Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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

Saving the Earth by Way of the Moon

By Amanda Griscom Little, The American Prospect. Posted October 3, 2005.


The Apollo Alliance's grand vision for energy independence is a distant legislative goal, but it can help transform politics right now.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Amanda Griscom Little

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The mission of the 2-year-old, Washington, D.C.-based Apollo Alliance has come to represent a bold vision of progressivism. Named for President Kennedy's moon shot, the alliance's goal is to mobilize a sweeping federal commitment to energy independence, with the triple-whammy promise of creating good jobs with new technology, bolstering national security with energy independence, and saving the planet from carbon emissions.

Apollo calls for grand-scale federal and state investment -- $300 billion over 10 years -- to underwrite a suite of policy measures designed to stimulate the development of clean-energy industries. The alliance claims the measures would create more than 3 million jobs, eliminate American dependence on Middle East oil imports, lead to 15 percent of U.S. electricity coming from renewable sources, and reduce national energy consumption by 16 percent.

But even though energy independence is almost universally applauded in principle, Apollo faces heavy opposition. Powerful extractive industries fear their own demise in a post-fossil-fuel era. Their close allies in the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated Congress are likewise beholden to the energy status quo and share an aversion to public planning.

A budget crisis created by tax cuts makes it seemingly unthinkable to spend the kind of money necessary to make serious headway on renewable energy. But if Apollo is unlikely to achieve progress at a federal level anytime soon, its backers hope it can help transform energy politics at a local and state level.

Apollo's vision has been endorsed by many major unions and many environmental groups, as well as nine Democratic governors, including Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Bill Richardson of New Mexico. The funding community is similarly enthusiastic. "Apollo has been an absolutely integral force, if not the key force, in helping shift the framework of the energy debate from environmental space into economic ... and national-security space," says Peter Teague, director of the environment program at the Nathan Cummings Foundation, a lead funder of the Apollo project. "At almost every meeting of progressives I go to, people point to Apollo as the prime example of how we should be doing our politics differently. It fundamentally reorients our message away from doom and gloom and toward inspiration and solving multiple problems simultaneously."

Apollo was publicly unveiled in June 2003, at a time when a host of other organizations were proclaiming similar goals. Many of these like-minded groups were spearheaded by conservative hawks concerned about national security. Frank Gaffney Jr., a former policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior and founder of the Center for Security Policy; C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel, and Robert McFarlane, former national-security adviser to Reagan, are active in The Energy Future Coalition and an organization called Set America Free. These groups champion efficiency and alternative-energy agendas in the name of national and economic security, and have intermittently collaborated with Apollo. "All these organizations evolved in parallel on the heels of September 11," said Apollo Alliance founding director Bracken Hendricks, who has been a key adviser to the Energy Future Coalition and is a member of Set America Free.

According to Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, "Apollo was the first out of the box in articulating the idea that this is a job-creation and economic-development engine as well as good for energy and the environment. Those of us coming from the security angle have definitely embraced that message." Likewise, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written, "Look at the opportunities our country is missing -- and the risks we are assuming -- by having a president and vice president who refuse to ... marry geopolitics, energy policy, and environmentalism."

Bill Clinton is also a believer. "We've got to make [energy] a national-security argument, and we've got to make it a jobs argument, and we've got to make the price of oil irrelevant," Clinton said in July at an Aspen Institute gathering.


Digg!

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine. Copyright © 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
Re: Saving the earth
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Oct 3, 2005 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most alternative energy source proposals this depends on taxpayer subsidies. Raising taxes is extremely unpopular Energy companies will spend billions in advertising and press releases to emphasize the cost to taxpayers. They will also spend millions in campaign contributions to buy the support of politicians. Click on join the revolution. The citizens cannot be forced to pay for alternate energy through taxes. The only way that the transition is possible is to sell the idea and persuade people to pay a bit more for renewable energy.

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

"It's Gonna Run Out, Someday. . ."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 3, 2005 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the extractive industries that oppose any sort of post-fossil fuel world don't get is that their demise is assured no matter what direction energy policy takes – it is just a matter of how soon. In fact, with a measured winding-down of fossil fuel dependence, their survival will actually be prolonged. It is greed, pure greed, that keeps them from adapting –– and guarantees that they will follow the same path as the original source of their products.

By the way – why isn't anybody seriously looking at using the heat of Earth itself to produce clean, inexhaustable energy? We're already drilling down for miles, and it can be damn hot there, you know. . .

(And, if we could set up some sort of horizontal windmill over Congress, we could generate electricity from the rising hot air; enough at least to make the Capitol Bldg. self sufficient. Certainly a better prospect than trying to tap the milliwatts of brainpower within it. . .)

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

It would seem as though...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 3, 2005 7:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a sustainable source of renewable energy wouldn't need a 300B dollar taxpayer investment to bring it to market.

I remain hopeful for a sustainable energy resource--from the private sector, and from private developers. The only thing lobbyists tend to accomplish is to influence governmentals to spend our money. And usually very poorly.

My money is on vegetable oil (mass produced, not the admirable--but quite hipppppy--spent variety) as biodiesel. We need to massage the current crops to produce more oil--genetic engineering to make a more "oily" versus "proteinaceous" variety of soy would probably do the trick. We could do that by either by overexpressing the soy's own oils, or by introducing exogenous oils to create a blend--i.e. soy + corn + coconut...etc...whatever gives the best yield and quickest/cleanest glycerification. The would mitigate the major cost of biodiesel--the raw product--and maybe help mitigate the secondary costs--NaOH, lye, etc., needed to make a product ready to run yesterday's old mercedes diesel engine.

Hope you all have a wonderful day. I have an idea.

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

» RE: It would seem as though... Posted by: nickptar
» RE: It would seem as though... Posted by: ABetterFuture