The Fourth of July has arrived, and while the corn is in fact knee-high here in Vechta, there are many things that are out of place. So in an attempt to secure what I can for myself as an expatriated citizen on this most patriotic of holidays, I'm going to post about independence, specifically energy independence. The skyrocketing price of oil is forcing us to reconsider everything about our personal energy consumption and the consumption of our nation. The cold truth of our oil consumption is that it is self inflicted. We are the consumers and free citizens of a democracy. I know that this may sound a naive, but we have done little since the Oil Crisis of 1973 to ensure a less dependent future for ourselves. That is more than thirty years of complacency. Yikes!
So here is my 4th of July resolution: to post more frequently about energy specific issues. I don't expect that my ideas will be bread winners, or even that they will be intirely new, but hopefully a little bit of a dialoge can result that will yield some fruit. Consider this a formal invitation to contribute in the comments for those among my readership well-versed in energy law. You know who you are.
7 comments:
We have a law in Michigan which reads: “A pipeline company shall make a good-faith effort to minimize the physical impact and economic damage that result from the construction and repair of a pipeline.” While this is certainly a noble idea, it is another perfect example of just how badly our government is in terms of trying to fix this crisis. That law came to be in 1997, so it is not like I am citing some archaic law from the good old days when this country was arrogant enough to believe oil was the way of the future and would last forever. Almost a quarter century after the Oil Crisis of which you spoke, we pass a law about pipelines minimizing the impact of physical and economic damage. When not pass a law that says the very act of building more pipelines causes physical damage to the planet and economic damage to the people?!? When we are paying more than $4/gallon for gasoline in this country, our Congress puts on dog and pony show hearings for big oil executives, and yammers on about drilling in Alaska or offshore. No you fools! Finding more oil will not fix the problem. What we should be debating is how to get King George to stop wasting money on war and start building solar plants, putting up wind turbines, and bringing back electric cars. Great documentary out there called Who Killed the Electric Car. Basically says the government and its co-conspirators (big oil, auto industry, etc) dragged their feet for starters, never got onboard with the project, and as soon as a company made an electric car that was working rather well, the government stepped in and said no more. So now, instead of putting money into something that was already proven to work, we waste billions on researching a concept car. And what happens if they finally make a hydrogen car that works? Any bets the government will step in once again and kill that switch as well?!? We have the technology for solar and wind power, but too many greedy oil types stand to lose too much by implementing those plans. Okay, so we have stopped shipping oil into the strategic oil reserve, and are talking about opening it up. Great. But that still does not address the issue of our ridiculous dependency on oil! Let us stop putting band aids on this gusher, and start working to stop the bleeding.
Windmills along the highway, where the electric lines already run through the ground or in the sky. The conversion is pretty simple, and cars create wind. Just a thought though.
Hold your horses, anonymous. I haven't yet gotten past announcing my resolution.
Hold my horses? Good saying for the topic we are discussing. Just think of all the pollution we could eliminate just by going back to the days of horse-drawn carriages, making the entire world Mackinac Island.
Does anyone have faith that McCain's 300 million dollar award for reducing energy use on a simple product by 30% believe that it will have an overall positive effect? Or is this just another ploy to satisfy potential voters? What can our current and future government do to ease us into a more energy independent nation?
Good question, Eric. To be honest, I don't think much of McCain's incentive. I think that it would be a waste of money. Those that are working on battery technology, and I understand the field has incredible potential to take off, would not have to worry about making a profit from their battery if it met McCain's specifications. I see McCain's incentive as a great indicator to his governing philosophy in general. He believes in his idea of a free market, and thus policies that are outside of free market governance will only be reacted to. I see this a problem because I think that government needs to be proactive instead of reactive.
I'm thinking proactive policies would free up money for start ups in the battery fields, thus giving them a little bit more money for research, and promoting better competition within the field.
What do others think?
I am highly skeptical of anything a republican says, and this alleged financial incentive for greater energy efficiency is no different. Given that McCain wants to lift the ban on off-shore drilling, he does not seem like his head is in the right place. That makes me think the $300 Million gimmick is just a ploy to woo environmentally minded voters. If he was really concerned about our energy problems, he might have suggested an award for developing automobiles that run on something other than gasoline, as opposed to just suggesting we tinker with what we already use. And even if he meant what he said, and a battery was actually invented as a result, that still leaves the possibility of our beloved government once again bowing to pressure from the big oil lobby and killing the project. As far as what the government can do to ease us into a better future, I think they need to start investing in more solar and wind power plants as soon as possible. It is technology we already have, and once we stop wasting a billion dollars a month in Iraq, we should have plenty of money to construct some solar power plants in Arizona, New Mexico, California, or anywhere else that works, and putting up wind turbines in every possible location. They can outlaw the old light bulbs, give tax breaks to alternative energy users and green building developers, and decriminalize industrial hemp so that product can be used to substitute oil in many petroleum based products.
Post a Comment