Sometimes, talking politics in these pages can incite a hostile response.
Certainly those less-than cordial messages that show up on our message board from time to time remind me of this. But rest assured those messages don't dissuade us.
Because bottom line: When it comes to investing in energy, it's imperative to pay very close attention to what's going on in Washington. Like it or not, policy can dictate the performance of various energy sectors.
We've seen proof of this with President Obama and his alternative energy agenda.
Although despite the overwhelming evidence that proves renewables to be both environmentally and economically superior to fossil fuels — don't think for a second that the backward fossil fool mentality in Washington has gone gently into that good night just because the President's supporting the transition to clean energy.
Take Democrat Robert Byrd, for instance. The West Virginia Senator is often the first to sing the praises of coal while folks in his home state have had to sit by and watch roughly 2,000 miles of their streams be buried in mining debris, due to the highly unsustainable practice of mountaintop removal.
Or Republican Jim Inhofe, who has blatantly and unapologetically lied about the cost of climate legislation. The Oklahoma Senator has been quick to call out some climate scientists for manipulating data — yet Inhofe doesn't seem to have a problem manipulating his numbers when it suits him.
The point is, we always have to monitor the actions (and words) of those on the Hill.
Because not only can these actions (honest or dishonest) affect our portfolio, they can also deter progress on the kind of alternative energy development that will help provide a safer, cleaner, and more economically-sustainable energy economy.
And this is why we've decided to take a closer look at newly-elected Senator Scott Brown's position on energy and the environment.
Billionaires' Game-changing Fossil Fuel Gamble
Ladies and gentlemen, we're witnessing the end of an energy era.
George Soros and T. Boone Pickens know it -- which is why they're investing millions of dollars in the world's next biggest "future fuel."
Click here to find out how their gamble in this new energy giant could bring you upwards of 1,925% gains.
Don't Rush to Judgment
He flipped the switch on the Democrats' reign in Washington. And now, many Democrats are worried that Scott Brown will put the kibosh on any kind of quality environmental and energy legislation.
Of course, this assumes that all Republicans seek to stall clean energy progress. And that's definitely not the case. Especially for those who represent states that are now home to wind farms, turbine manufacturing facilities, and geothermal power plants. You know, the types of things that provide jobs and revenue!
It also assumes that Scott Brown — because he is a Republican — has zero environmental credibility.
But that may not be the case. And rushing to judgment on something like this accomplishes little more than continued partisan bickering.
The fact is if you step back and take a look at Brown's track record, you'll find that his position on some of these issues may not actually be so black and white.
For one, Brown supported Massachusetts' Ocean Management Plan. This is a plan that sets standards for the development of offshore wind and tidal energy projects. It also provides protections for environmental resources in about 60 percent of Massachusetts' coastal waters.
However, Brown also opposes the Cape Wind Project, saying that putting turbines in that location would be like putting turbines on Boston Common.
Well, at least he admits it's about the location and didn't try to manufacture an excuse like so many other opponents have...
Brown also supported the 2008 Green Communities Act, which provided the Commonwealth's 25 percent by 2030 renewable portfolio standard.
Now we know that Brown is not a supporter of Cap & Trade, but he seems to support reducing emissions through conservation efforts and by integrating more wind and solar. Of course, Brown is also a huge supporter of nuclear, which while there are no emissions issues, there are still plenty of environmental issues that are too often swept under the rug.
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For. . .
Of course, at the end of the day what matters most is what Brown will offer going forward. We hope folks will at least give the Senator a chance before launching partisan criticisms.
We all know that it's not uncommon for people these days to go out and print up "Don't Blame Me I Voted For..." bumper stickers or attack the other side because, well, they're on the other side. But when we talk about the environment and we talk about energy, we can't continue to waste time on such nonsense.
Because while all those flag-waving hypocrites disguised as patriots are busy throwing around empty rhetoric and Thomas Jefferson quotes, we're spending more than $500,000 every minute on foreign oil.
And while all those talk show bullies and D.C. spin doctors continue to mock environmental sustainability efforts, we're quickly depleting our limited fresh water supplies, allowing tar sands operations and coal-fired power to take precedence over the one thing we can't live without — water.
This is NOT acceptable.
Not for the environment and not for the economy. And make no mistake about it — both are connected.
