Over the last two weeks, I’ve been talking about the need to get conservative voices into the debate over energy and the environment (see part 1 here, and part 2 here). My views on these issues have generated quite a debate among our readers, and I’ve taken some heat over them, particularly when it comes to climate change. And that’s OK; I can handle it.
Today, I want to leave climate change aside, and talk about a second reason for wanting to reduce carbon emissions – in my mind, the most important reason – developing alternative energy sources. Like most Americans, I think that the time has come to make a serious effort towards decreasing this country’s dependence on fossil fuels. But in order to make realistic steps toward achieving this goal, we need to increase our investments in new energy technologies. And we don’t need to just play around with it—we need a focused, concerted effort to help bring cost-competitive wind and solar alternatives to the mass-market. I think a carbon cap would send a clear signal to American industries and investors that the country is serious about developing these technologies, and not just paying lip-service to the alternative energy crowd. President Bush can say “America is addicted to oil,” and get cheers. But this is meaningless rhetoric without action to back it up.
A crucial component to this is the expansion of nuclear energy. Nuclear is a clean, affordable energy source that is viable right now, and something that our country needs to make better use of. I think that one of the most immediate benefits of a carbon cap would be the approval of new nuclear power plants, and the increased use of nuclear energy. But does anyone think, for one second, that nuclear power will be expanded if Democrats control this debate? I sure don’t. And that’s another reason to make sure conservatives have a seat at the table on this issue.
The argument against this is that it will cost too much. And I don’t deny that there will be significant costs involved. But I think the old axiom that “you have to spend money to make money” applies here, and America can afford this investment. Over the long-term, I think it will pay huge dividends for our country, and the world at-large.
Next week, I’ll talk about a related issue, which is the importance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime, I’d like to hear our readers’ ideas on how a carbon cap might stimulate the development of new energy technologies.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Cap and Trade, Energy Debate Watch Articles, International Environmental News, Oil and Gas, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
There is one simple step that even Republicans can get behind: Electrify our freight railroads and shift most (at least 2/3rds) of the freight from trucks on socialized highways to free enterprise railroads. Trade 17 to 20 BTUs of diesel (see Iraq) for 1 BTU of electricity (see wind & nukes#) to help build a Non-Oil Transportation system, reduce carbon emissions and reduce US oil consumption by over 2 million b/day.
The other major step, which the current Administration is completely against##, is building Non-Oil Transportation for our cities and towns with Urban Rail. The French (with 1/5th the USA population) plan to build 1,500 km of new tram (Light Rail) lines in the next decade in French towns as small as 100,000 people. Adjust for population and workweek (they take the month of August off) and the USA would have to build 5,000 miles of Light Rail in 10 years to equal the French effort to create energy efficient Non-Oil Transportation.
GWB killed 18% federal funding for the DC Metro extension that would have saved 20,000 to 25,000 barrel/day of oil when built out. The Federal Gov’t paid 90% of the cost of Interstate Highways, not 18%. Recently they have “compromised” due to a firestorm of protest and the project will be delayed a minimum of 2 years, a small gift to our OPEC friends.
# A Department of Energy study showed that the skilled labor pool of the USA is so small that only 8 new nuclear power plants could be built in a decade. The apprentices trained during that decade could expand the number dramatically in the second decade (40 ? 50 ?). We need to build those 8 new nukes, but that will not be more than a small silver BB for the first decade. Wind and geothermal our best hopes for the medium term future.
## GWB spent almost $1 billion in unearmarked public transit funds on “Lexus Lanes’ instead of Non-Oil Transportation.
As for the comments on your previous section showed, the Republican Party is still home to the Global Warming Deniers.
A Republican from age 19 to age 51 when GWB cured me,
Alan
May 14th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Finally I can start to agree with you Whit. I am a big believer in reducing our dependence on oil. It is a disgrace that we have to be stripped searched and run around barefoot at the airport for fear that the people we buy our oil from will blow up the plane. Also, oil is not going to last forever. The best way for alternative energy to be developed is that it be cheaper than oil to use, and the government creates an environment where entrepreneurs can try their hand at developing solutions. I do not believe that conservation or carbon caps are the answer. They will reduce oil usage which depresses oil prices which makes oil the more attractive energy source. I would rather see a tariff on oil so the Arabs cant force the price down when they see alternative energy succeeding. Government subsidies or grants for alternative energy are bad. Look how the ethanol industry has been distorted and screwed up by the government. These subsidies just become corporate welfare for the companies with the best lobbyists, like ADM. Regulation is a huge killer. Ethanol is a good example. Regulation makes it too costly for the little guy to be involved. There are so many regulations on fuel standards, engine standards, plant building, power generation, etc., that only the big corporations can get into the business. Environmentalists love making more regulations and big corporations co-opt the process just as fast to protect their market share. If we cannot have regulatory reform and some semblance of market driven decision making on energy, all that will end up happening is to turn us into a third world country while Red China becomes the top world power.