There's a part of me that really enjoyed tracking Rep. Paul Ryan's bobbing heading during his "response" to President Obama's State of the Union Address. But Jason Linkins summed up that performance quite accurately: He's "the Best They Got?"
And ironically, it's Meghan McCain -- the daughter of the old "maverick" himself -- who nailed Rep. Michele Bachmann, she of the "response to the response," as "the Poor Man's Sarah Palin." She's so right. I much prefer my hostile wannabe future leaders to have their own reality shows!
Which brings me to the real meat and potatoes of the night -- and of our nation's future. President Obama used his State of the Union address to push clean energy in a big way, asking Congress to help America achieve 80% cleanly sourced electricity by 2035. The challenge, of course, is how we're going to get there.
Remember President Kennedy's famous line about the space race? "We choose to go to the moon in this decade - not because it is easy ... but because it is hard."
We could apply that same standard to President Obama's 80% Challenge. What he's suggesting is a sea change in the way we Americans have used energy for generations. What he's calling for -- though he may not yet realize it -- is a national mobilization that engages every American in every aspect of our energy use: how we get it, how we use it, and how we respect it.
Well, if we could steal another quote from President Kennedy: "All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin." In that lens, Obama was sounding very Kennedy-esque on clean energy.
So how do we begin this work? Is it with more legislation and more rules and regulations? Not necessarily. The President wasn't really outlining legislative prescriptions. He was laying out broad markers that will help create this energy transformation.
Aside from the president's rather liberal definition of "clean," which I'll allow other pundits to deconstruct, three major points in the SOTU stood out to me:
"Clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling."
Yes! Business people of America, we should have a chat. As you and I both know, it's going to take more than political pronouncements to expand the clean energy marketplace. It's going to take community-specific outreach campaigns, showing real Americans how and why renewable energy makes sense for their wallets and as an investment in their homes. And how producing clean energy from solar or wind will pay off a thousand times over, letting them hedge against the uncertainties of resource scarcity and rising traditional energy costs.
"Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's."
I couldn't agree more. But this goes deeper than its literal meaning. While weaving his investment trope, President Obama talked quite a bit about education and the importance of investing in our children. That investment means engaging with young people now -- today -- and helping an entire generation grow up realizing that clean energy isn't some crazy idea from the '60s. Young people today can be taught that saving energy and relying on clean, renewable energy is just part of life. We can make it part of the fabric of their lives - like recycling, or granite countertops! But we need to engage them now -- and consistently.
"Tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources."
Wow. That's an incredible goal. And one we're already working towards every day. But what are we doing to get there? In last year's SOTU, Obama's lines were quite similar. "To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives." Obama said. "That... means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America." We all know how well that turned out. And there's not much else on the table right now.
The only way to connect all these dots is to push a nationwide outreach campaign, based on sound market research, that will further advance clean energy as a consumer product, not a clause in a divisive piece of legislation.
The president can lead on this. We don't need new legislation. We need our Community Organizer in Chief to help us go town to town, community to community and neighbor to neighbor, to make this nationwide transformation a reality.
We can achieve his goals. And we don't need to fight with the Tea Party to do it. We just need to integrate clean energy into our everyday lives, from the Greatest Generation to the echo boomers, to their little brothers and sisters. We're already doing this at SmartPower. But we need the power of the Oval Office to make this happen on a grand scale.
Let us begin!
Follow Brian Keane on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SmartPower_org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4Z9WVZddH9w
If we say the heck with the cost, go to clean energy and compete in a Free Trade World, several things will happen. We will return to an agricultural society with most of us being serfs, share croppers, they will invent new terms. Those will be the lucky ones! The effects of climate change will continue because we haven given up our place as the world leader will watch fast developing nations consume fossil fuels with us being a large exporter of coal, paying back our debt!
We make this push to 80-100% clean energy coupled with environmental taxes or tariffs on the manufacturing, sustainability, transportation of products sold here; the rest of the world will follow!
