More on a Progressive Energy Policy
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo objects to my recent post on a progressive energy policy for two central reasons:
• It would be disastrous economically. He writes, “The fossil fuel industry represents 28% of the US economy….Your plan would immediately lessen confidence in the only industry propping up the US economy. Even a small reduction in confidence would cause a negative reaction to US capital markets.”
• Leftist “ideology-driven government green initiatives” and investment in “green industries” are doomed to failure. The public sector needs to place less emphasis on moral opinions and “ideological principles and more on responsible economic management.”
I respond:
I encourage you to spend some time reading material that objectively lays out the financial and economic issues associated with the migration to renewable energy. EnergyFactCheck.Org is a good place to start. The page I’ve linked above deals with some of the economic myths associated with the subject.
There are a very large number who, like me, believe that cleantech/”new energy” is in the process of becoming the defining industry of the 21st century. That the United States is not embracing this concept is a terrible shame in a great many respects—principally that it’s pushing our country in the direction of international irrelevance. What’s most disgusting about our failure to get on board here is that it’s a phenomenon driven almost exclusively by the money and power of the oil companies. The vast majority of Americans, approximately three-quarters, favors an aggressive tack vis-à-vis renewable energy and the energy policies that I suggested in my piece.
At the end of the day, you are a politically conservative devotee of pure unregulated free market capitalism, and I am not. To you, the words “ideology” and “morality” are suggestions of lily-livered, pie-in-the-sky socialism. I simply don’t think the same way.
Those who do not believe that climate change is in the process of wrecking this planet are in a very slim minority. It’s hard to know what motivates these people and bands them together; it’s certainly not science. In any case, I’m happy to report that most people think we need to do something about this impending catastrophe.
Craig,
It depends entirely on how your progressive energy policy is structured.
I have not had a chance to read the IMF report on the total subsidies of fossil fuels, so I can’t tell you what portion of the “global subsidies” are attributed to the U.S., but they claim that over 4 trillion dollars of GWP are lost due to the externalities of fossil fuels annually.
Even if that is exaggerated (I’m unsure), the portion of that loss experienced by America is significant. There are many opportunities where switching to renewables saves more than it costs. I’m hoping to get a chance to parse the data on the IMF report soon, and break down a reasonable estimate for the externatlity cost for each major fossil fuel categorization in America.
People like Marcopolo still exist under the idiotic assumption that when a company dumps toxins and waste at no cost, that means that it is “free” for our country. It’s not… but since that subsidy doesn’t show up as a line item on a balance sheet, they just ignore it so they can cling to an antiquated and outmoded political ideology.
I’m with you.
As I just wrote here: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/05/27/venture-capital-cleantech/, “….our society is starting to get a little cheesed off at the trillions of dollars in externalities—all the greenhouse gas emissions and outright poisons that are being dumped into the air and oceans. It won’t be long until there is a huge push to internalize those costs, which will in turn drive an enormous amount of additional spending in cleantech.”
Reblogged this on Energy post.