Migration to Renewable Energy May Be Akin to Swimming Upstream, But It's Worth the Struggle
We’ve had some lively discussions here recently on the validity of environmentalists’ divesting in fossil fuel companies. Personally, I remain sold that there is merit in the concept, and that a reduction in demand for oil companies’ stock, which brings down the share prices, puts pressure on the companies to change their direction.
Financial analyst Tom Konrad of AltEnergyStocks.com agrees, but, more to the point, notes:
Divestment from fossil fuels is something we should be doing even if it were not very effective. Changing a light bulb is not going to stop climate change, but that does not mean it’s not worth doing. And we should not invest against our principles even if we believe the harm we’re doing with our investments is minor. People and groups worried about climate change should (not be) investing in fossil fuel extraction.
I’m reminded on one of our many discussions, Tom, where I (foolishly) said, “Well, China’s carbon footprint will ultimately dwarf ours; does it really matter what we do here in the US?” You responded, and I paraphrase, “Do you think the fact that other people litter, or rip off their investors — or whatever — provides you the moral right to do the same? You probably don’t, but you need to realize that your argument here really isn’t much better than that.” Touche.
I’m also reminded of Mahatma Gandhi: “Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.”
That’s the thing I honestly love about the renewable energy / cleantech movement: it’s on the right side of everything. We’re making our planet a better place on which to live, at the same time our industry grows at an astonishing rate. Click here to learn what percentage of the power that came on to the grid last year was renewable. Or, if you’re like me, and you like to take fun little quizzes, check this out.
Craig,
If McKibben wanted to actually do something, he would start a fund which was dedicated to building the most cost-effective alternative energy available, and try to get people to invest in that fund.
The fund could then start putting up wind farms across the Midwest without regard for profit and just begin dumping the electron impulses into the grid. That would basically force many coal baseload plants to close, as the fossil industry would have to switch to gas plants in order to have sufficient balance power for the wind energy. The ROI of such an investment might be low, but the investors could see their investment as a charitable donation for an effective environmental action. I think people could more easily be convinced to make a low-ROI investment than they could be motivated to not invest in profitable companies.
In one case, they would be sacrificing profit so that other investors would get the profit – accomplishing nothing other than shifting more money towards people who care less about the environment. In the other case they would be sacrificing money to make an active attack against many operational coal plants, which would dramatically lower the profit of operating said coal plant, and forcing many coal power plants to be decommissioned.
Asking people to sacrifice in order to accomplish something is easier than asking them to sacrifice in order to accomplish nothing.
Glenn,
Solar Mosaic has adopted something of the approach you advocate, and I’m all for it. The only difference is that investors get a decent return.
That said, this is not an “either-or.” More endowments paying attention to where they put their money means more capital for such funds and companies, which in turn means more wind turbines and solar panels.
Glen, if it were only that simple, there are so many blockades in the way of that approach that before a single electron could go on the grid the fund would have to raise billions of dollars which would be eaten up by government red tape, nimbyism’ environmental studies and nexus just to name a few problems. Grid sized storage would have to be incorproated, line congestion dealt with and the possibility of curtailment due to over generation are some of the small issues. The NEPA process alone would stymie the progress.
In one of his books, Al Gore devotes only two of approximately 550 pages to nuclear power. He objects to it on the basis that it would take too long to develop an acceptable nuclear technology. Of course if the Clinton administeration, during which Gore was VP, had not cancelled reactor research, we would now be implementing an acceptable nuclear technology.