Many energy experts contend natural gas is the ideal fuel as the world makes the transition to renewable energy. But since much of that gas will come from underground shale, potentially at high environmental cost, it would be far better to skip the natural gas phase and move straight to massive deployment of solar and wind power.
As utilities seek to build new nuclear power plants in the U.S. and around the world, the latest generation of reactors feature improvements over older technologies. But even as attention focuses on nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels, questions remain about whether the newer reactors are sufficiently foolproof to be adopted on a large scale.
For years, free-market fundamentalists opposed to government regulation have sought to create doubt in the public’s mind about the dangers of smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Now they have turned those same tactics on the issue of global warming and on climate scientists, with significant success.
The disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has reopened the debate over the direction the United States’ energy future is headed. Now more than any other time in history, citizens are beginning to understand the necessity to evolve past our love affair with oil. An economy that is dependent on a non-renewable, quickly fleeting resource can only move towards instability if alternative fuels are not found. The Congressional Budget Office is beginning to analyze how energy policies and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect employment in an economy that is trying to pull itself out of a recession. Democrats are pushing for a comprehensive energy bill that will enhance the production of clean energy technologies, put a price on emitting carbon, reduce greenhouse gases by a significant amount over the next 20 years, and influence entry into a range of new renewable energy industries. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman are due to present their energy bill in the Senate next week. This bill, The American Power Act will be hard-pressed for passage without strong republican backing. The loss of republican Senator Lindsay Graham as a cosponsor of this bill is devastating. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “the oil spill showed drilling alone would not solve U.S. energy problems and that higher summer fuel prices will heighten consumers’ views that the country must move more aggressively into alternatives.” (Cowan & Gardner, 2010) If the country decides to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this will have many significant implications for employment in our country.
Scientists monitoring the massive BP oil spill with the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Envisat radar satellite say that it has entered the Loop Current, a powerful oceanic conveyor belt that flows clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida. It is expected to begin impacting FLorida in six days time.
The oil slick spreading across the Gulf of Mexico has shattered the notion that offshore drilling had become safe. A close look at the accident shows that lax federal oversight, complacency by BP and the other companies involved, and the complexities of drilling a mile deep all combined to create the perfect environmental storm.
Since the turn of the 21st century the amount of lobbyist spending in the environmental and clean energy technology sector has grown by more than 200%. Spurred by investment from private firms and the public outcry of an exorbitant amount of college campuses across the country, clean energy technology and climate legislation are taking the main-stage on capitol hill. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was passed last year in the House of Representatives and the Kerry-Graham-Leiberman bill is due out later in 2010.
A few weeks ago, the Center for Climate Strategies released a study showing that making national policy of 23 measures already in play in Red and Blue and Purple states across the nation would lead to millions of additional jobs and significant carbon reductions. This study shows, quite clearly, that serious climate mitigation efforts should not be discussed as “cost”, but as “investment” that will lead to significant benefits. Two notable items about this study: 1. The strongly supported conclusion that the more aggressive the action, the greater the economic benefits. and 2. This is a conservative study.
Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.
