We Want Clean Energy, But Getting Congress To Act Is Tough
I occasionally like to write something purely for the 43% of 2GreenEnergy readers who reside outside the United States and may have difficulty understanding how profoundly broken our legal and political processes are here, or who may think I’m exaggerating when I discuss our government’s flagrant disregard for the clearly expressed will of the people it ostensibly represents. Previously I wrote:
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter told a packed house at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum a few weeks ago the following story… The University of Colorado at Boulder recently completed a survey of many thousands of residents from around the state, in which participants provided their viewpoints on a myriad of energy-related issues. Among other things, the study showed that an overwhelming majority favored a bill on the floor on Congress that would place a tax on carbon and create financial incentive for businesses and households to reduce their carbon footprints. To Ritter’s astonishment, one of the senators from his state, under pressure from special interests, went back to Congress and voted against the bill that his constituents had so clearly favored.
Early today, we saw, albeit on another subject, an even more blatant example of the same concept, concerning the issue of reformation of our gun control laws, which I bring up not to take sides, but to amplify my point. According to recent polls, almost exactly 90% of Americans favor more aggressive gun control, and one might have expected this to translate into robust discussion, leading to swift action. Wrong. It took an amazing amount of work to have the subject broached in Congress, and, a few hours ago, our Senate voted it down, under pressure from a super-powerful lobby organization (our National Rifle Association) — the tool of the enormously profitable gun/ammo manufacturing industry.
My point is simply this: If our Senate, yielding to the pressure of Big Money, can spurn the demands of a full 90% of the American people, how surprised can we be that we can’t get traction around clean energy and transportation? Comments from readers outside the U.S. often reveal that they view what’s happening here with a mixture of pity and contempt; it’s really not hard to see why.
A carbon tax seems reasonable. If nothing else, it would encourage energy conservation. But we have to remember that we all want reliable power. If politicians took action to reduce CO2 emissions they might be popular, but that popularity would be very temporary if it also resulted in unreliable power.
We should be putting more funds and effort into developing a better nuclear technology. Even if we here in the U.S. do not, other countries will. In fact, they are already doing so and if we don’t, we will end up buying the improved nuclear technology from other countries, to the detriment of our balance of trade. It would also cause job loss to other countries.
Few people realise how much energy conservation is possible.
My company recently installed LED lighting at a UK golf course and reduced its electricity consumption by approximately 60%.
Typically our LED lighting customers see payback times of around 1 to 3 years taking into account electricity and maintenance savings.
In Australia there is talk of residential electricity consumption possibly declining by as much as 50% over the next 10 years with a little policy encouragement as more efficient lighting and appliances displace those presently in use.
As for the political problem, unfortunately similar things occur to some degree in most democracies with powerful companies or a rich donor elite setting the political agenda and preventing a true representation of the will of the people. Perhaps there needs to be a cap of a few thousand dollars per annum in political donations by any one individual or company, or failing that, a fully transparent accounting of the source of all donations above this figure – cash, hospitality services etc as well as a public record of meetings with such donors so that the electorate can clearly see that Mr A Donor is funding Senate member Jones to the extent of $750,000 per year and meeting him once a month to discuss policy.
Good afternoon everyone, Amen Craig. When the supreme court established that business are people too, thereby totally eliminating any restraints on $’s effect on congress, we ceased being a true democracy. Anytime a politician votes against the majority will of the people then that politician must be retired. Until we are willing to send our own representatives home when they vote against the majority, nothing will change.
The Supreme Court did not ESTABLISH that corporations are people. Rather, the Court CONFIRMED that corporations had for years been treated as people. The Court had no other choice.
When I was a preppy taking American History in 1956, we learned that when the Constitution refers to people, that included corporations. Whether it should include corporations is another matter.
Obviously treating corporations as people is not without problems. A constitutional amendment could solve the problem, but care should be taken to ensure that the amendment would not create other problems.
What right do you have to believe that the federal government will use collected money in a sensible and benefical way. I have not seen this in my lifetime and thererfore I have no reason tho believe.
I have a right to believe anything I want to believe. However, I would not assume that the federal government, or any government, will always use funds sensibly.
Perhaps you meant to use the word “reason” instead of the word “right.”
Maybe big Chinese money is influencing our politicians to make the wrong policy decisions to over throw the USA.
quite a lot of the above is right, however in the UK they introduced Carbon offsetting on our flights now i live on a small island in the middle of the Irish Sea, so most the time i take the boat,but the main point i have is that this offsetting s not used for that instead it goes back to GovGB, also Gary said LED great i am up for that, but some companies sell service like Solar as an extra income, if you sold the service as a saving for the person or company i am sure more people would take up the products and services, for a while i used some of the first LED lights, by the time i light up i got the item out of the room or been to the bathroom before i could see with the light the good news is i did not give up and have the much newer lights that are brighter and more instant, i am also glad that the kids have left home as i now walk around in the dark around the house
Hi Craig,
The detrimental effects of money and power on democracy is certainly not only a problem in the United States!
The Danish have taken action to protect democracy from the financially powerful. For instance, they gave people living close to wind turbines special rights to buy shares in them.
That created a really popular movement in support of the renewable energy sector (though it has been difficult to maintain as wind turbines have become ever-larger, requiring the kind of capital investments that small community groups find hard to come up with.
Perhaps this is too radical an idea for the United States, where the supremacy of property rights are so central to the constitution.
See my article: http://bit.ly/QBZNLI
Aedan