For Clean Energy, Politics Is Bad Business

Juliet Eilperin's and Jon Cohen's Nov. 10 Washington Post story about the growing gulf between Democrats' and Republicans' views on renewable energy paints a grim picture of our country's stalled clean energy future. As it says, "support for putting federal funds into alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen has slipped to its lowest point in polls since 2006, driven by growing Republican opposition to such initiatives."

The findings, Eilperin and Cohen say, "show that attitudes toward renewable energy have diverged between the two parties."

While it makes for a nice headline, this data misses the point. Clean energy isn't a Democratic issue or Republican issue. It's a consumer issue -- and, ultimately, a jobs issue. According to the Solar Foundation's 2011 Solar Jobs Census, the solar industry grew 6.8 percent from August 2010 to August 2011, nearly 10 times faster than the overall economy grew during the same period.

Yet the media's focus on the politicization of clean energy in America is cutting this growing industry off at the pass. Washington isn't helping, either. As the Solyndra investigation heats into a cross-aisle blame game, Cape Wind -- what would be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. -- still faces setbacks and fierce opposition, 10 years after first being proposed. Thankfully, President Obama seems to have found an elegant solution to the Keystone XL quagmire, but even this seems like small comfort to an industry that's struggling to break through.

Meanwhile, consumers across the country aren't waiting for Washington. They're choosing clean energy because it's good for their wallets -- and good for their communities. In Arizona, which moved from eighth to third in the Solar Jobs Census's job growth rankings, homeowners of all political leanings are leasing and purchasing solar energy systems for their homes because it's saving them money and supporting local contractors. Arizona SmartPower's Arizona Solar Challenge, which encourages solar adoption as a way to put solar on 5 percent of homes by the year 2015, has already signed on 15 communities. Two of those have already met their 5 percent goal -- and are forging ahead to achieve even more.

Meanwhile, three large-scale, renewable energy utility projects currently under construction in Arizona represent total investments exceeding $2.7 billion. That sounds like something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind.

Until we get serious about discussing clean energy's benefits to consumers -- more choices, more energy independence, more cost savings -- and stop focusing on how politics gets in the way, the industry will fight to go mainstream.

Brian Keane is the President of SmartPower, a non-profit marketing organization funded by private foundations to help build the clean energy marketplace by helping the American public become smarter about their energy use.

 

Follow Brian Keane on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SmartPower_org

Comments

[sheila]

01:08 PM on 11/19/2011

How on earth can an article about the "consumer benefits" of renewable energy treat Big Solar and Big Wind and Big Transmission - the ULTIMATE anti-consumer boondoggles - the same as rooftop solar owned by US and fairly compensated?

The former causes us to spend way more money so that massive ecosystem destruction, water waste and GHG emissions can all be socialized while Chevron Solar or BP Wind scoops up tens of billions of our dollars. The latter improves property values, cleans the environment, reduces GHGs, and when supported by the ONLY proven policy to democratize, decentralize and REDUCE the cost of clean energy (the German style feed in tariff), provides a fair and substantial return on investment for regular Americans.

The fight cannot be "democrats vs. republicans" because BOTH wholly support Big Energy oligarchy and increased destruction and expense. The fight cannot be "fossil vs. so-called renewable" because that can be perverted (and is being perverted) to mean "Chevron OIl wins then Chevron Solar wins again," which means the environment, taxpayer and ratepayer LOSE! The options must be framed as "affordable, reliable clean energy sited where it's needed and democratically owned" vs. "robber barons destroying the planet and billing us billions while preventing energy independence."

Which side are we on? The side of ratepayers, taxpayers and the planet? Or the side of Big Energy whose business model is to kill wilderness, rip us all off, socialize their cost and keep all the profits?

[artleads]

10:03 PM on 11/20/2011

Keep up the fight! Hardly anybody seems to realize that we are being fed a slew of distractions about issues that are off the subject. The subject, as you assert, is energy independence, protecting land, spurring manufacture (of distributed-energy technology). It is about getting the Big-Energy establishment and its monopolization of energy off the backs of the people. Big-Energy is like a layer of fat that does the patient no good, and that would best be disposed of entirely. The Occupy movement needs to be aware of how much Big-Energy is the same as Big Banks and all the other boondoggle Big systems that strangulate ordinary people.

[Esteban Francisco]

02:36 AM on 11/19/2011

Energy projects all over the country are being and have been held hostage or rejected by the NIMBY crowd and have been for years. You are not even close to focusing on the real issue- It is a mater of property rights of the individual. So for you you to paint the political process and the disparity between two parties as the demise of the clean energy initiatives in this country you are misleading. As for the clean jobs initiative, it has been the great train robbery of the taxpayers a fact that you can not dismiss.

[Michael D Ballantine]

12:01 AM on 11/19/2011

I think we can all agree that promoting solar power as an energy resource makes sense but we can't muddy the waters by ignoring the relevant facts that there is a clear dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats on how to approach the problem. At the moment, the Republicans are intent on eliminating support for solar energy in any new budget. We have to find ways to make the issue attractive to them rather than just saying let's all get along. You sight a growth statistic of 6.8% without remarking that the solar industry grew from a very small base and that tax incentives helped boost sales. 6.8% is unremarkable in most analysis, instead growth of 40 or 50% would be more noteworthy. Given the number of solar days in Arizona, it is not surprising that Arizonans are choosing to go solar but we need to start seeing solar in the Northeast or the Northwest to know that we have turned a corner.

I like the upbeat tone of your article and hope that we can find evidence of greater market acceptance outside of the southwest. I hope you will do a follow-up and an analysis of the Obama administrations successes in advancing solar power.

[John Lonergan]

08:10 AM on 11/19/2011

Obama already knows about the revolutionary technologies developed at Stanford and MIT (Angela Belcher, same news source). The challenge will be to get the rights back from Exxon who recently took control of this new technology.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4086352/Video-just-add-CNT-ink-to-make-paper-battery

[Michael D Ballantine]

08:47 AM on 11/19/2011

pretty cool stuff. I think if companies don't commercialize a product in 5 years, the patent should be returned to the public domain.

[Duane Knickerbocker]

03:27 PM on 11/17/2011

At Brower Energy Solutions in Rocklin, Ca we have met with both sides of the political aisle and have had great interest. From the office of Congressperson Doris Matsui to Congressman Lungren to State and local representatives we have had compelling conversations about how Green, Solar and Renewable Energy can benefit both their constituents and the environment long term. We never expect 100% on any topic as that is a recipe for failure anywhere. The end result we have found is how will this help long term.

[Robert Emery]

04:45 PM on 11/16/2011

I have found people do not have any problem supporting legitimate causes, but the more that is disclosed about solar and wind the more individuals that oppose it. According to the US Energy Information Agency solar costs over three times what utility customer pay for electricity. How is paying more for electricity be a benefit. Sure the industry grew 10 times faster than the economy, which industry wouldn't with all the massive subsidies. Solar and wind produce electricity. Oil is a transportation fuel and less than 1% to generate electricity, any comparison with the Keystone oil pipeline is invalid. A few solar and wind facilities will not prevent climate change. A sincere effort to prevent Climate Change requires a comprehensive plan with well defined goals and this does not exist at the local, state or national level.

[arista milan]

03:12 PM on 12/15/2011

You are only addressing two forms of energy! There are many other alternatives and they are renewable you are only thinking of it in the short run (money wise), however in the long run this is just what we need to increase our PPF and foster a better economy.Hence the word renewable (naturally) not having to repair it every time it goes out because it is man-made.So yes the costs of production might be more upfront in short run but in the long run it is going to be a lot less money spent on upkeep and repair. Also electricity is a transportation fuel---hence the electric cars that oil companies despise. That can get you more mileage and faster speeds than oil ever could. The cost of upkeep is significantly less and they last longer. It would reduce our reliance for foreign oil and can be a leading industry that would boost our economy. Sure jobs could get displaced by switching over from oil, but other opportunities would open up with new industry. Right now it is all about Americans increasing their human capital and really wanting a change. Once that is in place and a different mind set is established amongst Americans that we have a responsibility not only to our environment but our economy, then can we adapt forms of solar, wind, and water energy.