At Stake in the 2012 Elections: U.S. Energy Policy
I often write short, high-level pieces summarizing the pros and cons of the oil economy vs. a transition to renewables, and I like to refer readers to others’ work when I come across articles that I think will resonate. Linked above is a very good one by columnist Sarah van Gelder, co-founder and executive editor of YES! Magazine: a “national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions.”
Republicans may object to her using words like “dirty” and “deadly” to describe the Romney ticket’s energy plan, but, to be fair, we need to admit that the U.S. energy policy is very much at stake in the 2012 elections, and Americans aren’t exactly feelin’ the love from the Republicans vis-à-vis renewable energy and environmental responsibility.
I agree and have noted that Mr. Obama has not been as much an activist for renewables as many had hoped.
The initial progress now urgently needed as a starting point, in my estimation, is to shift all the massive and stable government subsidies granted for decades to the highly profitable multinational fossil industries and grant them instead to the benefit of genuinely renewable (e.g. solar) energy. I’m not aware that Mr. Obama has moved beyond the rhetoric stage in that effort.
Certainly, such a move is not to be expected from the oil-rich GOP camp. However, government leadership in both parties is thoroughly populated with wholly owned subjects of the highest bidders. Again, the solution is an end to bribery – renewables bribery just can’t hold a candle to fossil bribery.
In this realm of our interest in the future – as in so many others – the best path will not be chosen by money.