Imagine. Ice skating in the deep South in 90-plus degree weather, on an ice-rink completely powered by solar energy. This rink actually existed in the mid-1970s, although too many of today’s youth think it must have been a dream. That skating rink instilled in me a hope for the future of all regenerative, clean, and natural sources of energy. So, what went wrong? I’ve tried to do my part—no SUV, no new car every three years, nothing less than 35 miles to the gallon, multiple-family dwelling choices, recycle my trash, and so on and so on. But if policy had truly moved forward for the last thirty years, at least every ice skating rink would now be solar-powered in mid-summer, even in the deep South.
The Bush administration—and many others—cannot help but know that not only the US but the entire world desperately needs alternative sources of energy. These alternative sources of energy have as great a role to play in avoiding the military conflict in the Mid-East (and elsewhere) as any of today’s world leaders. In the past thirty years, entire countries have witnessed the power of conservation measures when applied to homes, cars, and industries. Nuclear energy has been demonstrated time and again to be a poor choice for the future. So, why the impetus in Cheney’s Energy Plan to construct between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric power plants by 2020? Why discuss the possibility of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) exploitation when oil production not only costs significantly more in this country than it does in the mideast, but ANWR resources will barely meet a small fraction of our needs?
I’m forced to agree with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), and others, that there are definitely enormous profits to be garnered by oil interests upon opening up the ANWR—especially when played in unison with tax breaks and subsidies for energy sources. Ultimately, the Cheney plan has the ability to pave the way to lock the country into more expensive alternatives (rather than a bona-fide encouragement of viable alternatives), especially since developers will seek the tax advantages and subsidies over actual developmental breakthroughs in energy production, distribution, and efficiency. Tax breaks and subsidies also have the ability to make some newer, alternative sources appear more expensive (especially on paper) thus leaving oil and nuclear sources to appear less costly (at least on paper). Calculating the social costs of economies based in nuclear and petroleum sources will not be done by either of these industries. It will have to be done by academia and other institutions whose charters require that they work in the public interest. And if all this is sounding like oil and nuclear interests can step in shit and come out smelling like roses with this administration, you’re home.
In the meantime, the IEER believes that effective strategies for viable, alternative sources could get squashed in the financial accounting process. Certainly this is exactly what happened historically in the act of providing substantial tax subsidies to inchoate nuclear power and oil industries. The public then finds itself stuck with the bill for not only creating enormous wealth for a small minority, but also stuck with insidious, inefficient, non-renewable sources of power that create some of the most toxic wastes known to man. This really makes me pine for old trolley cars and solar powered skating rinks.
A difficult choice remains for the rest of us. Who exactly do we really want to trust with such enormous profits, and from what sources will those profits be derived? Whom will those profits truly benefit?
If it’s your opinion that it’s preferable for the government to become a major purchaser of alternative energy sources rather than to merely provide tax breaks and subsidies, please let the IEEE, the Alliance for Democracy, and your political candidates all hear from you. The Alliance for Democracy has even explored how citizens might go about placing their energy bills in escrow as a form of citizen protest against their local energy company’s practices. In spite of the message you may be receiving these days, none of us are required to be CEOs, high-level government officials, or doctoral candidates to have and voice our opinions. When that day does come, democracy is truly dead.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.