David is one of the world’s top experts on the water industry, an arena with many obvious ties to energy, e.g., water is a critical ingredient in generating most forms of energy, and it takes energy to pump and purify water.  A shortage of one means a shortage of the other. And, of course, they’re both inextricably tied to a third issue of some importance: the world food supply.

Fascinating, yet scary stuff. More later.

My wife is recovering from surgery on her shoulder, which gives us plenty of time to watch movies. Last night it was “Food, Inc.” – hardly a “feel-good flick,” but incredibly compelling.

Guess what? The food industry is really no more kind and gentle on its customers than the energy industry. Surprise!

Of course, a lot of this comes from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, both of which work so tirelessly to discredit renewables. Climate change denier Art Pope’s John Locke Foundation is pouring tons of cash in their effort to repeal or gut SB 3, a landmark 2007 North Carolina law aimed at making utilities buy renewable energy. Pope and the Koch-backed “Americans for Prosperity” spent millions of dollars during last year’s elections, winning the General Assembly for Republicans.

And I was amused to learn yesterday that the nuclear industry begins to influence voters long before they’re old enough to cast their first ballots; they’ve worked feverishly to ensure that our children’s middle school textbooks include the “hard cold facts” that nuclear power is perfectly safe and cost-effective.

While I find all this nauseating, I need to point out that the art of politicking is not lost on the clean energy and electric transportation people, either. A good example is the EV Infrastructure show I’m attending down here in sunny San Diego, CA. Many of the show’s “speakers” are essentially hucksters, twisting the facts to convince the audience that their approach to whatever (vehicle charging, energy storage, predicting the EV adoption curve, etc.) is the only one that makes sense. “As you can see from this chart, Level 1 (110V) charging is too slow, and we really don’t need – and can’t afford — Level 3 (480V).”

Now let me guess. You don’t happen to sell a Level 2 (220V) charging system, do you?

I wish we could all cut the crap. But I don’t see that happening.

In a story that one of my people is preparing on British Petroleum, I see that it’s clear that the company’s ostensible interest in renewables is quickly being displaced by executives’ and shareholders’ demand for profits. Apparently, it has discarded its previous vision of moving toward renewables as suggested by its slogan “Beyond Petroleum” which has been articulated as the organization’s rallying cry since 2000.

BP made profits of $25.6 billion in 2008, up 27% from 2007, but has engaged in vigorous job-cutting and other cost reduction, and, in the process has downgraded renewables to the pint of insignificance. Last April, it closed its solar manufacturing plants in Spain and the U.S. Finally last June, the axe fell on the Alternative Energy unit BPs CEO dismantled its London headquarters.

My researcher wrote that BP is keeping its focus on biofuels, but notes that this is only because that “is in the best interest of BP.”  Here, I wonder if this isn’t a little unfair. Can we really expect BP to do things that aren’t in its interests? Yes, we can expect them to keep their promises, and not deliberately mislead us about their motives and actions. But here I think we’ve touched the very essence of the problem.  As I noted in my post called Bill Moyers and Renewable Energy, the profit motive is the sole reason for the existence of the corporation.

The problem that renewable energy faces is very clear: Insofar as it’s not as profitable as fossil fuels, Big Energy can be counted on to fight it all the way. As a reporter, this is what I expect to find, and I am no more angry when I do find it than I am angry with a compass needle when I find it pointing north – that’s simply what it does. But again, in exchange for this dispassionate approach, I’d like to see some honesty in return. I’d advise the energy industry: don’t spend 75% of your advertising and PR budget convincing us of the philanthropy of your token efforts in renewables. In the end, you’ll come off looking better by telling us the truth.

Suzanne denies that there has been a change. “The people who attend to science believe that global climate change is underway, and that it’s largely due to human activity — mainly burning the forests and consuming fossil fuels,” she told me.

“So what I thought I was seeing doesn’t exist?” I asked.

“It is true that the companies in the fossil fuel industries have a vested interest in our continuing to consume these forms of energy; they have mounted powerful political campaigns to convince the public that global warming is not an issue, and to persuade Congress not to act. These campaigns take various forms, for example, the industry has formed allegiances with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to tackle the issue from the economic perspective, convincing people that there will be dire consequences of taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“But don’t you find that unconscionable?” I asked.

I could hear a slight, uncomfortable chuckle on the other end of the phone. After a slight pause, she spoke: “Craig, I don’t pretend to see into the hearts and minds of other people. I can speak only for my organization and myself. Let’s just say that all of us here feel an obligation to future generations, to ensure that our children and our children’s children can enjoy a reasonable quality of life.”

“But let me ask you about the economic issue you raised. Don’t they have a point, given the financial pressure people find themselves under?” I asked.

“Ironically, the exact opposite is true.” Suzanne pointed out an article in today’s Wall Street Journalthat attempted to quantify the costs of various directions that could be taken regarding environmental protection. The article quoted a study by The NYU School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which asserted that there is a total of $2.27 directly saved from every dollar spent to reduce the activities that contribute to global warming.

There is climate legislation currently in the House. I guess we’ll find out soon how powerful these two positions are.

Here’s a quick video on the energy industry vs. renewables. I used Windows Movie Maker; I really like this platform; it’s certainly easier than shooting a video — for me at least. Hope you enjoy.