What I would like to see is the energy business focused on energy directly or indirectly streaming from the sun rather than being focused on releasing stored energy directly from earth or matter that is earth bound.
I could have entitled this blog, "Why the Proposals of America's Republican Party to meet the US Energy Gap are Misdirected." When a nation is addicted to power, or engaged in an energy feeding frenzy, it is not likely to pay much attention to the cries of pain inflicted on future generations because we have released toxic gases, harmful nuclear radiation, and dangerous particles into our earthly vulnerable world. We don't really need to create so much toxic stuff. Does the earth have to resembly the aftershock of a mining operation, a series of nuclear bomb, garbage heap or waste dump?
What are our leaders thinking? The Republican approach to energy use to make America stronger will lead to higher taxes from new cancers and toxicities. Poisoning America! Is that what we really want.
Do leaders not see the disease they are spreading by such use of toxic materials? Do we have to turn earth into a garbage heap and nuclear waste dumpsite? The answer is no, we don't.
However, do not expect the free market to guide earthlings to a less toxic earth. We all know that companies want profit and do not account for externalities, the external costs, of toxic by-products.
Look around you. Do you feel safe putting all those chemicals on your lawns, which really do cause more cancers in men and women! We live in an epidemic of new cancer creating substances and effects. Pesticides and new chemical entities really do result in cancers and premature deaths. Do you as a Christian, Muslim, scientist, or just citizen really want to run such risks for your children and your own future.
Earthlings seem to be the creators of toxicity. We have cancer on the increase directly linked to our use of toxic approaches to energy.
Using earth's energy => increasing the incidence of cancer arising from toxic waste and chemicals of high toxicity => premature death to children and many people from cancer and allergies due to a worsened toxicity of our environment => higher taxes everywhere to pay for health care and solutions to being poisoned by our increasingly unhealthy environment.
When market mechanisms such as market prices do not provide sufficient guidence to wise choices for energy, few economists will swim against the stream and advise a different direction based on science and logic rather than faith in economic indicators. As consumers it is up to us to refuse to use energy that results in toxic waste. To be realistic, we have to be proactively involved in slowing down such efforts and speeding up efforts to use the sun's energy directly. This is the wise course of action. It will actually cost less in currency that is accountable because the toxic effects of other uses do not apply proper accounting for externality costs arising from toxic effects and cancers arising from toxicity.
When people are likely to pursue goals that put self before community, or man-made before natural, or short term profit before long term profit, there is little the 'small' man can do to pursue effective community, conservationist, or social service.
Being excluded from the decisions that will make our earth less habitable is unfortunately 'our future'. Those that take on the role of raising the challenge of taking a more difficult road will be marginalized because human nature and society does not work that way. More the pity!
We can, however, at this stage say in a blog such as this one, that the direction those loyal to traditional values will take us is going to be very painful for future generations. It is too much to expact that we will be believed.
What in the hell do you mean, Arthur?
My concern is that we as a species on earth do not have the capacity to shape our commuinity's long term destiny for the good. This is true even if we were able to somehow see the golden path that would lead to less misery and suffering. What I would like to see is the energy business focused on energy directly or indirectly streaming from the sun rather than releasing more stored energy directly from earth or that is earth bound.
Some say that the 'free' market is sufficient guide to a resolution of humity's problems. We know, however, that this is not the case and that what frequently results is immiserization growth, creatively destructive growth, and a hugely skewed distribution of wealth towards a minority of people. Such is the prospect of people making economic choices between alternatives that have only accounting mathematics and physical science as their basis.
We know that power in the political sphere is heavily skewed towards the energy producing businesses. Is it surprising then that the influence of such businesses in advertising and promotions by influence peddling and control over media will lead to people hearing and choosing among the alternatives of those with the greatest vested interest?
In America, we have long endured the presidency of George Bush of Texas, a man heavily vested in oil and gas. We are being lead to vote for a woman, Governor Palin from Alaska, whose vested interests are in the energy oil gas sector. All I am hearing is the proposals for releasing more energy stored on earth and very little about the energy streaming in from the sun.
If we master the use of energy streaming in from the sun, we on earth can get a control over our environment and can actually improve on it.
In contrast, if we use energy already on earth and not part of the energy streaming towards earth, we will destroy the earth by adding to the heat coming from the sun.
What's more we will ultimately pay more for our energy use.
My proposal is that we intensify our use of energy arriving in the forms of sunlight, wind, waterfalls, waves, currents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, geisers and natural heat pumps. By making these forms of energy available, we do not release so much of the toxic gases into our atmosphere.