$427 million. That’s what the oil and coal industries spent during the first half of 2008 on lobbying and advertising. They’re protecting their interests – and hurting ours.
This ad is running on TV right now, but we need millions more to see it. The special interests will outspend us, but we can compete head-to-head with them when we find ways to share these messages for free.
Demand clean energy? We live in a capitalist society. If you want it create it. Raise the capital to research and develop it and go compete against “big” oil. It is there for you to take. Stop crying and go do something. You demand nothing of anyone but yourself.
Ok, I would MAYBE consider joining the “cause” IF the CRAZY ENVIRONMENTAL PEOPLE didn’t chop EVERY SINGLE energy source off at the knees. We can’t use Hydro energy because of the fish. We can’t use wind power because a) the windmills are unsightly and b) kill birds and bats. We can’t use solar power, because the STUPID ENVIROMENTALISTS won’t let us put up the lines to harness the energy to get it to the places that can use it. We certainly can’t use Nuclear power because of all that awful waste – even though Europe has been using it successfully for a long time. AND heaven forbid, even with cleaner coal technology, we try and use coal power. SO, what is the BRILLIANT solution of the CRAZY WACKO ENVIROMENTALISTS – use corn – that is right, use a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it creates, once produced!!!!! Not to mention we are BURNING AN IMPORTANT FOOD SOURCE!!!! OH MY!!!!
Speaking of NEW TECHNOLOGY! Why on earth won’t those same people let us apply the new technology that we ALREADY HAVE AVAILABLE to harness the existing oil and only minimally disrupt the environment – WHILE WE ARE SEEKING NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY!!!
I will tell you why. Because at the heart of it, they don’t want us to have any energy at all. At least that is what it seems like. So in my opinion – I would just like to say from those of us who are practical enough to know that we need to look at and develop new energy sources, but also need to use ALL AVAILABLE options NOW – You are now officially part of the problem. SO, Sit down and be quiet for a bit while we diligently work to save our country from the madness we seem to be slipping into.
Lori I think you might be talking about different environmentalists because I support solar, small scale hydro, geothermal, solar, more transfer lines, and many more as this blog attests to. If you are now in charge of solving our problems…well good luck to us all.
Who’s going to be charge?
This question compels us every four years. You must ask yourself when choosing a candidate, either. Who will make decisions that will benefit me and those like me? Or. Who will make decisions that will support my ideals.
In order to determine which candidate for the position is best , we ask them rigorous questions based on one of those premises. And put them through a long series of debates, caucuses, nominations, fund raising events. Hopefully the candidate that you most resonate with gets the nomination, and wins the election. Hopefully the person who wins the election is the best for the job.
This is much better management than some of the tyrannies available. However, this country is so diverse, so large and complicated. No single person can have an in-depth perspective of all the issues that affect it. Nor can any one person have all the best strategies to combat the myriad of problems afflicting a country this vast. Thus, a leader can sometimes feel overwhelmed by the gravity of consequence weighting their every choice.
To balance that awful responsibility a government must broaden its influence and acquire greater operating capitol. By its very nature, compelled by its first prerogative, a government must broaden its powers, until it is an institution so powerful and cumbersome no one can guide it. Through the expansion of its resources it demands more of the people. through the rise of its influence it gathers more responsibility, which in turn requires more power and more funding. Indeed, this describes all commonly used systems of centralized management. As Thomas Jefferson stated, â€Government is at best a necessary evil, and at worst an insufferable tyranny.â€
Through taxes a central leadership provides services needed by all. A portion of a nations wealth is consolidated, then redistributed at the discretion of our representatives. Unless that nation is in debt, in which case, the taxes of the people are used to pay interest on that debt, this secures a good credit standing with the bank and allows for the country to be granted further loans. These loans are then used to support the operation of the government and are utilized at the discretion of our leaders. This situation further exacerbates the pressure on them to make consistently wise decisions.
What if that burden could be lessened by placing some of that choice firmly on the shoulders of the masses? What if some of the services that are needed by all could be provided by the generosity of the people, motivated by the common good of everyone? This does not seem likely to happen, because it would be undesirable for the government to force such altruism upon us, and to do so would go against the nature of charity.
Our system encourages the openhandedness of the people through tax deductions for charitable donations. In this way assets given to non-profit organizations, reduce your total taxable income. This provides the people with financial incentive to care for their fellow man. There is a way for our representatives to insure the generosity of the people. If rather than charitable donations given a tax deduction, they were instead offered a tax credit. That is to say that dollar for dollar, what we give to a non-profit institution, we do not owe in taxes. People would be highly motivated to open their coffers to the benefit of all.
One must not fear for the operating capitol of the government. First, many of the duties currently bogging down the system would start to be provided by non-profit organizations, because, necessity is the mother of invention. Secondly, I am only referring to personal income tax. The government would still be given ample funding through corporate income tax, sales tax, gas tax, road tax, property tax, social security tax, estate tax, luxury tax and many more.
There will be some, apathetic to where the money goes, who will continue to file their income tax without the offset of charitable donation. But I believe that most people would relish the means to send their personal support to problems they feel most deserving.
