludes with 10 top questions — none of which is really amenable to a hard and fast answer. 

To me, all this  shows that the answer truly is “blowin’ in the wind.”  I.e., it’s a function of how fired up we get and demand solutions.  I’m reminded of Henry Kissinger recent statement, “If it weren’t for the wrath of the American people about our presence in Vietnam, we’d STILL BE THERE.”  (emphasis added) That’s an amazing thing for a political leader to admit, isn’t it? 

Never think for a minute that you have no voice.

The front-page lead story “Climate Panel Faces Heat” is another in a long-running series suggesting that global warming is a hoax, engineered presumably by greedy climate scientists all grabbing for grant money.

“US Wants Report Card for Cars,” is the headline story in the second section, (“Marketplace”). It begins, “The government proposed labeling each new passenger car with a letter grade from A to D,” and points out how the plan is criticized in that the government is making a judgement as to the value of cars.

Wasn’t there a time a when newspapers just reported the news?

[We’ll be attending the] upcoming Annual Congressional Business Summit, and this is a point of focus for me right now. I don’t know what they will do, other than to hear them say, “Wow what a neat idea.”　 I guess I shouldn’t be a cynic, but the last 14 months have opened my eyes as to the two-facedness of Congress.　 They like to talk about how small business is the source of 80% of the new jobs, and then promptly deliver money to the large corporations that spend most of their time trying to make sure small businesses evaporate.　 Millions in campaign support and a veritable army of lobbyists seems to be working just fine.

All Sustainable businesses have a particular feature: they are always evaluated on a payback or IRR basis. We are in an oil based economy and not on a Sustainable Economy. Biofuels and energy are not marketable by any company but the utilities or distribution companies in each case. You can get biofuels from many technologies, but at the gas station you buy oil, not biofuels. Probably if you look, you will find a huge law on biofuels and how they can be marketed that is everything but compelling for biofuels to be used. Taxes alone make the business tough and customers are wary about using biofuels even in low percentages … Either taxes are on the side of biofuels or they always need incentives and subsidies to be competitive.

The reader goes on to point out that the same lack of liquidity exists for electricity:

Electricity is not easily sold … it is injected onto the grid or locally used. Waste to energy is not competitive with fossil fuel based electricity, so no one will buy it, among the utilities. You can use it for yourself, but that is not the purpose of waste to energy plants and moreover no one is interesting in using it because the grid electricity is cheaper. Again without incentives or subsidies, we go nowhere.

Getting to my first point: everything that is sustainable must compete with non-sustainable solutions. People will be buying non-sustainable until it is cheaper to buy sustainable. To change or curb this behaviour, incentives and subsidies have to be available. So in the waste to energy deal the most important thing to know is: who buys energy and at what price: utilities. Secondly, does the RPS mandate waste to energy or not? Third: how is the business viable: energy or waste? Waste collection fees or energy production? So to engage into lobbying to change regulations is a lengthy task and not available for every company out there.

He’s made some terrific points – but none of them is absolute, and none is written in stone. In the US market, at least, we have ever-changing sets of incentives at the local, state, and federal levels – not only towards sustainable fuels, but away from unsustainable practices (like ignoring the dangers of leaving 2 trillion tons of animal manure untreated each year).

What makes this a dynamic arena is the mandates that voters give their elected leaders. I note that (US Vice President) Joe Biden is parading around a report explicating the enormous value that the taxpayer has received for the stimulus money that has been invested in clean energy and electric transportation. This, of course, is just the beginning of the posturing that will precede our mid-term elections in November.

Our state and federal Congresses will be enacting hundreds of laws that will affect the economics that drive consumer purchase of biofuels, electric vehicles, solar arrays, etc. And those laws are drafted in response to consumer demand and concern for the issues at stake.  Are we, as a citizenry, sincerely concerned about long-term ecological damage? About the national security issues of oil dependence? I guess we’ll see in November.

But before I close, let me point out that the answer is really a function of how the corporate-owned media cover the issues. Our beliefs are a product of the news sources we access, what concerns me most is that I don’t see an awful lot of thoughtful and honest discussion happening here.

See his blog post on the subject here.