A refreshing and optimistic op-ed by KC Golden, policy director of Climate Solutions. Golden points out that 2005 is turning out to be a banner year for Washington--a year that includes both a turning away from energy-dependence and several encouraging steps toward a smarter and more efficient energy-economy that benefits everyone.
In a time when partisanship seems all the rage, Golden's point about ending our addiction to fossil fuels is right on the money:
We cannot rise to this challenge if we stay stuck in the well-worn ruts of political identity -- east vs. west; left vs. right; Republican vs. Democrat; environment vs. economy. We're going to miss the boat if the only story we've got is "us versus them."
It's a familiar story, this battle among special interests. But it's useless. It enriches political consultants and it spices up talk radio, but it gets us nowhere and we can't afford to go nowhere. We've got a fossil fuel age to end and a new, clean energy economy to build. We need a much richer, more constructive story -- a story that multiplies, not divides.
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 6:20 am
31 May 2005
The rising tide of pro nuclear power talking points from many environmental activists recently is very disturbing!
Washington has Hanford, so voters there may realize exactly how disastrous nuclear waste disposal can be.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:59 pm
31 May 2005
Excuse me, but the environment is NOT a special interest. Its health affects every living thing on the planet, so it's the exact opposite of a special interest. The economy, on the other hand, is the ultimate special interest: rich people want laws that favor the rich, poor people want laws that favor the poor, and middle class people want laws that favor the middle class.
This sophistic lie of calling environmental, civil rights, and human rights concerns "special interests" has been used by the right for long enough that it unfortunately has become successful. As the Nazi propagandist said, all you have to do is repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Permalink
billvon Posted 3:04 am
01 Jun 2005
> from many environmental activists recently is very
>disturbing!
I think what you are seeing is the environmental movement begin to fracture. It is getting bigger and bigger, and when things get bigger, they tend to specialize internally.
At one extreme we have the Earth Firsters, people who burn down houses and destroy cars to make their environmental points. Their planks are a halt to any development in sensitive areas, strict vegetarianism, no logging etc - in other words, environmentalism through poverty.
At the other extreme we have the conservative 'environmentalists' who buy natural cotton towels and call it done. They then drive home in their Ford Expedition, throw the towels in their electric dryer, and crank the A/C. They are for clean coal and the clear-air initiative because those things sound good and don't cost them anything.
There's a big middle that's between two of them. And many of those middle people are looking for a compromise, something that will clean up the environment and not destroy the country's economy, as shutting down all coal and nuclear power plants would do. Only rich people can afford environmentalism, so destroying the economy will not be in anyone's best interests.
Nuclear is certainly not the best source of power out there, but it's better than coal, and it's the only way we're ever going to even get started on a hydrogen economy. If we replaced every coal fired power plant out there with a nuclear power plant, we would generate far less nuclear waste, save the lives of 30,000 americans every year, and save millions of acres of land from stripmining.
That's mid-term. In the long term, we may get hydrogen fusion working, or we may get to the point where we can store enough wind/solar power to be able to run on that exclusively. But in the meantime we have to decide not what's perfect, but what's good enough.
--bill von
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:09 pm
01 Jun 2005
The first sentence is a complete lie, and the end of the second evinces a totally materialistic perspective.
As a former Earth First! activist who's still in touch with the movement, I can confidently state that Earth First! has never advocated burning down houses or destroying cars for any reason. Perhaps Mr. Von has Earth First! confused with the Earth Liberation Front, but he should get his facts straight before spewing lies on the internet.
The fact that a majority of Americans (maybe even people), including Mr. Von, think that a "halt to any development in sensitive areas, strict vegetarianism, no logging etc" means living in poverty shows how spiritually and morally corrupt these people are. So long as one has enough to eat, and be clothed and sheltered, one only lives in poverty in one's mind. Evolve mentally and spiritually and you will discover that you are in fact very wealthy!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:36 am
02 Jun 2005
That is true, nukes are not the best, in fact due to uninsurable risk, unknown astronomical waste disposal and decommissioning costs, nuclear power is the mosrt expensive and dangerous solution.
It is not better than coal, for a 20% higher cost than direct combustion, coal plants that separate and burn coal gas, are much better than nuclear. With CO2 scrubbers installed they are fairly clean. ahh but there is still mercury. Compare mercury to a possible Chernobyl magnified up to 17 times from present used nuclear fuel rod storage pools.
Why not just go with wind and solar and not have to choose. The logical fallacy involved? The false dilemna.
It is another version of the talking ponits lie campaign for nuclear power, so many are either duped by it, or cynically posing as environmentalists.
That is the real spectrum from the neo-conservative right operating now.
As far as linking nukes to hydrogen, that follows right along with the pie-in-the-sky bushco inc backing of hydrogen. fuel cells are farther along, right now biofuels, and plugin hybrids are where capital ought to be going.
http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:42 am
02 Jun 2005
This is outrageous. This shift could bring fuel prices back down. this administration is not even trying to reduce oil consumption.
Permalink