In his thoughtful and provocative, October 28, 2010 Rolling Stone article, The Case for Obama, Tim Dickinson argues that Obama is our first "green" president. While acknowledging his failure to obtain a comprehensive climate bill, Dickinson praises Obama for launching the equivalent of a "clean-energy moonshot" via targeting $94 billion of stimulus money for clean energy development, enough to "double the nation's renewable-energy generating capacity by 2012 - bringing enough clean energy online to power New York around the clock...." while doubling "... the nation's manufacturing capacity for wind turbines and solar panels, bringing down the cost of clean energy so it can compete with fossil fuels - even if Congress doesn't pass a carbon cap." Dickinson goes on to laud the president for various steps to aggressively reduce pollution, including getting old cars off the roads through the Cash for Clunkers program, increasing CO2 restrictions on new vehicles, and (most likely) having the EPA "...set limits on carbon emissions for large industrial polluters..."
This is all well and good, but far more is needed. The "moonshot" analogy is fine for raising eyebrows, but the stakes far higher when dealing with climate change than they ever were for the space race. This is not just a matter of bolstering U.S. prestige, gaining further military advantage and generating future economic spin-offs; this is about the future of an energy devouring planet.
The Obama administration's current efforts have to be squared against the arguments laid out by James Fallows in this December 2010 The Atlantic article, Dirty Coal, Clean Future, in which Fallows presents indisputable evidence for the world's (and especially China's and the United States') reliance on coal for decades yet to come. So, what's a nation to do, especially given the projected poor results for power plant scrubbing techniques that will never really yield clean coal? The most promising possibility presented by Fallows, one where the Chinese are once again far ahead of Americans, is underground gasification of coal. Of course there will be problems with perfecting this technology, but the prospect of tapping the nation's massive coal reserves, while leaving the worst of the pollutants below the surface is compelling and deserving of far more federal investment.
And where can the funds be found? It is ridiculous to pursue the reductions in social programs that the incoming congressional Republicans are touting. Too many people - young, old and in-between - are desperately hurting due to the weak economy. The most logical source of funding is our bloated military budget. Once again, I suggest that you visit the National Priorities Project website to explore the facts regarding the federal budget. In particular view their Cost of War calculator and their Tradeoffs tool in order to get a stronger notion of the possibilities.
(Note: Clicking on the items appearing in blue will link you to the mentioned sites.)
No comments:
Post a Comment