Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Green energy foes, please stand down
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
Americans have repeatedly spoken — we want action on clean energy jobs and securing our country’s energy independence. We are tired of the endless delaying tactics by the proponents of the status quo. It is time to move forward in this important arena; our lives and our livelihoods depend upon it.
Some of our more enlightened and progressive elected leaders deserve recognition for working with Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey to reach agreement around a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan, a critically important milestone that has faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
However, opponents of clean energy will stop at nothing to stand in the way of progress, regardless of the consequences to human health, the environment and the economy. Big Oil, Big Coal and other polluters are still holding out for a congressional bailout. They will continue to try to riddle this legislation with loopholes, water it down and load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in giveaways. They don’t want it to deliver a recovery fueled by the clean energy jobs that America needs, preferring the failed status quo instead.
As this bill moves through the many remaining steps in the legislative process, I hope Nevada’s elected leaders will work in Congress to strengthen it, so that it meets President Barack Obama’s challenge to Congress and the American people: to make the transition to a clean-energy economy. Only a bill that dramatically ramps up America’s transition to cleaner, cheaper energy sources, slashes energy waste to cut global warming pollution quickly and cheaply, closes pollution loopholes and makes polluters pay will jump-start our economy and move us toward a clean energy future.
Will this be tough? Of course it will. Never in our history has a major paradigm shift been easily achieved. Will it be worth it to become energy independent? The American people have unequivocally said yes!
Therefore I politely ask the obstructionists to this new energy future to please get out of the way!
Discussion: 34 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Palin craze puzzling, given ’08 disaster
- The ins and outs of CityCenter traffic
- Vdara hotel marks opening of CityCenter
- Henderson postpones vote on massage parlor law
- MGM Mirage begins lifting veil on CityCenter today
- LV woman robs Kentucky strip club, police say
- Despite few points, inspiration keeps ‘Chop’ high on plus-minus list
- Planet Hollywood’s Thomas McCartney headed for Tropicana
- Greenspun reorganizes local media operation, cuts staff
- Harry Reid on mortgages: ‘Bank of America must do more’
Blogs
Elsewhere
TCU extends Gary Patterson through 2016
The Kats Report
Dissimilar landmarks -- Binion's and CityCenter -- reflect today's Las Vegas (4 Comments)
High School Sports Scene
Prep Football: State Championship
Elsewhere
UFC debut in Boston likely July or August (1 Comment)
The Kats Report
Planet Hollywood's Thomas McCartney headed for Tropicana (15 Comments)
Elsewhere
LV woman robs Kentucky strip club, police say (6 Comments)
Las Vegas Sands' Hong Kong IPO flops (3 Comments)
Calendar »
- 2 Wed
- 3 Thu
- 4 Fri
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
-
Nic Faniciulli at Godskitchen
Body English | 10:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Mischieve Wednesdays at T&T
Tacos and Tequila
-
Ben Sherman gift bag giveaways at Wasted Space
Wasted Space | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
"Americans have repeatedly spoken -- we want action on clean energy jobs and securing our country's energy independence. "
Uhhh...Americans have spoken the opposite of that.
In recent Gallup polls, only 40% of the people say that environment is a national major issue and that has been trending downward for years. That issuse is ranked behind 8 other major issues.
It also found that less than 30% of the population have been adjusting their lives to "save the planet" in a major way. Gallup has found that number to rarely move year to year.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105802/Econom...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106624/US-%20...
Other polls also go against the writers main concept.
A majority of people oppose cap and trade.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 23-26, 2009
41% believe that currently global warming is a minor problem and 28% believe is not a problem at all.
Marist College Poll. April 1-3, 2009
41% believe that gobal warming is exaggerated and that number has been trending upward for years.
Gallup Poll. March 5-8, 2009
Big oil and Big coal make the world go around! Or you can do what France did just go all nuclear for your power needs. Clean energy is a good thing, but don't forget it cost alot more then most people realize, And it dos not have the horsepower that the american people need.
Spain bought into the renewables after signing onto the original Kyoto agreement. Solar and wind. A study recently determined that they lost 9 jobs for every (heavilty subsidized) 'green' job created. And this numbskull wants us to go quietly into our demise. Beware the Climate-Industrial-Complex and its profiteers.
The American public has spoken many times. They want ALL American energy resources used to create American jobs. Drill for oil, drill for gas, build nuclear, new dams for hydro, and alternatives.
"And this numbskull wants us to go quietly into our demise" - rusty57
We are already going into our demise, sir. Not quietly, but with a war raging on the other side of the world, for oil - a war costing how many billions?
Had Nevada invested in alternate energy sources while the boom was on, it might now be a leader of states rather than a laughingstock backwater. It might also be weathering its bust more easily.
What a load of sceptic claptrap. This is typical of many Americans, who cant see past the end of their own nose. You have all got withdrawel symptoms. The majority of Americans, IF one can believe the polls you mention, are against any form of green energy, all because the pro fossil fuels people are saying "It will cost too much", "It wont work for the USA", so many in denial mode. Energy from green sources is not dearer than fossil energy, no matter what you have been told. My energy is about 4.5 cents/Kwh from non fossil fuels, ie, water, wind and nuclear.
The positive side of wind is that once the turbines are built and up running, they dont use any fuel, whereas the new coal and gas fired plants that the USA will be building in the future will use fossil fuels for their life span, not forgetting the emissions getting the fuel to the surface, emissions for transport, and emissions from the waste products, not just one year but for perhaps 50 yrs. Are you so thick and blind to these facts
The Waxman-Markey "energy" bill is a misnomer. It is a bill to raise your taxes and it will do that. It is extimated to raise a family of four's tax bill about $4000 a year and we all know how bad government cost estimates are. It will end up costing about $8000 a year. For that much I will gladly keep our dirty air.
Alternative energy does much better in a growing economy through private investment exploring ways to produce it at market rates. To listen to the two "enlightened and progressive" politicians create "millions of green jobs" when they have NO track record of ever producing ONE job that wasn't heavily subsidized by the taxpayer makes my stomach crawl.
Err in first, 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.
The "Cap and Trade" law has a stated goal of reducing American man-made Greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2017 and 83 percent by 2020.
But more disconcerting is that reducing greenhouse gases is not actually the real goal.
The real goal to control the weather to a Congressionally mandated annualized temperature.
Congress and Obama claim to be able to be able to accomplish this by putting the allowances on only 20% of the greenhouse emitters.
This essentially mean those 20% to be sold-out must stop emitting by 2017.
"Clean" coal and nuclear power are left off the table by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey.
The Global Warming legislation cost of trillions of dollars is just on a "static" Congressional Budget Office scoring base. This reflects just the initial sale of carbon permit by the Federal government to selected carbon generators.
But once the hedge fund managers George Soros, John Paulson, and Philip Falcone get into a secondary carbon permit market and start the securitization of carbon emission allowance permit (a the cap causing a liquidity crises) then who know what you might pay to buy and run a new SUV or cool your house.
The "Cap and Trade" law has a stated goal of reducing American man-made Greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2017 and 83 percent by 2020.
But more disconcerting is that reducing greenhouse gases is not actually the real goal.
The real goal to control the weather to a Congressionally mandated annualized temperature.
Not surprisingly Congress does not specify what that annualized temperature is to be set at.
Do we want it to be set 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit?
Can we control it +/- 0.1 degree? Are Americans that smart?
Congress and Obama claim to be able to be able to accomplish this by putting the allowances on only 20% of the greenhouse emitters.
Global climate models are very undeveloped, in particular manmade greenhouse are not statistically a factor, and the model confidence level is well outside the error band for any other acceptable science.
A common criticism of global climate models, particularly for predicting the coming decades, has been that they only include factors, such as solar radiation but not he multi-year suns solar flares, while neglecting internal climate variability that arises from natural changes within the system, like El Nino, fluctuations in ocean circulation and anomalies in ocean heat content.
Compounding the inexact science of the global warming model - is the distinctly separate exercise of the what if science of the consequences of global warming. Because climatolagist cannot predict an actual temperature within a margin of error, they assume a 2, or 3, or 4 degree rise then proceed to use team of environmental experts to speculation or conjecture that then oceans will rise, the birds will die, and we will have famine.
But explain how without any help from government the EIA reported the fact that in 2008 the U.S. reduced it carbon emission by 2.8%. Some will argue that American consumed less leaving the argument that if the American economy returns - which is in considerable doubt now - it will hurt global warming.
Let's keep working our way to the back of the pack as leaders in new technologies! Dirty air is good for the now declining life span in the U.S. We can be last in many other categories if we try harder. Greed will keep us in the race to the bottom. Onward and downward!
Let's pretend our mass consumption of fossil fuels has no effect on our economy, our health or the sea-level.
Let's pretend that most of our scientists have their heads in the sand about climate change, air quality and distribution of energy resources.
Let's keep on believing we can't improve our lot by using free energy from the sun and wind to our advantage.
Let's insist on the "horsepower" that POWERPLAY says he thinks we need.
AIRWEARE,
Are there any more like you, not with heads in sand, some one with a view to the future when fossil fuels will be gone long gone. The USA sent men to the moon, in the 60s as well, sent space probes to far off planets, yet still cant get its finger out of the proverbial hole and harness the sun and the wind, its not rocket science is it?
What the alarmists can't fathom is the air&water actually got cleaner during Bush's "rape of the environment", unless they count the CO2 expelled during their rants as "pollution".
There has always been one thing between the USA being a leader & a pretender in the interests of a cleaner environment. G R E E D.
We've long posessed the skill and technology.
Americans like their views, wildlife and public lands. It's becoming obvious that plans by Reid, Salazar and Obama to destroy our public lands with massive renewable development will be met with strong resistance. We will never go away. If you can't put it on the roof or an old agricultural field, we don't want it...
Sunlizard,
You could always shove it up your ar#e
If anybody knows what Sunlizard is talking about when he describes plans to destroy public lands with massive renewable development, would you please post a description or source for this curious suggestion.
Who will never go away? I do not understand what or whom you are referring to.
Sunlizard is referring to the large land footprint of renewables and how enviros will obstruct any renewable energy project due to this. For example, Calif putting the Mojave desert off-limits for wind/solar development.
Rita.
"Americans have repeatedly spoken -- we want action on clean energy jobs and securing our country's energy independence."
I believe you meant, "There are a few very vocal people who want action and the Obama-loving media have reported on it numerous times. This gives the false impression that a lot of Americans are behind it"
There. Glad I could help.
Most renewables I have built are in the middle of rivers, on rooftops, at scout camps (solar water heaters for showers for the kids) and totally out of the way.
What's with the "large land footprint"?
Renewables don't need much space.
I have a clarification question: If an "enviro" is an environmentalist, why would he or she "obstruct any renewable energy project?"
In my old-timer's way of thinking, it seems that environmentalists would, by their nature, be in favor of renewable energy projects that don't waste stuff like clean air, water, space etc.
Because, airweare, that's what Rush told them. Don't you know that by now? Doesn't have to actually make sense or be based in any type of fact; if Rush says it, well it MUST be true.
Silly you.
One has only to drive through the Barstow pass to see the footprint for wind. That wind farm is HUGE and an eyesore beyond belief.
Personally, I want to see more nuclear. It is safe enough that we have heard of only one (or maybe two) incidents from the US Navy fleet of nuclear ships since the start. If the military can get it right, it has to be good.
I will agree that the ideal source would be solar, but there is simply too much overhead so far in making it 24/7 reliable. I would think that using solar to charge batteries which then in turn are used to power generators would be reasonable, but the in-efficiency might make it cost prohibitive.
Maybe the day will come when we can use an idea from science-fiction, beam the energy down from an orbiting solar collector. I bet someone is working on that idea with Tesla coils even now.
My bad, meant Banning pass, not Barstow.
Wait, you mean now Obama wants to own the weather too? Auto industry and banks are not enough? Well it's too hot here, I want Harry to lobby Barry to make it cooler in the summer here! And I want a check, even though I don't work or pay taxes. And I want my kids to go to Harvard, even though I don't help them with their homework. And I don't want to pay my fair share of taxes like Obama's cabinet picks. We need this change! He promised us. That's why I didn't vote or that old war hero honest guy and the chick from Alaska.
When I want to have a good laugh I simply go to this web site and read the comments made by those who sleep over on the right....talk about laughable comments......
Reading what several of the right-wingers post reminds me of what Woodrow Wilson said about conservatives:
"A conservative is a man who sits and thinks, sits and thinks, but mostly sits."
I'll bet the farm PatriciaLV listens to Rush on a daily basis.
boftx:
Why on earth would you "charge batteries which then in turn are used to power generators?"
That makes no sense. Do you know anything about energy forms, or do you just dream stuff up and post it?
Science fiction is no good if it's based on non-science, like batteries powering generators.
How many times on how many different threads are you going to post your drivel, rusty?
www.basinandrangewatch.org
"Sunlizard,
You could always shove it up your ar#e"
Uddeboda, that attitude is becoming the green energy dinosaur that the Pickens crowd is promoting. The people who don't want the deserts covered with renewable projects number in the millions. Your attitude is not really environmental, it is tunnel visioned on a green energy future designed by large energy companies. These plans will require a large natural gas base load and will still produce carbon. You are very gullable to believe that General Electric is motivated to produce "clean" power. But keep using profanity...LOL!
Uddeboda also is not an American, but he sure can tell us what to do with our home. Keep your profanity in Europe...
airweave, you really need to think before posting a criticism like that.
For starters, that is exactly the model that diesel-electric engines use. The idea is to obtain 24/7 capacity. You can not do this with solar or wind without some sort of storage mechanism. It is also the same as commecial grade back-up systems. Power is stored in banks of batteries which in turn are used to drive converters if needed.
Solar produces DC electricy natively, which can easily be used to float-charge batteries. From there it would go to either a very large DC/AC converter block or could be used to drive a DC motor which in turn runs a generator. That is how 1000V/400cps power is produced on board ships. 440V/60cps motors drive generators that run at 400cps. There is no reason that DC motors could not be used instead. I doubt very much that a reasonable solid-state converter approach would be viable because of the high current demands of a power station.
So yes, I do know something about energy forms, having been in the field in one way or another since 1972.
Whats going to happen is we'll become a socialist nation...all this country's money will go for clean energy...and nothing for the people..we'll end up like N.Korea..where all theirmoney went to build nuclear weapons to fight....no one..and the people are left to starve...
Funny thing is that renewable energy could make a significant dent in traditional energy use under a FIT system. It may require stimulus type money, but getting people jump started to produce their own energy would not only help with emissions, but also drastically reduce the power bills of citizens, thus helping the economy. Throwing billions of dollars at Sempra, Duke or Bright Source Energy still will not finance these massive, public land raping projects. Those will mostly be paid for in the form of adding several dollars to your power bill. To back up these green energy boondoggles, several new natural gas plants will need to be constructed for backup base load. Add the tens of thousands of acre feet of water Nevada does not have to run these monsters and you have a big disaster environmentally and economically. This is Reid's plan. It will make a very few people rich, but is the wrong way to go about using renewable energy.