Mandate. "In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by an electorate to act as its representative." Thank you, Wikipedia.
A voter mandate could conceivably give our representatives the power to do anything. To get out of Iraq. To preemptively bomb and overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. To usher in health care reform. The pendulum could move to the left or right, toward action or inaction depending on the reps the people elect. This is not news.
Jimmy Carter acted to install a national energy policy for this country in 1977. He theorized that the United States would prosper both environmentally and economically from a robust set of energy programs. Was this too ambitious? Was Reagan's act to dismantle solar panels from the White House roof justified? I submit that this action was a key regression in the 20th century. It propelled the fossil fuels industry of natural gas and coal, sure. But has it lead to a sustainable energy future? Has it led to energy independence?
And so what is news? What is new news? Golly I sound like Donald Rumsfeld. What newspaper article can a forty-five year old man read to his parrot? What is something that the parrot will learn to repeat, tell his friends once he's escaped the balding man's cage? I'll tell you exactly what.
"The big thing in twenty years I'd like to see a lot more solar and a lot more on houses. If I could snap my fingers I'd say if you want to add a house to the power grid, it has to be net-use zero. So in other words it's generating enough energy to offset its growth." Montana Public Service Commissioner Ken Toole said that.
That to me is pure thought.
It's long-term.
It's clean.
It's well-stated.
Heard of the trickle down theory? Here's my own feeling about a trickle down. The U.S. foreign policy is a vacuum of energy-grabbing. Our lack of a sustainable energy policy trickles down and into our defense policies.
No one knew that better than Jimmy Carter. No one overlooked that more than Ronald Reagan. No one ignored history more than George W. Bush.
It's a simple dream that I share with Toole. Mandating decentralized energy development. It's a very real dream that would keep capitol in the pockets of people paying power bills. RIght now it's not fully realistic, because the investment needed for spray-on solar-power cells is too expensive for low-incomes.
Conservatives generate strong pull against government. They say it is inherently evil. We the people are inherently corrupt. Thus mandating anything at the federal, or even the state level, would not be efficient.
I have a fundamental disagreement. I believe in humanity, that we'll do the right thing, to such a large degree that I believe we could propel sustainability. Distributive energy is something we would mandate, something that would unleash the powerful potential of government to promote the general welfare at the local level.
So give yer legislators a mandate. Tell 'em you want more incentives for solar and wind energy generators in yer backyard.
Subsidies historically do more harm than good. I'd rather see us with a better plan to support companies developing energy technologies which can stand on their own.
Just thought I would point that out.
Certainly. If the oil and gas industries didn't happen to be buying up the patents for alternative technologies I would have no problem with agreeing with you.
Unfortunately due to Climate Change and our pursuit of so-called "clean coal" to meet the needs of consumers I believe we must collectively decide that subsidies would be beneficial.
What would your plan look like?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly