Rocky Anderson's Solution: Clean Energy Economy

Click here for PDF version

CLEANENERGYHEAD.png 

It often is said that the United States has no energy policy. That isn’t true. Our national energy policy has been clear for generations: We are committed to using the dirtiest and most volatile forms of energy; to undermining economic stability and the health of our people; and to defending our energy supplies by sending our children to war. 

  • Our energy policy creates a hemorrhage in the U.S. economy. America’s addiction to oil, for example, was responsible for an energy trade deficit of nearly $260 billion in 2010 – half the total U.S. trade imbalance.[i] 
  • Our energy policy creates chronic instability in our economy. Of the 11 economic recessions the U.S. has suffered since World War II, 10 were preceded by a jump in oil prices.[ii] 
  • Our energy policy invites war. For example, the health of the U.S. and global economies has depended for decades on the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping channel bordered by Iran. One-fifth of the world’s crude oil is shipped through the Strait. Today, Iran is threatening to shut down that shipping lane in retaliation for the international community’s efforts to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. 
  • Our energy policy results in waste. Today, the U.S. economy wastes a staggering 87% of the energy it consumes.[iii] 
  • Our energy policy provides money to nations known to be unstable or unfriendly to the United States, including some nations suspected of supporting terrorist organizations. [iv]  For example, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are consistently among the top five nations selling oil to the U.S. [v] 
  • Our energy policy promotes pollution. Coal – the dirtiest fossil fuel and the fuel most responsible for U.S. carbon emissions – provided 45% of our electricity in 2010. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that coal will still provide 40% of America’s electricity in 2035, compared to only 16% from renewable resources.[vi] 
  • Our energy policy jeopardizes public health and increases the cost of health care. The American Lung Association reports that air pollution remains an urgent threat to public health in the United States. More than half of all Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution, much of it caused by the energy we consume.[vii]
  • Our energy policy contributes to global climate change. Despite warnings from the international science community that we must cut carbon emissions now to avoid the worst impacts of global climate change, the EIA estimates that U.S. CO2 emissions will continue growing far into the future.[viii] 

Why do we allow our national energy policy to be so contrary to the public interest? The principal reason is the massive political influence of our wealthy and entrenched fossil energy industries. Oil and gas interests spent $145 million and electric utilities spent $144 million last year to lobby for public policies that prolong America’s dependence on fossil fuels.[ix]  In effect, the U.S. Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil energy complex. 

Another reason is the industry’s well-financed propaganda machine, which promotes the mythology that coal can be clean; that our long-term prosperity can be maintained with finite resources; that more domestic oil production can protect us from higher prices; that because coal is plentiful, it’s an inevitable part of our energy mix; that renewable energy is not ready for prime time; and that a dirty economy is healthier than a clean economy. [x] 

Rocky Anderson believes the United States must lead a global energy revolution – the deliberate transformation to a low-carbon sustainable energy future. It not only is the smart thing to do; it’s America’s moral obligation. We have led the world in carbon emissions. Now we must lead in developing the technologies that will create new markets for American businesses while allowing people around the world to achieve a decent quality of life with clean and sustainable energy. With intelligent energy policy, the United States can do well by doing good.

As President, Rocky Anderson will: 

  • Take back international leadership in the research, development and commercialization of low-carbon energy technologies. 
  • End taxpayer subsidies of fossil energy and shift them to a revenue-neutral public investment in research and commercialization of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.[xi] Among these subsidies is the multi-billion-dollar research effort to scrub carbon from coal burning and bury it underground. If the coal industry wants to remain part of America’s energy future, it can pay for this research on its own. 
  • Require the gas industry to clean up the production of shale gas, to protect groundwater and water quality, and to reveal the contents of its “fracking” agents. Natural gas has the potential to help us make the transition to a clean energy economy, but fracking has unacceptable environmental costs.
  • Launch an economy-wide initiative to make the United States the most energy-efficient industrial economy in the world within 20 years. 
  • Boost America’s clean energy market by fully funding the U.S. military’s goals to become America’s leader in the use of renewable energy.
  • Insist that the world’s top 20 industrial nations fulfill their commitment to end fossil energy subsidies and exert US leadership to make the G-20 the Green-20, in which the major economies implement aggressive clean energy goals for government operations.[xii] 
  • Reform national transportation policy to stop favoring highways over mass transit and other options for clean mobility.
  • Improve education and job training programs, including training for green-collar jobs, to build the workforce we need for a clean energy economy. 
  • End public subsidies for nuclear energy, an industry that has never existed without taxpayer support.  While nuclear power generation does not produce carbon emissions, it should not be a high priority until the industry solves the problem of wastes, until power plants are better protected from terrorist attack, and until the international community creates a reliable way to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  • Promote economy-wide collaboration in the transition to a clean energy economy by engaging industry, state and local leaders, economists, the national laboratories and other stakeholders to create a national policy and investment roadmap with clear goals and milestones.[xiii]

[vii] http://www.stateoftheair.org/2011/facts/

[x] For one analysis of the potential job and economic benefits efficiency, see the ACEEE report at http://energywisepa.org/node/1382

[xi] According to an analysis by Management Information Services Inc., direct subsidies for oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy totaled $667 billion from 1950 to 2010 compared to $171 billion for renewables (including hydro and geothermal).  In other words, the federal government provided $5 in subsidies to fossil and nuclear energy for every $1 it provided to renewable energy. That lopsided investment doesn’t count massive indirect subsidies, including military costs to protect oil supplies or taxpayer investments in infrastructure that supports fossil energy use. The imbalance continues today.

[xii] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/fossil-fuels-got-more-aid-than-clean-energy-iea.html

[xiii] The EU and UK, among other nations, have created detailed clean energy roadmaps to 2020. The US does not have one.

Do you like this page?

Showing 6 reactions


Steve Rasmussen commented 2012-11-12 16:12:49 -0700 · Flag
Here are more details about Ethanol as a fuel. Since its octane rating is 106, it works better in higher compression ratio engines that are designed to burn it efficiently. When burning it in a 10 to 1 compression ratio engine (as is common for gasoline) one will not optimize its energy. It really needs an engine in the 15 to 1 ratio area. Ethanol is a more stable molecule than octane and therefore can tolerate higher combustion chamber pressures. In general, the higher the compression ratio, the more efficiency can be gleaned from the fuel. We need Detroit to make engines specifically for E100 and E85. Ethanol is NOT a fossil fuel and does not add new CO2 from fossil origins. Ethanol has near zero Toluene and Benzene pollutants like gasoline but is not totally pollution free. This nation and the Justice Party need to consider this fuel.
Steve Rasmussen commented 2012-11-11 20:38:08 -0700 · Flag
I agree with the Justice Party platform that we need more energy efficiency. Americans are encouraged to waste fuel (and most everything we use). There doesn’t seem to be any regard for saving fuel when seeing how people drive. My car will get 36 MPG in the city when I drive it, however when others drive my car, they get 25 -30 MPG. Most Americans continue to buy cars that get low mileage. They have not figured out, that there are repercussions to doing that. The Republican Party is big on mass consumption and mass drilling to get more. Unfortunately they don’t believe in " Waste Not, Want Not". We need an education program in our schools that shows our young that conservation is highly important.

The propaganda against Ethanol is quite rampant in the US. There are a number of complaints— 1. It is using a food source, corn—- (The US should follow the Brazilian example of using sugar cane, as that has a much higher sugar content than corn and isn’t a major foodstock). 2. It has less energy output in cars. ( The Saab example of using it in higher compression engines proves it to have equal or greater horsepower). 3. The MPG is less than gasoline. (not in engines that are modified for its use, see SAAB above). We need to include ethanol as a major source of fuel and have specially designed engines to optimize it.
janet moore commented 2012-05-15 14:14:04 -0600 · Flag
Could you please state your views on a revenue neutral carbon tax? Scientists state that game over for our climate is approaching us ever faster. Reduction of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is now imperative in slowing down catastrophic climate change. Also, your views on our current fossil fuel intensive, pesticide driven industrial agriculture system that is also contributing to climate change and the health and obesity crises this country currently faces.

Thank you.
Jerry Scott commented 2012-05-13 20:56:52 -0600 · Flag
Fukushima proves industry can no be trusted with nuclear energy. Its builder built the plant with lower seismic resistance than it had proposed, installed back up emergency generators that take a half hour to come on line without breaking their crankshafts, stored their waste in weak buildings, and covered up the extent of its failure. Many similar plants, with similar spent fuel storage exists in the U.S., and the industry is failing to rectify the issues.
A Canadian energy expert points to deep geothermal energy as the best supply of green energy fo propell our energy intensive societies. Drilling through deep hard rock technology could use improving, but the quantity available could be expanded over the shallow drilling geothermal that is currently being exploited. Would you move forward with research and development of such.
Gail Payne commented 2012-04-30 09:56:34 -0600 · Flag
Rocky. Please tell me where you stand on nuclear power. I will only support candidates that are for shutting it down ASAP!
Rocky Anderson (Admin) published this page in Issues and Solutions 2012-02-28 14:17:44 -0700