Rigid Approach, Flip Flops Keep US From Being A Renewable Energy Leader

Rigid approach, lack of will to act swiftly & decisively and inability to stand firm by their decisions – these are the problems that plague the presidential candidates and the US Congress and for which the whole nation is suffering. Their talks of energy independence are limited to independence from imported oil no one seems interested to get rid of the fossil fuels which are the real culprits for rising global temperatures and fluctuating weather patterns.

The candidates and the elected members of the Congress seem so ignorant while formulating energy policies. While supporting offshore oil drilling they easily brush off of the harsh lessons learned from some of the oil spills that the nation had to deal with, while pitching for more nuclear reactors and storage facilities they overlook even the recent nuclear mishaps and even after publicly stating that renewables are the future,

Solving our national energy crisis requires an ‘all of the above’ approach. That will require aggressive development of alternative energies like wind, solar, tidal, and biofuels. It also requires expanding traditional sources of energy like off-shore drilling, clean coal, and nuclear power, said McCain.

they refuse to provide subsidies to the consumers wanting to install renewable energy equipments.

I’m not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the ’70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time.

Fight Against Climate Change: US Outdone By Its Own

Falling way behind Europe in moving away from fossil fuels & towards renewable energy, United States is now being lapped down by its own. States like California and New Mexico are busy formulating policies which would ultimately help them generate a good portion of their energy needs from clean, renewable energy sources. But the Bush administration seems interested not only in mindless pursuit of oil-based energy generation but also pushing these initiatives down even before they are implemented.

While suspending solar power plants throughout America, the Bureau of Land Management argued that such plants may adversely affect the vast desert stretches where a majority of such plants are concentrated. The two year moratorium on solar projects on public land comes at a time when both President Bush & Republican Presidential nominee John McCain argue for lifting ban on offshore oil drilling. If solar power projects can have a decremental affect on the deserts lands wouldn’t the proposed offshore oil drilling pose threat to the already ‘on the edge’ marine life around the American coastlines. Who can forget the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the recent oil spill in the San Fransisco Bay.

US Administration Lacks The Will To Cut CO2 Emissions

One of the first thing Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did after winning elections was that he ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which his predecessor John Howard refused to do. Kyoto Protocol came into force in Australia on March 11. The Australian government has committed itself to a Renewable Energy Target and seeks to produce 20% of the total energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. The Department of Climate Change hopes to launch an emissions trading by 2010 which would further assist the government to reach its target.

US Administration seems to be moving in a completely opposite direction

Environmental Protection Agency recently ordered that 9 billion gallons of ethanol be blended with gasoline this year. Most of that will be ethanol made from corn; last year, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gallons of the stuff. This means that there will be more corn cultivation in states like Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin and a subsequent expansion of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

At a time when inflation is high and food prices have risen sharply the US government is finding it difficult to strike a balance between production of biofuel crops and cereal crops.

In addition, the Environment Protection Agency seems to have halted its efforts to protect the environment. Late last year EPA officials proposed regulations which would have achieved CO2 reductions faster than recently passed legislation requiring improvements in automobile fuel economy. The proposed plan never reached the Capitol Hill.

Curiously the officials have now stopped working on CO2 regulation of automobiles thus violating the directives of the Supreme Court. Also, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson recently refused green light to California’s plan to impose tougher emission limits on car manufacturers. The scientists advised Johnson that California’s plan was based on facts and was meritorious.

But Johnson blasted California’s plan saying the Bush Administration’s plan was enough to tackle the problem of vehicle emissions. Johnson overruled experts’ advise after automakers met Vice President Dick Cheney and a Chrysler executive told EPA in a letter why California shouldn’t be allowed to go ahead with its proposed plan.

This is the first time in 37-years of the Clean Air Act that California hasn’t been allowed to set its own air pollution policies. The plan would have achieved better results four years faster than than the federal bill.

Australia & US: Stark contrast in climate policies

Both Australia & US have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world and were ranked 54 and 55 respectively in this year’s Climate Change Performance Index. Yet what the new Australian government has done in its first 100 days could not be done by many US administrations. It is noteworthy that United States got a zero for climate policy in the CCPI.

Although many experts claim that the Labor party in Australia will now face major economic & political hurdles in its endeavor to meet the Kyoto targets still it is commendable that the government hasn’t back down, whereas many in the US administration are still busy listening to the automakers instead of the scientists.

America, A Hostage To The Greedy Corporate Giants?

Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money.

[Wikipedia]

Does that mean making profits at the expense of common people, at the expense of social well welfare?

These “legal persons” or corporations have no right to influence matters of social welfare & governance. But the big corporate in the US are doing exactly that. Why these privately owned companies should be allowed to ‘buy stakes’ in the government? Why should their money be allowed to influence the policies of the government? Is the government to be blamed since these businessmen only mean ‘business’? These businessmen have infiltrated the government to such a level that the national interest seems to be the last thing in their minds.

Why is it so that that only a few companies are allowed to bid for the reconstruction work in Iraq & Afghanistan? These companies have either contributed to the Democrats or the Republicans in the recent past – with some contributions amounting up to a million dollars. [Rebuilding Iraq -- The Contractors]

Isn’t it an ‘auction’ of the government policies? Doesn’t that mean that the government would listen to the one with the greatest wealth? Why should they the social welfare of the people be a hostage to the greedy intentions of these corporations?

Why was the decision to block California’s attempt to impose tough emission limits on car manufacturers taken even when the experts from the Environment Protection Agency were in favor of it? Why did EPA’s chief Stephen Johnson overrule his experts’ advice even though there was nothing wrong with proposal submitted by California?

EPA staff members told the Los Angeles Times that the agency’s head, the Bush appointee Stephen Johnson, ignored their conclusions and shut himself off from consultation in the month before the announcement. He then informed them of his decision and instructed them to provide the legal rationale for it, they said.

“California met every criteria … on the merits,” an anonymous member of the EPA staff told the Times. “The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years … We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts.”

The reason – car representatives met Vice President Dick Cheney to put forward their case as to why California shouldn’t be allowed to go ahead with it plan to tough emission limits. Cheney accused of blocking Californian bid to cut car fumes

The tragic death of seventeen year-old Nataline Sarkisyan is another example of common man being crushed under the greedy ambitions of these corporations. These industries only like to see their profits swelling, social welfare isn’t a priority to them. Then why are these companies being allowed to carry on with their businesses? Why these companies aren’t forced to be responsible to the common man, to the voter in addition to their stakeholders?

Capitalism was meant to create a free market, a system in which the power isn’t concentrated in the hands of a few. But today the real power to make, alter & manipulate government policies lies in the hand of a few wealthy people who put their materialistic aspirations ahead of the social wellbeing of the common man. The question here isn’t about the usefulness or success of Capitalism but about the effects it has on democracies when the wrong people are given the power to use it as a tool for their personal gains.