No, let the consumers make the choice through the free market.
29% (25 votes)
Yes, it's the only way to make it mandatory.
65% (56 votes)
Why bother changing energy sources?
6% (5 votes)
Total votes: 86
Should the government be involved in changing energy sources?
Our Partners
Should the government make laws to force a change to renewable energy, or should the free market be entirely responsible for the shift?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I just finished a post about this poll and some of the brilliant interpretations people have made of it. What would be encouraging would be to hear another blogger's thoughts on my post.
Here's the link: http://progressiveu.org/184305-market-forces-getting-you-down
It's a difficult question on the scale of the power grid. The problem with electricity, gas, etc. is that it's subject to large economies of scale. What that means is that as a company's capital (factories, power lines/gas lines, etc.) increase, so does its economic efficiency, making it almost impossible for smaller enterprises to crop up since in order to compete they would have to do so at a loss.
Because of this, there would be very little incentive for large scale power companies to change their ways, since they're almost guaranteed monopoly power.
However, I am strongly against government regulations on energy, particularly on switching resources because for the most part they make awful (short-sighted) decisions (as we saw with the Energy Independence and Security Act which mandated certain MPG ratings on motor vehicles and eliminated 100-watt incandescent light bulbs).
Also, these sorts of regulations have a tendency to benefit a particular company (GE), increasing the state-corporate bureaucracy.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
I agree that leaving it to the companies is not going to make enough of an effect. I would want consumers to be responsible enough to shop at environmentally friendly stores, but it is practically impossible to know for certain which are on the good list and which are putting bullshit out on commercials and are funding skewed results to be published for the public. You can never be sure.
As much as I hate government regulations except for those protecting an individual's right to equality and fair choice, this is a time where protecting our future might require some major steps. Although regulation is needed, I think the government needs to focus funding on alternative energy sources that are viable and sustainable, like wind and solar energy. Renewable resources are going unstudied while we are burning up valuable resources that are in limiteds supply. As a country we just need to get smart.
The Heathen's Guide
LUST (Part I)
LUST (Part II)
I don't think corporations have incentives in the current market. It's an inefficient market because like Mike said, energy companies have monopolies. And so we regulate them, which is swell because a deregulated energy market has resulted in scandals like Enron, California and Montana-- the companies withhold information or electricity from consumers to cause higher energy prices and inflated stocks.
Why shouldn't we the people demand what types of energy we want through the democratic process? Climate change and energy are inextricably linked.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I'm starting to think that energy, as we know it, is best not used at all, whether from coal, nuclear, dams, solar, etc, all these options fall short of having the sort of impact I think humans should be making on the environment.
Whatever happened to a tribe sitting around a campfire at night, whatever happened to that being the preferred energy source..well that and drying things in the sun? I'm thinking more and more about going feral...just need my tribe...
love ya,
Carrot
I like fire! I'm all for trying to live off the land, in theory anyway. In practice I'm afraid I'd probably run for a heated house rather than curl up trying to keep warm by fireside.
Billions of people making fires is still going to create a footprint.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Whatever happened to a tribe sitting around a campfire at night,
"Civilization" happened.
The crazy Europeans had it in their heads that "civilization" was a good thing. Environmentally speaking, they were way off base.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I agree that it is a difficult question but look we are going to end up being our own demise if we dont do anything about it
I've always been in the mindset that we're going to be our own demise, one way or another. The human population, in general, is stupid (or, as Agent K says in Men In Black, "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it.") Humanity in general is also egotistical, power hungry, and curious. It's the combination of those that will eventually be our undoing, one way or another.
Our curiosity (and in some cases, fear; fear of death, fear of sickness, fear of aging) will lead us to create great things. Genetically engineered "viruses" intended to cure things like cancer or Alzheimer's, machines that can do our dirty work for us (and perhaps think, if only on rather basic levels), a renewable energy source that will help the environment.
However, our general stupidity, egotistical, and panicky side will lead us to our destruction. The "cures" either mutate, or start wars over this new, priceless commodity. The machines can think well enough to effectively have free will, see we're destroying ourselves, and in an attempt to fix things, end up starting a war with us (our ego says we don't want to be controlled by our own creations). The renewable energy source is volatile, an accident causes a plant meltdown and the destruction of the local area and releases toxins into the environment from partially-used energy source, or we become so dependent on this one source and for whatever reason it fails in the long run, starting wars, or leaving us to fend for ourselves without energy at all (which, in the big picture, is a good thing, but how many people actually know how to live off the land if they were thrown there right now? On an individual scale, it would be disastrous for a good chunk of the population).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Although I'd like to think the government is smart enough to make the choice for us, I wholeheartedly believe in the idea of democracy...and the fact that the government will continue milking this oil thing until we reach a critical point in time for resources.
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
Not if citizens are vehement in their demands and we elect representatives who can dictate our choices. I believe in the idea of democracy too. So much in fact that I think the collective resistance we pose in the system is a more effective stance than we would have otherwise as consumers in the marketplace, although we certainly have a role in that gig too.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I dont think there is any real debate as to whether the government should be involved in an issue like this..in fact it already is very much involved in regulation just not to the proper extent. This is certainly a very serious issue affecting a large body of people (many of whom have no agency to protect themselves against it) in the United States and throughout the world. The reason the market fails without regulation in this particular instance is because the external cost of pollution doesn't fall on the producers of detrimental energy. The fact that the government has not done enough is becoming all too obvious, especially with recent lawsuits filed by various states against the EPA for not doing enough to regulate gas mileage requirements. To ignore an issue that directly affects every aspect of human well-being is horribly irresponsible and immoral. Governments exist to tackle these issues..issues individuals and every large groups do not have the resources or agency to address. Of course there is always the question of inefficiency and bureaucratic barriers to the best possible so but does this change the fact that the government has a responsibility not to mention innumerable economic and social incentives to intervene. No one said they had to get it perfect the first time, but there are obvious and important steps the government must take to catalyze change before innocent people bear this enormous burden even further than many already have in the form of natural disaster and pollution. This issue is linked to everything our government does and was designed to do: diplomatic relationships, social responsibility and sustainability and the economic well-being of Americans and other innocent people in developing countries who have nothing to do with these terrible health consequences developed nations have created. Just because government efficacy isnt always perfect doesn't mean we should stop trying or shrug these issues off -- they aren't going anywhere.
The main reason that we have energy problems is that the government has obstructed investment.
We have not permitted a new nuclear power plant for something like 30 years. Our existing nuclear plants provide by far our cheapest and one of our cleanest sources of power.
The government should be involved to the extent that it is necessary to lift all the roadblocks that they have erected.
Except that the Eastern states want to bury the waste in the Western states (no one lives out there...). And then we run into problems.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You're underestimating the will and knowledge of people in the west. Some people think it's a hassle to babysit radioactive material for eons.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
The issue with nuclear power isn't that it's nuclear power, it's that we use Uranium-235 for the fuel source. U-235 is known for giving off gamma radiation when split in the fission process, which is part of what makes it so dangerous.
Things that emit alpha or beta radiation (such as the betavoltaic battery, which uses energy from an isotope's radioactive decay) could feasibly be used, at least for smaller items, such as electronics, at no danger to people (alpha and beta radiation are stopped by objects very easily and cannot penetrate skin).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Sure, I should have clarified that. Radioactive material meaning the residue, the waste. I always thought storage produced the largest stigma among citizens. My parents generation fought to prevent further nuke sites from popping up for many reasons. One may have been the reason you've indicated, but this seems like a valid argument against the sustainability of nuclear power. What do you think?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
The link's not working for me. =/
Perhaps I should have clarified as well. The danger of nuclear power plants lies not just in the fission process itself, but also the types of isotopes and the radiation both fission and nuclear decay put out. U-235 puts out gamma rays in both cases (and from what I've gathered, so does the material that is left after the fission process), which is what makes it dangerous. If it put out alpha or beta radiation, not only would it not be harmful, but it could also be used for other things (such as the laptop I linked), depending on the halflife.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Just read yer link. What an amazing discovery. I don't know enough about it to follow it up with a comment, but I liked reading reading the discussion of other bloggers on the site.
--"I'd be more concerned with one exploding in my lap. Ouch!"
--"But will they power my scarily un-humanlike Japanese sex doll? Jokes aside, these batteries still leave trash in their inert state. How's about recycling them? What's their carbon footprint ?"
--"Very cool. I always wanted a nuclear powered laptop. Hopefully nuclear powered cars are right behind!"
This was my link--> http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_...
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
In the USA, how many people have died from our nuclear power industry? I think the answer is close to zero. The coal industry which is really our only other realistic source for the bulk of our power directly kills people every year and injures the health of thousands of others with its disgusting emissions.
The fact is the nuclear waste is strictly an emotional problem. It is tiny in volume and only minimally dangerous. And there need not be any as it can be reprocessed and used over and over.
I do agree with your stance on coal and we're weening ourselves from that dirty rock as we speak. Many state governments are setting aggressive standards to use renewables in their transmission lines.
The issue is not strictly emotional with nuclear generation, my friend. Look at Love Canal. Look at Niagara Falls. The residual effects in communities are not emotional. And you may say, hey those are specific accidents and those corporate abuses won't happen--it's the twentieth century and whatnot. But i just don't see the types of regulation that would safeguard our communities coming out of Congress.
We need a national energy policy that puts a price on externalities (CO2, community remediation, sulfur, mercury). A policy that taxes companies directly that do not comply (and spending those funds to encourage clean, decentralized power).
We've got to send a message to polluters that Superfund sites are not the unfortunate accidents of profit.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Nuclear has residual waste that is dangerous for generations.
Coal (BTW use is increasing)has:
Strip mines
Mining accidents
CO2 emissions
particulate emissions
Natural Gas has:
CO2 emissions
LNG transport and storage hazzards
Hydroelectric has:
Flood hazards
Fish spawning prevention
Wind farms:
Migratory bird deaths
Solar:
Arsenic and other hazardous waste
The NO-impact alternative just is not within our grasp....YET!
I would like to see government stop ALL of the subsidies to any of these, including big oil, and instead focus on regulating the various hazzards of each to protect people and the environment. They could also fund advanced research into better means to provide energy in the future.
The free market, as a whole, is smarter than any of us, but it is VASTLY smarter than the government.
"A committee is the only known form of life with a hundred bellies and no brain."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Using corn as renewable energy is also not nearly as efficient as we were hoping. It's almost worse on the enironment because of how much corn it takes to make, say, a gallon of ethanol. Demand is high, so more land is needed, which means forests are being cleared, which means gas is being used, which means - what's the freakin' point??? As the song goes, "It all amounts to nothing in the end." I'm pretty discouraged lately about the human footprint and my desire to be energy efficient.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
Why does everyone think corn and soy are the be-all, end-all of biofuel stock?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Good on you! I'm convinced that conservation is the easiest thing for people to do to impact the development of dirty energy forms. Renewable energy: we can call for it, demand that our representatives set up standards for energy portfolios, but our society's sustainability will not amount to much until we form what I call a grassroots resistance to high energy consumption.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I never said anything about it killing anyone. However, gamma radiation is proven to be dangerous. U-235 puts out gamma radiation when split and when it decays. Nuclear reactors currently use U-235 isotopes. Hence, U-235 is dangerous. An item doesn't have to kill to be considered dangerous (though it's usually a very good incentive to be considered).
I do agree with you about reprocessing. That's one thing I never really understood about our current way of using nuclear power, since current practices still leave a radioactive isotope which can (at least theoretically) be further split until it reaches a stable isotope (such as lead).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
There is a nuclear waste tower in Western New York, the rural part, in the middle of the woods just off a little-known back-country road. It's about 200 feet tall, skinny, and absolutely deadly. If it falls, it will wipe out life in a 60 mile radius. That's impact. I'd pay good money to see that thing stay upright.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
That's freakin' awesome.
I want one.