|
Resources >
New Course on Energy Needed, Apollo Nation Says |
July 8, 2008
Apollo Feedback:
New Course on Energy Needed, Apollo Nation Says
Maryland already taking action
Like Oxygen
We need a clean energy policy like we need oxygen. Imagine the pain of turning blue or losing brain cells after four minutes without it. Collectively, we have not paid attention. We fell asleep to our need. The positive news of rising gas prices is that we have been mustered out of our slumber because those brain cells are dying, our muscles are cramping. All we ever needed to do was unleash what we do best -- innovation.
A new revolution is underway. It is a declaration of independence from fossil fuels. It may take years to win, but we are fighting for the right to move and breathe. It's worth it. The enemy is not oil companies, and it is not the federal government or any political party. The enemy is our perception that oil and coal are preferred energy resources over renewable alternatives. The enemy is our perception that there is nothing we can do, that sun, wind, geothermal and smart grid applications are too expensive to engage. It will be tempting to go back to sleep until somebody else in a different time zone solves the problem of cost for us. This is the part where we imagine turning blue again. We need to associate pain with doing nothing.
Many are already taking action. Maryland just passed legislation to create a Clean Energy Center, which will do just that -- clean and renewable energy business incubation. Baltimore is one of many, which now has a sustainability commission focused on clean and renewable energy, air, water, waste management, build environment and agricultural resources. We are already witnessing capacity for high-level collaboration. Regions are working together to advance green environment and energy conservation, as with the Northeastern States Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and with the Maryland Clean Energy Center champions working with the California Center for Sustainable Development. We know what we need. It may not be as easy as breathing, but without it I won't have much to promise my children.
Jill A. T. Sorensen
Executive Director
Baltimore Electric Vehicle Initiative
Real Place
You spoke from a real place. If we had started working on the solutions to this before it became a problem, back in the 70s when it was already clear where the use of oil was heading us, we would not be having this discussion today. I feel somewhat bitter and frustrated with being used by self-interest groups such as those who run our country. This planet is a beautifully constructed, self-sustainable entity whose resources, when managed properly, would be completely renewable. Frankly, it just makes me sick to think of how we have been so distracted by the publicity generated to sway us by fear into wasting these precious gifts of life.
To me there is no more discussion on what to do. That should have ended as soon as we realized that using fossil fuels was harming our environment. I am for a complete ban on further drilling. If all the money that continues to go into supporting our criminal activities in Iraq in an unconscionable war that was unnecessary at best were put towards developing renewable energy resources, we would still have money left over to pay for adequate health care for our whole country.
I am saddened to think that Obama shares such similar views regarding energy as McCain. If it is not too late, we must put pressure on Obama to pledge to end this futile war and to dedicate a realistic amount of funding toward renewable clean energy sources.
Cindy Prince
Portland, Oregon
Tying Hands, Drill Now
The US Congress has tied the hands of the oil companies for years. I believe we should drill now because another 10 years will go by and China, Spain and other countries, already getting ready to slant drill into our oil, will have the oil in our area already. It is not the only thing to do, but it will help. All the other things you list are equally important. I wish the US Congress would reduce the regulations, taxes, and all the other rules they've put in the way of the US oil companies. They don't mention the larger percentages of taxes on the federal and state levels, when they are talking about the huge profits the oil companies are making.
Vicki Williams
McCain Needs To Do More
If McCain was really interested in doing something about gasoline he would raise the minimum mileage rate of all vehicles. With today’s technology cars should be attaining 40-60 mph instead of 20-30. Cars in the 70's and 80's were already getting this type of mileage. We are so far ahead of that technology it staggers the intellect. But why does Detroit keep producing heavier vehicles with more muscle than a race car when they should have been concentrating on efficiency? Another avenue is the differing types of fuel. Why do we want to continue digging for oil in the most remote places when we have the technology to grow our fuel either in the field or the laboratory? These are the real issues that we should be facing. Not digging up more habitat and endangering more species.
Scott Paffenroth
Not A Concern
Don't worry about it. We will have a progressive veto-proof Congress. But I will not vote for Obama-- NAFTA, a lousy health care plan, his treatment of Hillary and his own racism in reverse.
