A few more bits from Clinton's Q&A were of interest.
First, he was asked how he would respond to ordinary people's pocketbook concerns on energy, and that's when he really shined. (Responding to average folk was always Clinton's strength.) He said that of course some of these reforms will raise the unit cost of energy -- any time you invest in a new area you raise the cost of doing things the old way. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
And speaking of the costs, these economic doomsayers hardly ever take into account the rising, crippling costs of the status quo. This is a decade's worth of work ahead of us, which will create new jobs, which will tighten the labor market, which will raise wages -- the benefits to the country's working class will completely swamp the higher unit costs. If we'd listened to people like this we never would have built the highway system or gone to the moon.
I wish other Dems could be as eloquent and unapologetic about green energy and the working class.
Second, Clinton was surprisingly tepid about politics. When asked directly about the presidential race, he said he preferred Obama's plan but that McCain was good too -- "I'm encouraged by the rhetoric" in the presidential race. Perhaps he hasn't been paying attention lately. If Dems want to pull out of this tailspin they're in on energy, it might be advisable to stop praising the other side while its shiv is still stuck in them.
And third, Clinton was asked whether the new president should be given authority to force the building of cross-country transmission lines for wind and solar over NIMBY objections. (Nobody used the words, but eminent domain was clearly implied.) He said "yes." That makes me very, very nervous.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 9:05 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:21 am
20 Aug 2008
We all know our electrical bills are about to skyrocket. The Question Is: Do we want to build clean, planet-friendly point of use infastructure which protects ratepayers from hijacking, taxpayers from massive losses of intact ecosystems and open spaces (plus opportunity costs of their dollars being wasted on more Big Energy subsidies rather than on their own systems), homeowners from eminent domain and the climate from the huge GHG emissions caused by building and maintaining gigantic, centralized power plants and transmission lines - even if the fuel is sun or wind? OR, do we simply want to replace Big Oil and Big Gas Monopolists with Big Wind and Big Solar Monopolists, no matter how awful that is for us and the planet?
Why not use demand-side solutions NOW, such as efficiency upgrades, feed in tariffs, generous incentives for point of use renewables, and smart metering, since these have proven, repeatedly, to greatly increase thoughtful conservation, to save our fragile ecosystems, to decongest existing grid, and to spread the wealth of the New Renewables Paradigm across all of us who will be paying for it, instead of once again, socializing all the costs onto taxpayers, ratepayers and the environment to enrich a few mercenaries?
If we still need more solutions after we give that a SERIOUS investment of time, money and focus, then we can consider all the more harmful options...
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink