Clean Energy Under Attack
As I’m sure you’re aware, clean energy is under attack from the traditional energy industry; the oil and coal companies are spending a fortune on their PR firms and lobbyists to discredit the competition, i.e., renewable energy. And unfortunately, this has been quite effective, as evidenced by:
• The dramatic increase in the number of educated Americans who question (or ignore) the peril in which we’ve placed our civilization via our ever-expanding use of fossil fuels, and
• The number of quite credible candidates for president of the US who ran on the promise that they would close the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to “enable a free market economy to regulate itself.”
This never could have happened without a campaign of disinformation that rivals the effectiveness of the smear campaign of the Nazis in the 1930s.
In an effort to deal with this, the people at the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) have put up EnergyFactCheck.org which contains a large and expanding set of “myth-busters,” presented in a very intuitive, easy-to-use format.
I had a thought: Why not make this an advocacy issue for us at 2GreenEnergy? If you go to the advocacy page, you’ll see a way to tell your elected leaders that they should get the facts on energy straight for themselves, and debunk the lies that they’re being fed on the subject. Here’s the link:
http://2greenenergy.com/express-yourself/
Please give it a shot. You’ll be glad you did.
One may respond to a political conflict by putting forward a political response or one may put forward a scientific or technical response. A scientific response requires data, analysis, interpretation, etc., not just assertion or claims that 97% of scientists believe one or the other side of the conflict to be true. There are many aspects of the global warming issue that have not been clarified to the public; consequently, this issue has been captured by special interests that handpick the answers most favorable to their industry. IEEE-USA, not known for members who are knowledgeable on climate. apparently considers this conflict to be so unsettled that it refuses to weigh-in in a substantive way. NAS or AAAS should put together a persuasive argument explaining man’s contribution to global warming and pose a logical plan for what man’s response should be.
Actually, that has been done. The problem is that the material has not been published in such a way that the public has easy access to it. Perhaps that is partly because the material is rather voluminous and somewhat heavy reading and the media have decided that the public is interested only in simple short sound bites.
Where would you suggest that the material be published? In the form of a multi-page newspaper article? Is it likely that enough newspapers would publish such material that a large percentage of the public would see it? Would the majority of newspaper readers actually study it?
Probably the material could be adequately covered in a one-hour TV program, assuming that half of that hour were not taken up by advertisements. But other than PBS, what TV network would carry the material? And if only one TV network carried the material, what percentage of the public would see it? If it were carried simultaneously by all the TV networks, would a high percentage of the public be sufficiently diligent and patient to watch and understand it?
One of the problems we are facing is that, unfortunately, there is no way to get information to the public if it requires the public to concentrate for more than a minute or two. And, that is a problem not only where global warming is concerned, but for many other matters too, such as economics, foreign policy, education policy, etc. etc.
Your point is well taken. Yesterday, the ex-president of Exxon was expounding on how global warming and the dangers of fracking are “overblown.” I continue to look for evidence on all sides, but it is hard to credit when someone has such a vested interest. The good news is that as we continue to bring the renewable costs down and down, the economics take over. I am very fearful of this election. If the Republicans win power in any significant way, it will set the US and renewables back by 10 years, not 4!
Yes, the Republicans really do seem to want to put a spear through renewable energy, don’t they? I don’t claim to understand this. Maybe I’m naive, but I would think conservatives would want to conserve.
Craig,
[Quote]As I’m sure you’re aware, clean energy is under attack from the traditional energy industry; the oil and coal companies are spending a fortune on their PR firms and lobbyists to discredit the competition, i.e., renewable energy. And unfortunately, this has been quite effective, [/Quote]
What an astonishing assumption !
No, I am not “aware” of any such nonsense!
The fact that renewable energy is logistically difficult and the technology either in it’s infancy or unable to unable to achieve economic dynamics, has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or opposition from fossil fuel companies.
In fact, quite the opposite ! Several of the biggest fossil fuel corporations are the largest investors in renewable energy ! How would these corporations benefit from sabotaging billions of dollars of their own investments ?
There is a world outside the US ! Conservative parties around the world are leading supporters of in green technology. (Germany, UK, etc).
It’s exactly this sort of irresponsible, politically partisan scaremongering, that has wearied Joe Public’s interest in environmental issues!
You say, “Treachery ! Alarm! Heresy ! The Big Oil lobbies are out to destroy renewable energy”. (Hysterical cheering from the green left).
Joe Public says, “hang on, my brother works for Chevron, (Big Oil, along with 18% of the US economy)and Chevron not only is the world largest investor in Geo-thermal power generation, but rescued Geo-thermal from oblivion and made the technology the only non-subsidised renewable energy. (aside from hydro and some nuclear).
Joe Public, also notes that outrageous claims by the green left that oil companies pay little tax and receive huge subsidies, turns out to be a humiliating distortion !
President Obama is forced to concede that the largest US taxpayers, at the highest tax rate, are oil companies !
Exen more emarassing, the “Massive” ‘subsidies’ turn out to be less than $4 billion of very dubious tax credits (Less than 1/2 a cent per gallon!).
Stop sending money to countries that hate us! Bring the troops home from oil wars ! No trade with the middle east except Israel!
Joe Public, thought about that, and then realised that maybe it’s not such a great idea to hand the entire middle east trade and influence to the Peoples Republic of China and a Nuclear equipped, radical Pakistan. Without US trade influence, the US would face a billion radical Muslims, armed with PRC weapons, a depleted economy, and a hostile UN.
War, on very disadvantageous terms would be inevitable !
Joe public has lost faith in Green technology, not because of any scientific or “right-wing” conspiracy, but disillusionment with the sanctimonious hypocrisy, and wildly exaggerated disinformation of Green-left advocates.
Instead of blaming mythical opponents for causing Joe Public’s disaffection, start looking at your own behaviour !
1) Limit lobbying & money in Politics
2) Force Politicians who have a vested interest in a given Policy to disclose their interest – e.g. My home State derives X% of revenue & jobs from X activity.
3) Simplify legislation – do not attach bills within bills.
4) Publish GHG emissions on all consumer products & services.
5) Establish a market & tax based system for GHG for affected sources. (Affected sources can choose (ex ante) either regime.
6) Establish a strong regulator to enforce and ensure a reliable & transparent market.
7) Put certainty into all of the above by mandating the aforementioned for 15+ yrs (with market analysis every year)