I believe it would be naive to think all the other nations of the world would give up on cheap fossil fuel energy when it gives such a clear advantage in manufacturing energy intensive products!
Some say our technology will save us?? Almost 70% of the energy intensive to manufacture solar cells are made with either hydro or cheap dirty coal energy in China now!
Let's say someone in America invents a small household cold fusion device that's energy intensive to make. Where's it made?
Couple that with about 10,000 to 20,000 sq mi of mirrors and molten salt tanks (for energy storage), and viola, we're there! (Imagine all the jobs).
So how do we {do that}? Tax oil a little and tax coal a bit more. Tax foreign oil by 10 times that! and best yet, put a tariff (just a small tariff) on ALL imported goods. Stop subsidizing the rich (tax cuts to the tune of trillions), and viola, we would have the money to subsidize our entire energy infrastructure and still maintain the social security.
Yep, mass produced solar mirrors and motors, etc would solve most ALL the problems. The only expense would be a rather small percent of our land. Mirrors can be post mounted, thus backlash from environmentalists should just be considered gibberish bought by competing energy interests.
Then there would be like TRILLIONS extra for (needed) clean energy mass production via giant and competing robotic factories with resulting tens of thousands of SQUARE MILES of installation jobs!
B) End of tax-funded subsidies for "Big Energy", rather using subsidies for Americans to switch to home-based energy generation solutions, thus eliminating THE most inefficient part of our energy system: the "Grid".
...PLUS there is plenty of farmland being funded by the government to produce nothing...and corn agriculture is falsely "propped up" by subsidy, else it would be a net loss.
Corn's just a filler, and it has become too prevalent in our diets anyway, thanks to Monsanto corruption.
Besides, the same acre of hemp could produce not only bio-fuels from hemp seed oils, but also have value as a fiber crop, and likely a bio-mass source of energy as well...not to mention being a soil conditioner (aside from NOT needing toxic pesticides).
All that and it would be a "Bootstrap" recovery for American economy...
B) End tax-based subsidies for "Big Energy", rather giving them to homeowners to invest in home-based energy generation sources that would eliminate THE most inefficient part of the energy equation: the "Grid"
C) Actually hold these energy companies accountable for their environmental negligence
Let consumers demand it, and energy companies supply it, regardless of the source.
Keep the government out of the way.
Let’s give solar and wind 30 years of subsidies and see what happens. If we spent half as much on solar and wind in this country as we did on oil we could easily blanket our land with enough renewable energy to meet ten times our needs.
If we had started subsidizing solar, wind and electric vehicles back then, we wouldn’t be stuck now having to import 60% of our oil, we wouldn’t be having all the health problems related to pollution and the cost of everything that needs to be transported would be a lot less expensive.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-world-can-be-powered-by-alternative-energy-using-todays-technology-in-20-40-years?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d67ccc1e01-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email
First we need to grasp that the cost of everything goes up for the consumer. Second, corporations and individuals will find ways to use less energy as the true cost is pushed on to the consumer, reducing demand.
The tax and tariff receipts can be used to subsidize a safety net for the poor and offset the reduction in sale tax revenue for the states.
Why put any tariffs at all on imported products? Haven't I the right to purchase from whomever I wish, at whatever price we can agree to?
A carbon tax would have a minimal structure as it would only be charged at the point of burning it (energy production, filling a gas tank, etc...). Very little infrastructure needed for that piece. The import tariff would be more complex, basically a cost per unit of energy per product. You would get lots of false documents saying this or that product was made with wood instead of plastic to avoid the cost, but in principle, not rocket science.
No, you don't have the right today to purchase from whomever you wish. You cannot purchase stolen goods, you cannot go into a restaurant that does not have a permit to make food, you have to pay sales tax on anything you buy, imported sugar has a tariff on it, etc... We put all sorts of constraints on how and what you can buy.
If we all agree that the majority of everything sold in this nation should be produced with clean energy then those are the requirements. I have no clue if it is feasible, but let's be clear that it will raise the cost of everything.