<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Are the South and the Midwest splitting on energy?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-south-midwest-splitting/ Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:13:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-south-midwest-splitting/1 I think there might be another issue at play.  Renewables and efficiency lower the cost of energy and energy intensive goods. (At least on a variable basis; renewables may or may not be economic once you consider capital recovery, but once built and operating, it is the variable cost that matters.  In that vein, renewables are like nuclear: hard to get built, but once built, they tend to run all the time.) 

Anything that lowers the costs of energy and energy-intensive goods is good for manufacturers and consumers, but necessarily bad for fossil energy extractors.  Ergo, we shoudl expect that regions of the country who's economies are heaviliy dependent on resource extraction (as opposed to conversion) would be opposed to those things that slow the rate of resource extraction.  Just as what's good for Saudi Arabia and Russia is not necessarily good for the US and the EU, what's good for West Virginia and Montana is not necessarily what's good for Michigan and California.

Thus, one doesn't have to convince those states to invest in clean tech mfg to get them to support these efforts - they simply need to shift the overall ratio of manufacturing:extraction in their state economies.  When coal was cheap & dirty, they were on that trajectory, as many energy-intensive businesses chose to locate there.  (Not for nothing is the Kanawha river in WV known as "chemical alley".)  But as energy costs have increased, many of those industries have left, making the region ever more dependent on resource extraction and all the usual "resource curse" that goes with it. 

]]> I think there might be another issue at play.  Renewables and efficiency lower the cost of energy and energy intensive goods. (At least on a variable basis; renewables may or may not be economic once you consider capital recovery, but once built and operating, it is the variable cost that matters.  In that vein, renewables are like nuclear: hard to get built, but once built, they tend to run all the time.) 

Anything that lowers the costs of energy and energy-intensive goods is good for manufacturers and consumers, but necessarily bad for fossil energy extractors.  Ergo, we shoudl expect that regions of the country who's economies are heaviliy dependent on resource extraction (as opposed to conversion) would be opposed to those things that slow the rate of resource extraction.  Just as what's good for Saudi Arabia and Russia is not necessarily good for the US and the EU, what's good for West Virginia and Montana is not necessarily what's good for Michigan and California.

Thus, one doesn't have to convince those states to invest in clean tech mfg to get them to support these efforts - they simply need to shift the overall ratio of manufacturing:extraction in their state economies.  When coal was cheap & dirty, they were on that trajectory, as many energy-intensive businesses chose to locate there.  (Not for nothing is the Kanawha river in WV known as "chemical alley".)  But as energy costs have increased, many of those industries have left, making the region ever more dependent on resource extraction and all the usual "resource curse" that goes with it. 

]]> Comment #2 by randino http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-south-midwest-splitting/ Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:18:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-south-midwest-splitting/2 It would be interesting to get an analysis of the southern situation that would include the following: the strengths and weaknesses of southern environmental movement, likely impact of global warming on the south which could be severe, and especially the organizing going on around mountain top removal coal mining and the blow back from the TVA ash spill. 

So, Grist staff, I have just given you some ideas for a future posting.  In fact an entire series like you all did on the Mississippi a couple of years ago.  I am sure you all know some sharp reporters who could give us something.  I am thinking of the reporters from Looking South.  Jeff Biggers is a bright guy.  Wait! David is from Tennessee.  Go to it Grist.  I think a major article would be interesting.

Randy Cunningham  

 

]]> It would be interesting to get an analysis of the southern situation that would include the following: the strengths and weaknesses of southern environmental movement, likely impact of global warming on the south which could be severe, and especially the organizing going on around mountain top removal coal mining and the blow back from the TVA ash spill. 

So, Grist staff, I have just given you some ideas for a future posting.  In fact an entire series like you all did on the Mississippi a couple of years ago.  I am sure you all know some sharp reporters who could give us something.  I am thinking of the reporters from Looking South.  Jeff Biggers is a bright guy.  Wait! David is from Tennessee.  Go to it Grist.  I think a major article would be interesting.

Randy Cunningham  

 

]]>