To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth. . .
Jeff
Subscribe to
Just wondering, did you write the same thing about Obama early in his administration?
You go for it! What's anyone's portfolio gonna be worth if we continue on this road of black and white anger, recrimination and national non-productive decline?
If we don't take the high, sustainable road from here on out, and do whatever it takes to facilitate clean productivity, your readers might as well purchase Chinese stocks and hope for the best while living surrounded by chaos and misery, until China's own troubles nationalize the remainder of your resources. Your bankers will have emigrated to Australia taking the rest of what you've worked for and leaving you an empty bag.
There's no substitute for thoughtful, informed, literate wisdom which is in ever more short supply. Keep insisting on it, and call rhetorical triviality as you see it.
I have an energy system which uses recycled water. It only uses a quart of water per kW produced. The average home uses 24kW/day. This is 1/2 of 1% of the water used in the USA. What portion is used in mining & oil extraction, & how much higher for extracting the oil out of shale? We can produce enough distilled water with this energy system to run our vehicles. How much reduction in oil costs is that? At your figure of $500K/min spent on oil, you could buy enough of my systems to power every home & car in America withion 6 MONTHS! Now I realize some of the oil goes for plastic production, so you have to deduct that, but wouldn't the cost of oil & plastics come down if we reused water for power?
Basically people do not want EXCESSIVE government control in their lives, and they have spoken LOULDY . They do not want OBAMAA medical care or Cap And Trade . Throw out all the bums ....and start a 3rd party ......GO TEA PARTY!
Scott Brown is a reasonable man. He is intelligent and very thoughful and he is nobody's extremist. He favors strong conservation policies and practices and wants to see renewable energy agressively developed. He also does not want to see foolishness or greed rewarded with huge chunks of tax payer subsidy money, as Cape Wind would be, for projects that are simply not rational.
If one scales up from the new wind farm at Horns Rev II we see Cape Wind costing well over $2 billion...but that is based on their 130 non-existent GE 3.6MW turbines. It is simply not a cost effective project. It will raise electric rates for intermittent power from phantom turbines. It will also alter long standing commercial ferry routes (therby limiting safety procedures in bad weather), commercial fishing activities, one of the East Coast's busiest recreational boating areas, and on and on. The Cape Wind review is a textbook of bad management and political insider activities in Washington. Senator Brown may be the Scott heard 'round the world.
Cape Wind gives renewable energy a bad name.
You forgot to mention how Global Warming will melt the planet, and everyone should cut back on driving huge vehicles and burning their a/c's, unless you're from the guilty rich, ie. Al Gore and can afford to drive the largest SUV's and run a/c's to the point of freezing his home during summers
Go do your homework. Wind energy is a very unreliable, very expensive route that does not save one gallon of oil. Great coal is bad...given. What do you do for energy on a windless day....DUH? How about this new thing they call nuclear? France provides 80% of their power with nuclear no accident no pollution. Sweden a country know for environmental consciousness 50%. They process it down for storage at one building. We don't process it down because...well people like you and our gov worried it will fall into the wrong hands...what a joke. Wake up! Thorium if it works or nuclear are the way to go for unlimited energy. As for oil you are going to have to think up something else. We don't produce electricity using oil. Plus, batteries only get you so far, plugin will never real work and if you like to drive more than 100 miles something else is going to have to work. Subject for another day. The estimate to use 500000 square miles for wind turbines is only something an eco-nut would consider. They are trying to build in Cape Cod National Seashore(on land) and in the Adironacks Park. The is great conservation...cut down tree and put industrial towes in our parks that are loud and kill wildlife. Great IDEA!
It's useful for this 'foreigner' to get your insights into USA political context.
Watch out for Senator Wayne Allen Root (independent with desires on the presidency) as a vocal climate sceptic who seems to be all about an anti-taxation and anti-big government position.
Thank goodness Cleantech providing great jobs and economic drive to communities. At the end of the day, hopefully green money creation talks louder than any nay sayers to tax incentives to industries crucial to survival.
Your passion is our profit Jeff!
but wonder about the comment "flag waving hypocrites" and "empty rhetoric and Thomas Jefferson quotes" Here's a Jefferson quote
stated in 1802. Do you consider this to be a flag waving hypocritical statement ?
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson 1802