Arlene Devlin
Vicki Williams
Editors Note
Several writers remarked about our non-partisan views, and non-profit restriction with regard to supporting either presidential candidate. By law we are prohibited from doing so. By inclination, the Apollo Alliance seeks to recruit supporters from across the spectrum. Our principles and values lie firmly in the idea that a clean energy economy is unfolding in the United States, and that the government has a responsibility to work with private business to scale it up to yield millions of family supporting green-collar jobs and widely shared prosperity.
Immediate Action
C'mon, it's time to take sides. At least to the degree that we fully support a program to immediately fund alternative fuels research. Algae-based and other more risky approaches should be funded with tight schedules to eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil. The impact of not doing this is just starting and is relatively small compared to where we are heading if we don't respond with the utmost urgency immediately. Let's go to the moon now!
Bob Marett
C’mon
Oh for cryin’ out loud! When even McCain is touting his solutions as not effective except as a psychological panacea, you, as experts, call him on it? That’s disgraceful. Just deciding that it’s politically viable to mention the obvious (that gas prices are too high) is meaningless. Gas prices are, at least in part , too high because of the war and the absurd deficits run up by the people that McCain proposes to emulate. Oil and gas prices don’t rise this way in a vacuum. It’s not gas prices that can be solved by either of these guys. It’s dependence on oil. Drilling for oil off shore, in ANWR or anywhere solves nothing and just continues the myth that something can be done to solve this on the supply side of the oil equation. Do your job for crying out loud. Tell people that they’re being conned.
Rob Kellman
San Ramon, California
Not Political
By trying to appear not political you are actually being political. When one candidate is willing to invest a large amount of money in an energy policy that involves primarily alternatives and the other talks about gimmicks involving oil, how can you say there is little difference? Take a stand.
Clarence Robbins
No Neutral Territory
I understand your desire to remain neutral with respect to the two candidates, but I see them is substantially different with respect to investment in renewable energy. Despite his campaign trail rhetoric, McCain's voting record in congress has been quite tough on renewable energy tax credits and vehicular emissions regulations. He has, in contrast, been quite generous in his votes to supply tax benefits to oil companies and in support of continued oil exploration. This is not uncommon for a Republican.
Obama, on the other hand, has not changed his story much on the campaign trail. He has always been a supporter of renewable energy as an industry and more skeptical than McCain toward the interests of large oil companies, which are certainly well served by the current prices of oil and gas, and have not been active in the switch to renewable energy programs.
I wish McCain was more like Obama on these issues, but in reality I see a stark difference between these two candidates with regard to our renewable energy future.
Torah Oglander
Press Release
Your latest update reads like a McCain press release. You wax lyrical about McCain's talking points for most of three paragraphs before even mentioning his opponent, and then only in a negative light. Obama is mentioned in your "neutral" article four times; McCain, clearly the subject of this "neutral" release, is mentioned eight. All your mentions of Obama are framed from McCain's point of view. You either need to look more closely at McCain's record, or you need to refrain from talking about this election at all. If you think McCain will deliver on these "new ideas" he's currently touting, you haven't been paying attention to how many times he's voted with Bush and Big Oil for the last 7-plus years at least. From what he's said and done up to this election, there's every reason to believe that a McCain administration will continue to promote the Bush administration's energy policies. Time to leave such dinosaurs in the past and move onto the future. By sending out this McCain-slanted release, you've damaged my belief in the neutrality and credibility of your project. Shame on you. Stick to your issues. Stay away from the politicians.
Stephen D. Sullivan
Where Oil Goes
It is people and organizations like you that continue to pump out false information in order to confuse the public on the real issue that is facing America and the energy crisis. Number one as anyone knows, it will take ten years before we realize any production from new oil sources. Number two, any oil that is produced even on American soil does not go to the US. It is factored into the total world oil supply that is available to everyone.
Randy Tuomisto
Neutral
While I can appreciate Apollo's need to remain neutral politically, you do a disservice by seeming to suggest that McCain (no plain speaker; he's a flip-flopper with the best of 'em) stands for truly sustainable energy strategies. He is a dangerous though soft-spoken demagogue whose pronouncements cannot be trusted. Why not expand that teachable moment? The war in Iraq is driving oil prices through the roof by fostering worldwide petroleum instability and causing the futures speculators to go wild. Meanwhile energy companies are reaping billions in profits while the working and middle classes suffer the consequences. Ecological awareness and green jobs demand taking a position on this horrendous war, which threatens all of us. On that, Apollo should not be neutral.
Tom Gogan
OPEIU Local 3 member
Take Sides
I think you may have to part ways with your 'we don't take sides," political philosophy. McCain will always be the big oil candidate and would be a big oil president. His funding is from that source and he will not move away from oil as the principal resource of energy. Obama is at least open to developing more green strategies to help the energy crisis. On this issue, I don't see how one could believe McCain or stay neutral on his candidacy.
Joseph R. Dell'Aquila, PhD
Indianapolis
No Endorsement
I sense an endorsement of Senator McCain in your message. It would be totally tragic if the American people elected him and I'm surprised by the positive tone of your message regarding his proposed policies. We need a dramatic change of direction and McCain will do nothing but pander to special interests. Please openly endorse Obama as the better energy candidate instead of equating the two of them.
Bill Pfeiffer
Fossil Fuel
McCain is part of the Bush "oilgopoly." I support Obama who seeks alternatives to "old" fossil fuels. McCain is an old fossil and we need Obama who thinks beyond old ideas and cares about ending the destruction of the ozone layer. Global warming is reality and the future of all creatures, including human beings, is bleak if we don't stop thinking about profits for oil companies and transnational corporations who are destroying the environment.
Timothy T. Alstrum
East Hartford, Connecticut
Can’t Afford New Car
I drive a 1989 Plymouth Voyager that gets an abysmal 17 miles to the gallon. I drive this car only once or twice a week, especially now that petrol is priced beyond my budget, and that is the crux of the matter, my budget. I can't afford a new car. Every new concept for energy efficient vehicles involves a new car. Usually these new vehicles are priced to fit the dreams of the wealthy, and most Americans are not so wealthy. Most of us are simply trying to get by with debt piling higher and higher against inflationary excess.
My household does with less and less and less, just to keep from mounting debt. I walk to work and back home almost every day, and for all the health benefits of that, it expends time and energy that would be put elsewhere, cleaning and making repairs on my house, and doing other chores. Nevertheless, I find myself walking a lot. For the times that I do drive, I would take public transportation, except that it's extraordinarily prohibitive to carry two weeks of groceries home on the bus, and the bus takes additional time that, again, I can ill afford.
You see, this is the American dilemma. Our generation didn't design our society in the manner in which it has evolved, and our dependency upon the automobile isn't simply a convenience that we can ignore. My little mini van serves a vital function for our household.
My dream would be to have a hybrid, flexible fuel mini van that runs on hydrogen that I produce myself. I have an understanding of the science, and have the potential to make this happen except for the former problem: I'm not wealthy enough to afford such sophisticated technology.
This is more or less a notice to two groups. That group arrogant enough to criticize my complaint out of some misguided ideal that Americans should give up their cars altogether, need to realize that that isn't going to happen. The second group is those researchers who are developing alternatively powered vehicles need to realize that most of us simply can't afford to buy a new car. I want to be a part of the greening of our only planet, doing what I can to conserve our water usage and electricity, avoiding over packaged goods, recycling about 90 percent of what we use, and accepting that we live in a 1920s house sans air conditioning, and deciding that even if we could afford it, we'd likely not install it when opening the window is serving for the time being. So, here is my proposal:
I would love to see an inexpensive retrofit that I can install in my poor decrepit mini van that would allow its little four cylinder non-flexible fuel engine to use hydrogen instead of petrol, and that this retrofit kit come with the (again inexpensive) machinery to produce hydrogen in my home for use in my mini van. A week’s production should allow me to drive my mini van on that one day every one or two weeks when I need to run errands and get groceries, and I will happily walk the rest of the time.
Cheryl J. Mason-Middleton
OSU
Pinched
OK, first of all, sure everyone is feeling the pinch from increased gasoline. I know I do because I'm working out of state and driving 370 miles each way to come home on my weekends. It's killing me. But having said that, the problem is much, much bigger than getting cheaper gasoline. It’s about environmental responsibility, guarding the precious resource that provides us with so many things. Really, petroleum is too valuable to simply burn up and pollute our environment. So tearing up our wilderness, taking chances with spills and whatever risks come with drilling deeper for oil isn't a commitment to a cleaner energy independent goal. It’s just scrambling to perpetuate the same nonsense that got us into the mess we're in.
So, your mission statement of "Clean Energy, Good Jobs, Freedom from Foreign Oil" sounds real cool, but what it sounds like what your saying is, "Drill Deeper USA, Let's Keep Doing the Same Old Thing"! Come on, let's find the alternative, non-polluting, renewable, energy source that will truly free us and the world from needing oil for fuel I mean heck, I was a teenager in the 60's, drove a muscle car and have burned my share of dinosaurs over the years. But it's really time to move up to the next level, not keep doing the same own thing, just deeper in our back yard. Like they say, if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got!
Dennis Baker
PBS
Don't know if you caught last night's News Hour on PBS. They did an extraordinary hour completely on energy issues. A really stellar broadcast, even though they begin (as they do every broadcast) with the thoroughly disgusting sponsorship ad by Chevron saying how thoughtful and green they are when they drill for oiil and gas.
There was a story on electric vehicles that covered, among other things, the killing off by GM and Honda of their potentially mass-produced electric cars [old news], and a brief report on Tesla, the electric sports car company. By the end f the story, for the first time I saw that we were finally on the way to a clean energy future for vehicles. The will is finally there and the battery technology is almost too.
The real solution for Americans and the world at large is to stop being held ransom by gas and oil corporations. We must end the focus on fuels that must be produced by global corporations that will, as they have done since the beginning of civilization, hold the population captive by monopolizing energy sources. It's very clear (at least to me and its been a long time coming) that electric power for vehicles is the way to go, not ethanol, not hydrogen, but battery-powered electric cars recharged by at-home plug-in technology. A key thing here is allowing for completely off the grid recharging through solar and wind-powered energy produced by the individual homeowner or business. It's already been discussed how this is a win-win for consumer and grid energy producer, where the homeowner or business can be paid or discounted by sending surplus energy generated back out to the grid.
Think about this picture. We tell Exxon, BP to get out of Dodge because we, the people, now produce and manage our own energy sources and are creating a new and powerful economy in which their insatiable need for money and power has no place. Sure, go to India, China, wherever. But the point is, we don't need you anymore. We have progressed, we have evolved to our necessary and rightful position as responsible stewards of the planet and her populations (both human and otherwise).
The Apollo Alliance is just so great. You are on track. Keep up the excellent work. I hope that both candidates (really, McCain is just a crony, so I have no faith there and Obama may be trying too hard to please everybody) can get on board with your plans. I will state, however, that nuclear power should not be on the table. If we are able to develop a technology in which the nuclear waste can be 100 percent neutralized, then and only then you can call it a "clean" technology with caveats. I understand the support for nuclear power is an immediate part of the energy solution and seen as a necessary evil. That is old thinking and deluded. Anyone who had the guts to listen to their own conscience and inherent intelligence cannot help but realize the truth about nuclear power.
Jerrell Lambert
No Offshore Exploration
I live in Massachusetts. I am an environmental activist, chair of two environment committees in two separate organizations. One of these networks locally, at the state level, and nationally. I am a retired social worker. So I come from a background of caring for both people and the environment.
Given that drilling offshore won't yield oil for at least ten years why not invest in other procedures? We know them all. That will result in decided changes in ten years' time. As for the psychological "gain." Who would this gain be for? Certainly not for me. Why? Because the seismic blasts would damage whales' ears. And there would be damage to other marine life. I live about five miles from the ocean and not many more from where this horrific and totally unrewarding activity would take place. In addition this state lies in the path of the Atlantic right whale, of whom there are about 350 left. For the past several years there has been a tremendous effort to save this species both by private and government entities. What might happen to this endeavor?
In addition Stellwagen Bank not many miles from here is a national marine sanctuary. What would happen to it? In addition, the fishing industry in this region has been having lots of problems, connected with the threat of depletion of certain types of fish stocks. Again, there has been a tremendous effort to help these both the beleaguered fishermen and the stock of fish. What would happen to this endeavor?
By the way: I am not alone. My environmental activism includes not only the work as chair of two environmental committees but also activism in national environmental organizations as well. There are millions of us.
Maeve Ward
Too Easy
I read with interest your comments about McCain and Obama's stances on energy costs and what to do about making energy sustainable, clean and affordable. In my view, your article was far too easy on McCain's "psychological benefits" non-strategy for solving the current energy crisis. Here is a politician who does know the issue's importance, but who resorts to nothing but outright exploitation of it. Any politician, including Bush if he were running, would say nice things about energy to win support. The absolute bottom line is this: McCain's policy proposals do exactly nothing to move us forward in any significant way; meanwhile, he will steal votes by getting people to think he is offering a real solution. The oil and gas companies are salivating over the prospect that the public will buy it--"buy it" and pay for it in more ways than one.
Mark Spring
Carboro, North Carolina
No Relief
John McCain's attempts to exploit American's fears of rising gas prices by his proposal to open the continental shelf to offshore drilling is just taking the Bush Administration's repeated attempts to expand drilling in the Arctic nature preserve to a new location. We're still talking limited output and limited relief at the pump at some point in the future, at the cost of damaging an already fragile eco-system.
Expanding green energy production will see quicker returns, more output, more jobs, and a bigger boost to the economy than all the proposed new oil drilling, and will be a boon to the environment rather than a threat to it. American energy policy needs to leave behind its looter mentality in favor of something that actually benefits somebody besides the oil companies.
Melissa Simmons
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dead End
New drilling for oil is not the answer. Capitalism will supply the answer. The higher the price of gas the faster a solution will be found. The continued dependency on oil leads us down the same old dead end road with the same old dead end results: Bankruptcy and global warming. Oil puts our hard earned money into the coffers of dangerous foreign governments. Oil is a technology that has run its course and is no longer viable. It is time for a real change. There's something electric in the air!
J H Barnard
Los Angeles
Bring It On
The higher the cost of gas the faster a real solution will be found. New drilling for oil is going down the same old road that leads only to dependency and bankruptcy. It is time for real change.
J H Barnard
Congress Not
Our congressman and senators have sat back and done nothing to provide us with alternative energy sources. I don't believe that either Democrats or Republicans will do anything that will benefit the people. Our politicians have sat back and allowed foreign oil interests to raise oil rates sucking the life out of American businesses and the American people in general. ARCO found an oil find that would have wiped out the American debt in five years and the federal government ordered it capped. ARCO found natural gas that would have lasted America for the next 200 years and was ordered by the Federal government to pump it back into the ground. I think the goals of Appollo Aliance are admirable. But the government and its politicians, Democrat and Republican, conspire not to allow the goals to be realized.
Ken Sherman
Phoenix
Missed
Your solutions completely miss the one that saves the most energy now and in the future and is inescapable in the end: The change to the pattern of community. Instead of trying to find ways of wasting more of a precious resource, the community and lifestyle has to shift radically, rapidly, and now. Otherwise you only try to delay the inevitable.
Richard Balfour
Co-author; “Strategic Sustainable Planning: A Civil Defense Manual for Cultural Survival”
No To Drilling
I'm a supporter of clean energy and job creation, but outer continental shelf drilling as proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush will not create clean energy, nor sustainable jobs. Moreover, such a proposal will harm the environment. Such a proposal deserves swift, strong and clear disapproval by the Apollo Alliance, not the mixed message e-mail sent out below.
Tony DeFalco
Portland, Oregon
Change Course
The US needs to substantially change course by beginning with the following:
1) Eliminate all direct and indirect subsidies for “fossil fuels” and atomic fission ($50+ billion per year).
2) Reduce DARPA and other defense research by 50% and increase by several factors research for sustainable energy (including efficiency).
3) Extend renewable energy production tax credits with gradual phase-out over time.
Jim Newberry
SolarWrights
.
|
