register |  login
› EVERGREEN
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES

Renewable energy "mandates"

Contributed by: David Cottrell on 6/15/2007

Opening note: Throughout this article you will see quotes around certain statements. These are general statements I have heard said or seen written, but I am not directly quoting any individual or article.

Ok, I would like to start by saying that I really gave up divisive political discourse a long time ago. However, this topic needs to be addressed, and I am going to say some things that will most certainly offend some people.

First, a question for you. Do you think for yourself? That is really what this article is about. When I hear all the party line rhetoric around the topic of renewable energy it becomes painfully apparent that most people don't. In fact, I assert that the majority of our opinions and beliefs are some co-opted version of what we have heard one of our "leaders" tossing about as a sound bite. How do I know this? Because when I really take an honest look, I have done the same thing.

So, I am putting that aside as best I can to have a conversation, although one sided, about renewable energy. The first point I would like to touch on is the term "mandate."

It is one of the favorite terms for those in the conservative camp. "We should not mandate what people have to support. By mandating what the power companies have to do, the poorer folks will be subsidizing the rich with their new fangled . . . solar systems" . . . ad nauseum.

For those conservatives I would ask, "Isn't banning abortion a mandate?" Yes, I used the "A" word, but stay with me.

Still others would say, "Yes, but it is morally imperative to protect life."

I won't disagree that we need to protect life. So, why are we not hearing the same words of morality around protecting this rock we live on? If we don't, we won't need to worry about abortion.

The liberal side of the house is not immune from this sort of thinking either.

Let's take gun control for an example.

Holy cow! Gun control and abortion in the same article.

Seriously, does anyone really think that disarming law-abiding citizens is going to make a difference? And rest assured, the outlaws aren't going to show up to turn in their guns just because someone "mandates" it.

How about enforcing the laws already on the books? Yeah, but that doesn't make for good political sound bites. Let's divide the electorate instead.

Some of our "leaders" are saying things like, "Well, if China isn't going to curtail emissions, it won't make any difference what we do..."

That type of response is irresponsible at best. What kind of leadership does this demonstrate to our citizens and the rest of the world? "If they're not gonna do it, why should we have to?" It's the "I'm taking my ball and going home" kind of leadership.

By the way, these same leaders are using some really ancient data trying to convince everyone that renewables just don't measure up economically.

Anyone can look at recent data and see that those arguments are a bunch of . . . well, they just don't hold water.

But, they are guessing that you won't take the time to research their statements. They are betting that you will follow your party affiliations and buy the swill they are selling. And, for the most part they are correct.

That's why this country is split down the middle with elections being decided by the 2 percentof the population that thinks for themselves.

Be self determined and take a look at the reality of what we face today with global warming.

Almost no one is denying that it is taking place. Even the most staunch deniers are back-pedaling.

But even without that argument, isn't National Security tied to energy?

You bet it is, and building a new coal plant in every vacant lot is not the answer.

The cost of wind today is on par with coal in many cases and that rate can be locked in for the next 15 years.

I challenge anyone to do that with coal. "Yeah, but there is no transmission infrastructure..." further nauseum.

If you think we can build all these coal plants without building new transmission, I'd like to offer you a nice piece of swamp land in a southern state.

Let's do away with the party-line agendas on this topic and really take a hard look at what's at stake and what the realities are. You may be surprised to find that sustainable, clean energy is actually economically viable. But don't take my word for it. Think for yourself!

David Cottrell lives off the grid in Deer Creek Canyon.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
Submitted By: Jeff Zepp
posted on 6/20/2007 @ 7:25:55 PM
(Not Rated)
(Part Five of Comment) In the coming decades, it is highly likely that fossil fuels will only become more and more expensive, due to a limited supply and increasing demand. As wise citizens, we should expend our capital to invest in renewable energy on an individual basis, for economic reasons. And like you, I look forward to "living off the grid", more to be independent than to "save the planet". Right now, solar thermal is around a 5-7 year ROI, and solar PV is around 20-25 years, with rebates and tax credits. The numbers become more favorable as the cost of utility-supplied energy becomes more expensive. Jeff Zepp Kittredge CO, USA
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Jeff Zepp
posted on 6/20/2007 @ 7:25:36 PM
(Not Rated)
(Part Four of Comment) Those who subscribe to the anthropogenic global warming religion miss the point entirely: Sustainable, renewable energy simply makes sense. We are already running out of oil. Later, we will run out of geologic methane and some time after that, coal. We are clearly using these materials faster than they are generated geologically. Regardless of how much CO2 is generated by oxidizing them for energy production, they are (relatively) finite resources, and should be conserved for more efficient uses, such as synthetic materials.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Jeff Zepp
posted on 6/20/2007 @ 7:25:13 PM
(Not Rated)
(Part Three of Comment) Back to the topic at hand: Mandates and alternative energy. For those of us who think for ourselves, I believe that in public policy (mandates) are usually a bad idea. Not only do they often result in unintended negative consequences, they are often based on ill-founded assumptions, in this case, anthropogenic global warming based on faulty science. But, here's where I agree with you: do away with mandates and let the free market do it's work. Alternative energy is economically viable without mandates.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Jeff Zepp
posted on 6/20/2007 @ 7:24:45 PM
(Not Rated)
(part Two of Comment) There is considerable evidence that the ice core samples that were cited by Al Gore's movie demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 lags global temperature by several hundred years, rather than the other way around. As any chemistry 101 student can attest, water can adsorb higher concentrations of gases when cooler than when warmer. Given the thermal mass of the oceans, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or climatologist) to understand that mean ocean temperatures lag mean atmospheric temperatures by hundreds of years.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Jeff Zepp
posted on 6/20/2007 @ 7:23:56 PM
(Not Rated)
(Part one of Comment) First of all, congratulations for living off the grid! Second, I do think for myself. Third, I don't buy in to the anthropogenic global warming religion any more than I bought into the anthropogenic global ice-age hysteria the so-called "consensus" of scientists fed us in the 1970s. Yes, I was there, and remember reading the news articles predicting glaciers invading Washington DC. The earth has been in a constant state of climate change for four billion years, and will continue to change without any influence from our insignificant species. We are currently in an interglacial period of an ice age. Normally, in interglacial periods, the climate warms over several thousand or tens of thousands of years, then cools again when the interglacial period is over.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

David Cottrell

Littleton , CO

David Cottrell has posted 9 stories and 0 comments since joining on 3/9/2007. David Cottrell 's average story rating is 5.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos