Now on ScienceBlogs: Open Lab: Time is Ticking!

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Next Generation Energy

Featuring the next generation of energy ideas

« Make the rich pay (up front) | Main | Nuclear Power: It's Baaaaack »

(Wind) Power to the People!

Category: Next Generation
Posted on: July 29, 2008 3:02 PM, by Erin Johnson

In a speech to hundreds of political bloggers at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas on July 19, Al Gore was asked by an audience member whether, if offered, he would accept a position in the Obama administration. His reply was consistent with a stance he has taken before, ever since his exit from politics and reinvention as a climate activist: "The best use of talents and experience I have gained in my life is to expand the political space in which these members and politicians address the climate crisis." In other words, he thinks he can get more done outside of Washington, D.C.

Gore has taken much criticism for this decision and with good reason—it is hard to imagine that having more politicians with a clear agenda on the climate crisis would be a bad thing. If you ask me, Congress would ideally be staffed with Al Gore clones for the next few years, just to be on the safe side. But it is not an ideal world, and despite the obvious need for climate issues to rise above partisan politics and economic squabbles, Gore's vision would undoubtedly be obscured by such affairs. Unfortunately, as badly as policy needs to be reworked—particularly at the highest levels—I think Gore is right about this one; he is more powerful as a solo individual.


bike.jpg
Individual action has taken a bad rap recently with respect to preventing global warming. While at first it seemed urgent to spread the message—conserve water, buy green products, turn off your lights—there is now a popular sentiment that one person can do very little; if giant corporations are still spewing carbon dioxide into the air at appalling rates, what does it matter whether you walk or drive to work? Moreover, even those who do make a conscientious effort received mixed messages from various sources; a particularly notable example is the unresolved debate between local and globalized food production. "Greenwashing" also contributes to the confusion, with many consumers growing frustrated when they are swindled into buying so-called green products.


But individual action does make a difference, particularly when the individual in question has considerable influence like Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens, the BP Capital chairman who recently called for the replacement of foreign oil with wind and other technologies. Using capital from his own companies, Pickens has begun to build a $6 billion to $10 billion wind farm in his native Texas, which could replace a third of imported oil within the next decade without any legislation or governmental hang-ups. If only more billionaires could be so minded. But I think both Gore and Pickens demonstrate an important fact: government is not the only way to effect change. Small actions do add up, and more importantly, they spread. If we rationalize our own wasteful habits because of green backlash or because we don't see the results of our efforts, the political momentum we need will never come.

Comments

1

How does Boone's windfarm replace imported oil? It replaces coal and gas (but not so much as wind is a poor peak generator).

All that matters for the adoption of clean energy is price and then the market will do the rest. Once alts are cheaper than traditional sources (perhaps through some combination of positve or negative subsidies, carbon taxes, technological improvement and scaling up of manufacturing)

It probably is anathema to most here, but markets really do work in solving resource problems - much better than governments.

Posted by: bwv | July 29, 2008 5:31 PM

2

bwv, I'll grant you that markets are more effective at doing something efficiently and profitably. At the least (and I mean very least) government plays a huge role via regulation and incentives. As such, government should get off it's collective a$#. The private sector was very effective at putting in the freeways/highways but it wouldn't have happened without the government (as a consumer) demanding it.

Posted by: rmp | July 29, 2008 5:50 PM

3

You probably should make clear that T. Boone Pickens who you describe as "the BP chairman" has nothing to do with British Petroleum (BP) but is head of the Boone Pickens (BP) Capital Management company. He was at one time the primary owner of Mesa Petroleum.

Posted by: rwr | July 30, 2008 6:03 AM

4

rwr, you are right, noted and changed

Posted by: Erin | August 1, 2008 2:38 PM

5

bwv, you are essentially correct. Though putting a price on the externalized costs is very much a government role. You support a carbon-tax?

Another role for government is research (and development incentives if not outright funding for development). The market sucks at this, really. Just not far sighted enough and too risk adverse (unless they are valuing financial 'devices' apparently).

Finally, the government needs to coordinate (I'd go for own and control) the distribution grid. Those classical arguments for socialization of utilities actually have some fundamental truth to them. The current grid (and distribution system for fuel) are becoming bigger and bigger obstacles to more decentralized and diversified energy.

Posted by: travc | August 10, 2008 7:32 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM