Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Apollo in Action

By Jay Inslee, Grist.org. Posted May 23, 2005.


There's no magic silver bullet to solve America's energy crisis. But if it's enacted, the New Apollo Energy bill could come pretty darn close.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On April 21, Congress stepped back in geologic time when the House of Representatives passed an energy policy of the dinosaurs, by the dinosaurs, and for the dinosaurs. This energy bill is truly a "Jurassic" piece of legislation that relies on a limited energy source derived from creatures and plants that died millions of years ago. In fact, 93 percent of the $8 billion in tax incentives in the bill go to oil, gas, and other traditional energy industries.

Shortly before the House debate, one national leader said, "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. ... What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent." Incredibly, that leader was President George W. Bush. Even the president with the worst environmental record since Warren G. Harding cannot conceal that this energy bill is more technologically suited for the 19th century than the 21st century.

Instead of this petroleum-soaked energy policy, some of my colleagues and I have been promoting a new vision for our energy future, one that would avoid drilling in our pristine areas, while creating jobs, enhancing our national security, and protecting the environment. This clean-energy vision, called the New Apollo Energy Act, is based on optimism rather than self-doubt, on new technologies rather than archaic methods, and on faith in Americans' innovative talent rather than capitulation to narrow special interests. New Apollo will commit our nation to clean energy to increase domestic high-tech employment, reduce the effects of climate change, and advance our country toward independence from foreign oil. Though the Republican leadership refused to allow us to offer a version of New Apollo as an amendment to the energy bill, I will soon be introducing it as a separate bill in Congress.

New Apollo draws its inspiration from President Kennedy's original "Apollo" plan, which in 1961 challenged the nation to put a man on the moon within the decade and return him safely to Earth. Kennedy recognized that Americans love a good challenge and are the most creative people in human history. In a similar way, New Apollo challenges Americans to harness their legendary ingenuity and technological prowess to build a clean, economically beneficial energy system on our own planet -- a planet we want to keep comfortably fit for human habitation and free from global warming and conflicts arising over the control of petroleum.

Our New Apollo Energy Act will provide $49 billion in government loan guarantees for the construction of clean-energy generation facilities that will produce power from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, oceans, coal with carbon-sequestration technology, and other sources. The legislation will also commit $10.5 billion to research-and-development investment tax credits for clean energy-producing operations. In addition, it includes a 10-year extension of the current credit for electricity generated from clean sources. Making these clean energy sources cost-effective for citizens will require this type of bold infrastructure investment by the federal government.

There is no one silver bullet that will solve the nation's energy crisis, so New Apollo pursues a number of other strategies as well. It creates national net-metering and interconnection standards that allow homeowners who generate clean energy to reduce their energy bills by feeding surplus electricity back into the grid. It also contains a renewable portfolio standard that will require all utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021.

Of course, the best way to generate energy is to not waste it, so New Apollo includes incentives for American consumers to drive fuel-efficient vehicles, including tax credits for the purchase of hybrid, alternative-fuel, low-emission advanced diesel, and fuel-cell vehicles. It also provides an incentive program to encourage domestic automotive and aerospace manufacturers to develop new fuel-efficient automobiles and planes.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D) represents Washington state's First Congressional District.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
what is this "other sources"?
Posted by: knitter on May 23, 2005 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our New Apollo Energy Act will provide $49 billion in government loan guarantees for the construction of clean-energy generation facilities that will produce power from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, oceans, coal with carbon-sequestration technology, and other sources."

I wonder if this "other sources" includes or excludes nuclear power generation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Is nuclear an "other" source? Posted by: Sojourner
Alternate Energy
Posted by: SteveSouth on May 23, 2005 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are millions if not billions of square feet of commercial roof space that could easily support alternate energy installations. I am constructing a seven thousand square foot building in Texas and it would cost me $70k to add enough solar cells to take care of all its energy needs for the next 20 years. Imagine if you were to have every building in america do this. Instead of throwing money at the big energy companies or into federal research why not give tax credits to small companies for installing alternate energy. You could even institute energy credits that could be sold to other small companies who can't install alternate energy. You wouldn't need to subsidize research because the demand would drive the research. Isn't that what the free market all about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternate Energy Posted by: warpig
» RE: Alternate Energy Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Alternate Energy Posted by: bonzi
Another Thing
Posted by: SteveSouth on May 23, 2005 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we giving billions of dollars to Detroit car companies to conduct research into making high mileage automobiles. We didn't give a dime to Honda or Toyota and yet they developed hybrids, Mercedes has a working fuel cell with no american tax dollars. We live in a capitalist economy, why not give tax credits to individuals for purchasing high efficiency autos. 1k for 30mpg, 2k for 40mpg etc. You could even make it apply to autos produced in the US only. Honda and Toyota would be building plants in the US before Detroit even figured out that there was something going on. I would bet you that within 5 years you would see a 100mpg without having to give up a dime of corporate welfare. Makes more sense than giving companies one year writeoffs for purchasing Hummers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Thing Posted by: wannabersc
» RE: Another Thing Posted by: Guy
» RE: Another Thing Posted by: Wacre
Energy - Blowing in the Wind
Posted by: 42Years on May 23, 2005 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The REALLY sad irony is that humans like dinosaurs can die from climiate change, whether that change is man-made or a catastrophic random event such as a meteor hitting earth, a huge volcanic explosion, or even a shift in the earth's rotation brought on by the moon drifting further and further away from us. In the end, humans are just another species of life on earth.
The chances are 50-50 that we will do the right thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent ideas for creating sensible energy sources.
Posted by: PeterPeter on May 23, 2005 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Support these Congressmen! Their ideas are a breath of fresh air amid the smoke of greedy mining and oil industries.
Oil as a source of energy will soon be inadequate to supply the energy consumed by modern society. Why wait until all the nice things in this country have been destroyed to implement these ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

auntiejane
Posted by: jmbarwell on May 23, 2005 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like Newt Gingrich is jumping on this platform (as well as other traditionally progressive ideas) for his 2008 presidential run. Check out his energy plan in his recent speeches and his book.

Not that it's a bad thing, but I hate to see progressive ideas coopted so early.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind Power
Posted by: Grampop on May 23, 2005 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have there been any studies to find out if taking power from wind will affect climate or even cause local weather changes? I can see that solar power is harmless but there could be powerful effects from changing wind speeds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen fuel cell is a hoax
Posted by: Wells on May 23, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fuel cell technology should be trashed. GM has no intention of mass producing any version of the 'skateboard chassis' fuel cell prototypes. Beyond the myriad of problems associated with hydrogen production, storage and distribution, their drive system, the so-called 'drive-by-wire', computerized, electronic steering, braking and accelleration system is extremely problematic. Also, their 'in-wheel' electric motors are likewise impractical, unreliable, maintenance-prone. The combination of wiz bang technologies is dangerously vulnerable chance mishap and system failure from a variety of sources including radio interference. Wake up! The Hydrogen fuel cell is a hoax.

The "Hybrid-drive" is the state of the art vehicular technology. The Hybrid has a long list of advantages over fuel cell, including the ability to burn a variety of fuels including Hydrogen and bio-diesel, all in perfected combustion. The hybrid battery-pack alone has features that extend zero-emission driving, benefit the photovoltiac industry and home-power, and major vehicular safety factors. Hybrids are applicable to all classes of vehicle, unlike the fuel cell which is limited to the lightweight class.

We should however be warned that there are some new car and truck models that do not deserve the title Hybrid. The key to determining which Hybrid is superior is simple: if the Hybrid has an electric motor that can drive the car without running the IC engine, it's a true hybrid. If the Hybrid is merely an electric 'assist', such as the 'contractor truck' models that incorporate an electric generator that only 'assists' the IC engine for nearly all speeds of travel, this version of Hybrid should not be considered Hybrid and does not deserve a tax break or credit.

Most important, beyond the question of which car technology is worthy, urban/suburban travel and transport must include the means and infrastructure for walking, mass transit and bicycling, each of which are degraded when transportation planning is overly-dedicated to any kind of car, no matter how clean burning. Wake up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ethanol Should NOT be part of the "Apollo" energy program
Posted by: tomlen on May 24, 2005 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rep. Jay Inslee's suggestion for a New Apollo Program for promoting and subsidizing renewable and sustainable energy resource use........is to be praised, but ONLY if he cancells the huge corporate welfare which continues to be wasted on the ethanol industry, which means ADM and agribiz minions all 'greeding at the trough'. These ethanol subsidies have killed family farming in much of the country, fostering wasteful and toxic farming practices, and doing absolutely nothing, nada!!, for corn prices. The ADM fix is in, and has been for years, with obsequious courtesans among both Democrats and Republicans. Family farmers gain nothing over all these years. Further, ethanol in gasoline does NOT burn clean, it ADDS nitrogen oxides to create cancer-causing smog. The more ethanol in the mix, the MORE smog you get (per scientific studies), and more BENZENE is dispersed from leaking gasahol underground service station tanks into soil and goundwater. The MORE ethanol you mix in gas, the LESS octane, the LESS power..... ergo, LESS gas mileage. It fouls engines and fuel injectors (see Milwaukee Journal, 12-9-04).

This boondoggle is forcing a scourge of ethanol refineries upon our countryside. The midwest and other states are being laden with industrial stench, heavy toxins, creating industrial wastelands in rural America: trashing air, soil and water resources.

Just last year the voters of North Dakota, an ethanol producing State, DEFEATED the ethanol indutry shill's attempt to force ....mandate....... ethanol to be mixed in all gasoline in that State. Even North Dakota said NO to ethanol. They know something that all legislators NEED to know and learn.

Ethanol keeps the Blood for Oil trade-off rolling. Ethanol will never help bring the troops home. It will only keep us reliant on fossil fuels and mideast oil. Pushing ethanol on Americans and their vehicles is not patriotic, NON-renewable, and UNsustainable. Get past the agribiz corn growers and ethanol industry hype. There is nothing they fear more than the TRUTH of their decades-long scam.

Ethanol is built on lies, payoffs to congress, and Orwellian lies in marketing and advertising. Stop those BILLIONS in terrible subsidies to ethanol. Give those dollars to solar, wind, and other clean alternatives that deserve the support. JUST SAY "NO" TO AMERICA'S ADDICTION TO ETHANOL....... THE BIGGEST CORPORATE SCAM IN THE USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOGIC OF BUSH BELIES. OIL, BUSH, THE BIG PUSH! ©
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on May 31, 2005 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Jay Iuslee . . .

I am so happy to hear of this possibility. I am linking your essay to my own. Months ago, in frustration and fear for the future, I wrote, LOGIC OF BUSH BELIES. OIL, BUSH, THE BIG PUSH! ©. I am elated to discover that there may be hope!

I thank you for sharing what can be. I believe in dreaming the impossible dreams and working to make these come true! With thanks to those that care, dream, and act . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]