[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAdKwrPHy9w]
Here’s 2GreenEnergy’s November webinar, in which noted environmentalist and energy expert Bruce Severance joined me for a lively discussion we called “How to Increase the Energy Efficiency of Existing Structures — and WHY.”
Reg Wessels of South Africa’s Earth Corporation writes about my piece on the uncertainties of investors in renewable energy:
I often watch this debate with dismay, and as a non-American (but hugely supportive), I can’t help being frustrated by the US having to dance with the enemy. Whatever the solution, the free world looks to America with hope and admiration. Was this not the country that had the courage to pool all its resources for common purpose when the smoke had cleared over Pearl Harbor? Is this not the country that leads the world in innovation and technological expertise? Is this not the country that has shown ‘nothing is impossible’?
Reg: What a good point you raise here. I too wonder where my country has gone wrong, and I have to think I’m not alone here. (more…)
Over the few years that I’ve been writing here at 2GreenEnergy.com, I’ve offered a number of suggestions that, if accepted, would create a more level playing field between renewables and fossil fuels. In my recent piece on investor uncertainties in renewable energy, I argued for legislation that would establish a floor on energy prices, thus enabling alternative energy investors protection from price manipulation from the traditional energy industry, designed specifically to put them out of business.
In response, these words from a reader: (more…)
My friend Jim Boyden just wrote me, and recommended this incredibly well-made and poignant film: HOME, which so artfully describes the fragility of our ecosystem, the delicate balance we need to maintain, and the tough choices facing mankind at this watershed period in our history. Hope you enjoy.
According to report on global trends in renewable energy published in 2011 by Bloomberg New Energy Finance based in London, the global investment in renewable energy in 2010 was $ 211 billion, a 540 % increase from renewable energy investment accomplished globally in 2004. (more…)
The Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor, whom I interviewed last week, writes in to offer a correction to my piece the other day on The Impetus for Renewable Energy that includes: “(Taylor) believes that the push for a migration from cheap and abundant fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy that can only come about with government support is driven by a Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-prosperity agenda.”
I said that many people in “my world” (that is, the right-of-center world, broadly defined) believe this. I didn’t say that I believed it. In fact, I do not (well, I’m sure it’s true for some, but I’m also sure it’s not true for others and I have no idea what the accurate percentage counts might be).
The point I was trying to make is (more…)
I always enjoy Jeff Siegel’s company. Senior analyst and writer for Green Chip Stocks, Jeff has an energetic exuberance (despite being the sleep-deprived father of 11-month-old twin boys) that I love to see in these challenging times. Over lunch at a wonderful Thai restaurant near his office in Baltimore, Jeff and I compared notes about the state and direction of the industry.
Though we’re both a bit irritated that the “radical right” has hijacked the energy/environmental debate, turning the populist anger of the people and focusing it squarely against the federal government, we both celebrate how far we’ve come, and look forward to a future where we can get back on track in our pursuit of sustainability.
In my quest to understand investors’ reluctance to assert themselves in the renewable energy space, a common theme continues to emerge: uncertainty. Where no one doubts that demand for oil and coal will continue for some time, and that the government subsidies that support them will remain a part of U.S. law, no similar confidence exists that the world will put a premium on clean (versus dirty) energy.
Quite the contrary. The investment and production tax credits that support wind and solar are as mercurial as women’s hem lines. These incentives may exist one year, only to be forceably removed the next. We have serious presidential candidates who proudly claim that, if elected, they will shut down the Department of Energy and dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, and many are openly opposed to the entire concept of clean energy – certainly if that requires even an iota of public support. (more…)
I’ve had so many fascinating discussions on this East Coast tour, it’s hard to know where to begin, and unfortunately, time does not permit me to get into any detail at this point.
Here’s another brief note about my talk with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute the other day. He believes that the push for a migration from cheap and abundant fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy that can only come about with government support is driven by a Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-prosperity agenda.
I grant that such people exist, but I believe that the vast majority of the force behind clean energy is coming from people like me: businessmen with a heart. I’ve been reasonably successful in business over the years, but I recognize my obligation to do the right thing, and leave behind me a high quality planet for future generations to enjoy. I know for a fact that I’m not alone here; I come across more and more like-minded people every day.
Sorry for the brevity, but I have to run. Literally.
I just interviewed Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute for my next book, Renewable Energy – Following the Money. This was a wonderfully engaging talk of about 90 minutes with a brilliant person, which I have time only to summarize here.
In one way, I can say that there were no real surprises. Jerry calmly explained that clean energy either becomes affordable, and capitalists invest, or it’s not, and it sits on the sidelines. And given the fact that Cato’s mission statement is the forwarding of Libertarianism, how can anyone be shocked by that position?
The interesting part, of course, whether you’re a Libertarian or a Communist, is understanding the damage that fossil fuels are doing, and using government protection of the people to step in and make a difference. Libertarians believe in minimal government, though they acknowledge its role in protecting individual’s rights. E.g., I have no more right to pollute the air over your house than I do to throw my garbage in your front yard.
So, with all this philosophic agreement in place, why is the Cato Institute so bearish on renewable energy? First, it’s about pinning down the damage. They seem to believe that the externalities of oil and coal are minimal, as compared to most of the reports I’ve read. Jerry says, for instance, that the recent report from the Harvard Medical School estimating the health and environmental damage of oil and coal at $700 billion annually was “a bad study.” Also, though he acknowledges that industrial activities are causing global climate change, he thinks that the effects of this will be minimal, and not felt until far in the future. In addition, he finds it even harder to know who is benefiting and who is suffering.
Really? Do we have to split hairs here? What’s the matter with looking at this and concluding the obvious, like the oil companies are the most profitable industry on Earth, and the other seven billion of us are suffering. Not so fast, says Jerry. The developing countries near the equator are likely to be hit hardest by global warming, but they have also benefited the most from industrialization.
I don’t know, Jerry. I enjoyed the conversation, but this sounds like sophistry to me.
