Coal: Available in traditional black,
or, now in 'clean' |
Though supporters of non-coal renewables have seen victory in the mere fact that alternative energy issues have been brought to the table, so far losses to the rhetoric of big-time coal lobbyists and the powerful oil industry have resulted in major setbacks.
The strength of coal lobbying and the power tool of the two words “renewable energy” became clear last week at the hearing before US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources regarding the bill HR 2337. This bill, brought to the floor by Nick Rahall (Democrat-West Virginia), proposes to promote alternative energy models and green building practices. On the surface, it reads as a great step forward for the green renewables movement but if one reads the fine print of a particular section in HR 2337, the political intentions of the bill are worrisome. Section D, The Global Wildlife Survival Act, has green thinkers nation-wide up in arms. It calls for strict environmental regulations in constructing wind turbines that could potentially threaten any growth in the wind industry if the bill passes. The American Wind Association sums up the controversial areas of the Act as follows:
- Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review every existing and planned wind project, a mandate far beyond the agency’s resources and capabilities, and criminalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS.
- Under the legislation, landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property would be subject to invasive inspection requirements at any time.
- Landowners and farmers could face one year in jail or a $50,000 penalty for constructing or operating an uncertified wind turbine, regardless of whether it is for personal use or of a commercial scale. - AWEA
Interestingly enough, Democrat Nick Rahall represents a state heavily invested in the coal industry. While I do feel it is important to keep the world’s birds in mind while building turbines in light of recent news of their decline as a species, I wonder if anyone else senses the dark possibility of a politician cozying up to environmentalists to promote his own environmentally destructive interests?
Clean-coal has bi-partisan support. Even Barack Obama, a leading Democratic candidate for America’s next president, supports investing in clean coal. While many of his political views are progressive, his support of this bill has seriously thrown into question if he will be a leader committed to green. The industry’s lobbyists are so strong they have managed to convince many Americans coal is a clean renewable despite its detrimental carbon footprint; coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emitting 29% more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than oil and 80% more than gas. The tensions between politicians’ energy models and the power of energy rhetoric is a vivid reminder that we must look beyond a fundamental shift from fossil fuel energy models as the big “solution” to global warming. Politics, the necessary means of funding for such a shift, move slowly, powered by the force of lobbying industries rather than humanitarian drives. While I commend politicians fighting to increase the funding of non-coal renewables, I wonder if it would be more effective for them to act as spokespeople for change on a more localized scale? What if the government required energy caps on businesses? Would car dealerships and offices with their lights on all night have to pay a penalty? Is there, thus, a way that a political approach to changes in our energy model could begin by addressing efficiency and energy consumption rather than resources?
Senator Lott doesn't mince his words (source: Linton)
Further Reading:
