The energy industry is not investing in any significant way in renewables. Instead, it is pouring its historic profits into new fossil-fuel projects, mainly involving the exploitation of what are called "unconventional" oil and gas reserves.
As an organization of young people, we're pretty protective of the state of Colorado. Obsessive, even -- just like most Coloradans. And we'd like to live here for, well, ever. So we're willing to work to make sure that stays true.
Why can't most business executives, economists, politicians and journalists see the big picture? Why is "environment" hardly ever in their vocabulary, much less a priority? A good example of the cluelessness displayed by our so-called leading thinkers can be found in the August 12 issue of Time.
Cleantech deniers -- you know, the "small government" guys who get paid by the fossil fuel lobby -- don't like to talk about the reality of the massive amount of taxpayer-funded welfare flowing into the fossil fuel industry's overflowing coffers.
America has a choice to make. We can stand by and watch energy companies industrialize our beloved landscapes. Or we can create smart safeguards that hold companies accountable for pollution and put sensitive places off limits.
Existing government energy and emissions policies are often based on misconceptions that lead to ineffective or even counterproductive outcomes. The contradictions in policy belie the poverty of analysis and overabundance of ideology that have gone into crafting them.
The days of the Commodity Exchanges functioning as casinos should be brought to a cataclysmic halt by forceful government action serving the interests of the public's well-being and sane economic policy.
Inglis's point of view about getting rid of all energy subsidies has hit a supportive chord with many. Yet others in the Republican Party consistently continue to define climate change as an elitist hoax, junk science with a lack of evidence, or part of God's plan.