The leaders of this nation would be personally benefited by implementing this idea, because it would make everyman a lobbyist. Even those below the poverty level would have a few thousand dollars to disperse. A politician with the love of their constituents would never have to fear a lack of campaign contributions. In this way the masses could insure the loyalty of their representatives.
The services provided by the government are often socialist in nature, lacking the competition which drives the economy and promotes efficiency in a capitalist society. This small change to the tax code could return efficiency to those services, by bringing about the competition which fuels such things. Stil,l providing our leaders the power to temper that competition through laws and regulations.
Right now the individuals of this country pay hundreds of billions of dollars in personal income tax. That much money dispersed with the combined wisdom of all the people, could save the world. Fulfilling your civic duty could be as much a joy as personal gain, for they would be the same.
I dream of a future in which our leaders have little to do, but are well compensated for their devotion to the prosperity of all.
Feel free to contact me with any feedback on this subject at voxpopulivoxdei@live.com
I demand it for my children and grandchildren. I thought I would be
so much better off than my parents but I’m not because everything
is so high. High energy bills, high gasoline, high food. It doesn’t have
to be this way. I DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
AND STOP GETTING RICHER WHILE WE GET POORER. STOP GIVING
TO PEOPLE WHO WON’T HELP THEMSELVES AND PUT THAT MONEY
TOWARD RESEARCH FOR EVERYONE. MAKE PEOPLE GET UP AND DO
SOMETHING AND BE RESPONSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People should DEMAND renewable energy? Well, when I hear the word demand in this context, I wonder… what if nobody meets the demand?
Are you giving an ultimatum? If so, you might want to tell us all the “or else.” What is going to happen if the demand goes unmet?
Or, are you just giving us a warning that if your demand isn’t met you will just stop using energy altogether?
When you posted this on the internet, were you plugged into electricity which was created by using “100% renewable energy?”
If you are tired of the rich getting richer, stop giving them your money!
If you don’t want to use non-renewable energy, then stop using it.
I live near an Amish community, some of them use no coal, no crude oil derived products, and no electricity whatsoever. Although they do these things because of their religious beliefs and backgrounds, maybe you can begin a similiar community based on eniromental beliefs.
Basicly I ask you this: What are you DOING right now to show how strong your stance is on this topic?
Hello Alan
Now from the tone of your letter you are hoping to get me in some sort of “gotcha” moment where you point out my hypocrisy and have a good chuckle at how you fooled one on some loud mouth blogger. Well I am sad to let you down but I do in fact do my part to both conserve energy, and to work for more renewable energy.
If you really want a list here is a few, I ride my bike instead of drive a car, I work for an environmental non-profit that works to reduce the use of carbon based fuels, I support and vote for candidates that support renewable energy laws, I lobby and call my representatives for local and national renewable energy projects, I insulate my home, I have worked in the past for renewable energy contractors and actually installed wind turbines and solar panels on peoples homes, I use energy efficient appliances and lighting, I turn off the lights when I leave a room, I live in a small home and use only what I need, I buy local, organic produce when it is available, I educate people on the benefits of renewable energy (both through this blog and through my job). In short my entire life is wrapped up in promoting renewable energy, and conservation.
However, if you would have taken the time to read a couple of the articles on this site you would have noticed that already.
Demanding renewable energy is more than just what the individual is doing, we need a frame work of laws and regulations that will quickly move us towards a new energy infrastructure. Simply pointing out that everyone who wants wind energy is not doing EVERYTHING they could do is not helpful. If you agree with the thrust of the above article (and from your comment I am not sure you do), then call your state rep, tell them you demand renewable energy or you will not vote for them. Trust me this may seem like a little thing, but if you and 100 others do it, they will listen.
I wish you the best of luck in your mission (whatever it may be).
Anyone that says they demand 100% clean energy in 10 years hasn’t a clue what it would take. It’s an empty demand, akin to demanding that someone enable you to fly. Most everyone looks at you and thinks you need some help.
We need to build 800,000 200 ton windmills to meet our electrical demands, and even then that would that would entail going parts of the day and year without stretches of no electricity. Yes, everything can be solved on a small scale. But trying to solve it on the scale we need in 40 years is a massive challenge.
Getting the copper alone for all these windmills in 7 years would completely collapse the world metals markets. It would require massive strip mining and careless refining with huge environmental impact to get the speed required. What about the steel required? The concrete require. Does anyone think of this?
Germany is hoping to get to 40% renewable by 2030. They are the most aggressive in the world. If you were asking for 50% in 2025, perhaps that is something to discuss.
But 100% renewable in 10 years is just moronic.
The only problem is that you assume that all of it will come from wind…you forgot wave, tidal, biomass, solar, geothermal, small scale hydro electric, etc etc. This goal is not far fetched, it just requires a mind able to think a little outside the box.
ps. don’t forget conservation and efficiency..
There is another problem with undoing our dependence on fossil fuels; that is, so long as we continue to create synthetic fibers, plastics, lubricants, and all the other products derived from oil. fossil fuels will be a byproduct of that process. That is to say that every barrel of oil contains the same percentages of these byproducts. So when we seperate the oil by weight, in order to get plastic, ect; we will still produce gas and diesel. What else are we going to do with it, if we don’t burn it?