Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

We Can Solve It

This ad will air tonight in the U.S. during coverage of the Olympic Games. Makes more sense than drilling, no?

August 11, 2008 - Posted by | ecology, global warming


  1. Michael,

    This is definitely an interesting ad. One thing I’ve always wondered, though, about “clean” energy technology is if it’s actually as clean as it proclaims. Granted, anything is better than our current system.

    Also, I’m always perplexed at why discussions like these never center on reducing usage rather than finding supposedly more environmentally friendly ways to continue our rapid consumption.

    Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.

    Comment by Dustin | August 11, 2008

  2. Well, Dustin, I’m for “all of the above”: reduce consumption, use public transportation (or walk or bike) whenever possible, switch to clean energy. How “clean” is clean energy? Wind and solar are perfectly clean, although some of the materials used in solar panels may have environmental costs in production (but much less than oil or coal). Bio-mass energy production has some drawbacks environmentally and bio-fuels can lead to global starvation by the burning of food in gas tanks (although other forms of bio-fuels, which burn waste, don’t have this problem)! Geo-thermal energy may have some eco-side affects and is less efficient than wind or solar. Hydro-electricity is clean, but too many dams can destroy habitats. (I don’t favor big new hydro-dams, but I do favor refurbishing and renewing many existing hydroelectric dams which have been abandoned. That happened a lot here in KY as King Coal bought them up to mothball and/or passed legislation that made them less profitable than coal.) Nuclear energy adds nothing to global warming, but is not really clean–it creates radioactive waste for which there are zero good storage options. It’s a false solution and the We Can Solve It folks do not support it. There is nothing clean about “clean coal.”

    But with recent breakthroughs on technology, we can now build solar panels in the Southwest that would generate 500% of U.S. energy needs–but they are being blocked legislatively by Big Oil. Likewise, we can meet 100% plus of our energy needs through windpower alone. So, Al Gore’s challenge (We Can Solve It is his group) to get 100% of our electricity from clean energy within 10 years is MORE than doable. It could be accomplished in 5 years with off-the-shelf technology. We lack only the political will to take on Big Oil, King Coal, and the Nuclear lobbies.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | August 11, 2008

  3. I agree, much better than drilling. Sadly, the best thing I could do to reduce my carbon footprint would be to reduce my Diet Mountain Dew intake (3 plastic bottles a day…blech…)

    I saw a McCain ad touting how green he is. Pardon, but oil companies don’t flood the coffers of green candidates, generally. ūüôā

    Comment by dcrowe | August 11, 2008

  4. What are your thoughts on T. Boone Pickens? I only know of him what I’ve read in the news, but he seems to offer some constructive ideas on energy.

    Comment by Evan | August 15, 2008

  5. T. Boone Pickens is just another capitalist–one whose fortune has mainly been made on oil. That said, his push for wind and solar power shows just how easily conversion to that could be profitable. I have no problem with his wanting to invest in this. His desire for investment in nuclear and continued push for oil and coal an “all of the above” strategy, however, shows that he will put profits ahead of either the environment or energy security and independence.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | August 15, 2008

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: