The Renewable Energy Discussion — Patterns Emerge
When I get up every morning, I take my cup of coffee, sit down, and read the news in the energy sector – often including a few comments from bloggers. As one might expect, there are patterns that develop, a common one of which is exemplified below: the argument that free-market economics has determined that fossil fuels should be the dominant form of energy – with the counter argument that there is nothing truly “free” about “free-market economics.”
Person A: The price of crude oil, natural gas, coal etc will decide how and when people will switch to alternative energy sources, not cheerleading by solar energy industry.
Person B: In other words, the switch to alternative energy will be determined by what happens in terms of the billions and billions in government subsidies that keep the price of oil, natural gas and coal artificially low.
Person C: I think that Person A is right to a certain extent. The billions that the fossil fuel industries get in subsidies and tax breaks is what it is. It’s reality.
With the political power that the fossil fuel industry wields is going to have its time at the public trough. The best that we can hope in the short run is that our leaders garner the political will to do the right thing and at least give Alternative energy a fighting chance.
In the long run, “alternative” energy isn’t going to be an “alternative”, it’s going to be THE energy source because as time goes on the physical and environmental costs of fossil fuels are going to become unavoidable and undeniable. At that time, subsidies or not, renewables will reign supreme.
I think we’re on to something here: as corrupt as our democracy may have become, our leaders still are elected by our votes. As soon as We The People fully understand the basics – and the main reasons that we need to dedicate ourselves to a clean energy future, our leaders will be forced to pick up the ball and run with it. All we can do is to continue to make our voices heard.
Our political system is set up to be reactionary and never proactive. The “law makers” in Congress are trained to be that way. Being proactive and being a true leadership is not what has gotten great legal minds reelected. So once politics puts something in place, it stays until a crisis develops and something must be done, right now.
This is what is happening in the world of alternative energy. We are waiting for disaster to strike while we ignore the potential future outcomes from in action. For a case in point, we in this country are living with almost 70% of our oil imported. In 1974 President Carter said we will never increase our need for imported oil (we were at 25% then). We should remember what happened to this country the last time oil got short. Do you remember the oil crisis of 1973? We are 3x more dependent now. Carter created the detp of Energy with the sole mission to reduce our energy dependence and as politics as usual, IT DID NOT WORK.
OPEC is already talking about increasing the cost per barrel from about $80 to $100 since the dollar has lost that much value.
But no crisis yet, so Washington DC does nothing. Here is my proposal for consideration:
First we get a set of agreed to objectives that are totally bi-partisan. How could anyone in Congress disagree with these objectives to shape future energy policy in this country:
I suggest these:
1. Reduce our dependency on foreign oil, by using less
2. Improve World climate concerns through reduction in fossil fuel consumption – but more importantly, we need to good stewards of our Planet’s limited resources,
3. Develop alternative fuel solutions in both transportation and energy sectors.
4. Keep America growing, moving forward and secure.
If there is bilateral consensus on these, then Congress can discuss policies to address these objectives. The American public has become energy wasters becasue of cheap energy and the Amaerican public needs to have their bad habits changed. If both parties stop disagreeing with each other and start to solve a problem before it happens, won’t we all be better off? Further more if both parties agree to a solution and pass an energy policy unanaminously, who can the American public really blame…no one really. No politician stands to lose reelection if they all agree to the same policy. This is my assumption.
Here is my solution: (you can find the original 2007 document by googling “JEDI Fund”)
We like to believe we are intelligent and naturally do the right things, but we aren’t. We are basically economically driven. Changing costs is what we must do to change our habits.
The Justified Energy Development Initiative (JEDI) fund is a “mandatory contribution” when purchasing gasoline or diesel fuel or coal generated electricity. The JEDI fund is about accelerating energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies and will cause Americans to make “better” decisions about energy.
The JEDI fund will be used to develop alternative energy sources – 35%, support mass transit systems – 20%, improve highways,railroad, and electricity infrastructure – 15%, help those caught in this cost shift – 20% going to 0, and redevelop urban areas – 10% going to 35%. We need a major kick in the pocketbook.
The mandatory contribution would be a $1.50/gal and rise $0.50/yr over 7 years. This sets a long term program and everybody can see it. Researchers can get serious, car makers can plan their products and the public can start to plan their lives. It will be a Federal contribution with Secretaries of Energy, Transportation and Interior being responsible to administer.
We consumed 140,416,000,000 gallons of gasoline in 2005 (1.25 gallons per day for every man, woman and child)! Currently the Federal tax is $0.18/gal yielding $26 B in revenues. http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html At $1.50/gal tax, we collect $211B dollars. The American people will accept this, only if they see it going to create energy independence and a better world. I am not a politician, so I can’t “sell” this. Lastly, to keep control (the bureaucrat’s hands off) of the money, we must strictly allocate it with public oversight. The public must see progress.
Talk about this! It is about getting fit and healthy; never easy, but we all know it is right.
The energy problem is not just oil we use in our cars, but also includes electricity generation. There are alternatives to coal generated electricity, but they all cost more or require new investments with questionable returns. To drive Americans to use alternative forms of electricity generation, then we must also change the economics to make alternatives and conservation a priority. I would proposed a similar initiative to change the rate structure for electricity produced from coal to make alternative forms more cost effective and desirable. Again the money collected could be fed into new technology and infrastructure to build a sustainable energy market. People would all of a sudden realize they must conserve because it affects their pocket book.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Are we really insane in this country?
Can we get the politicians in Washington on the same path? We can! They are experts at spin on issues and if they all agree and show the American public strong progress, they will be reelected. Wouldn’t you vote for them if they did this? If not, what are you waiting for to happen? Think about this. I would love to hear your proposed solutions
I appreciate your confidence in me. But in truth, I really have nothing to offer other than what I wrote in response to your other post. All we need is a level playing field. If we start paying the true cost of the oil we’re consuming, we’ll have ubiquitous clean energy and electric vehicles before you can spit. It’s really very simple. We simply need to demand it.
I should also point out that CAFE does not work and has never worked to reduce oil consumption. Look at the facts that have occurred over the last 40 years. More cars are registered and used on our roads every year, more miles driven per vehicle every year, more gallons of gas per vehicle are consumed every year. This is not reducing our addiction to oil.
Also I believe Cap and Trade is stupid. It does not tax the user directly (which is what politicians want – do not piss anyone off). It burys the cost (the tax) on the providers and makes their customers mad but not feel accountable for their wasting energy and increaseing costs to live. Plus politicians, like Al Gore make out like bandits with the money trading that goes on in their brokering firms to “help” coroporate entities. We do not need this, we do not need this.
The US government is STILL subsidizing oil to the tune of billions of dollars per year. As long as we’re making oil artificially cheap, it’s hard to believe there is any sincerity at all about breaking the oil addiction.
Reblogged this on Energy post.