There’s a problem for the future. Solving our energy crisis requires making good decisions and avoiding bad ones. Fortunately the right decisions are good for the economy. They’re good for carbon reduction and good for resource conservation. As with many problems, the simplest solutions win out over complex solutions.
Energy conservation, energy efficiency, and solar power are better than things like nuclear power, “Clean Coal” and corn-based ethanol.
The government and private sector should invest in solutions that provide the best return on investment. Ideal energy solutions reduce carbon emissions, conserve natural resources, and profit individuals or companies. This is done without the need for government subsidies.
The U.S. federal government provides subsidies and services for energy producers, such as:
● The oil industry collects more than $60 billion dollars in annual protection services from U.S. military
● U.S. fossil-fuel tax breaks, subsidies, and royalty relief amount to $6 billion annually.
Many conservation and renewable-energy advocates prefer to end all federal energy subsidies. This would allow energy conservation, solar, and biomass to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear energy on a level playing field. If subsidies remain, less subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear, and ethanol and more for conservation, solar, and sustainable biomass energy would be best.
The current crisis is rooted in our infatuation with economic growth and our blind faith in industry. Many industry leaders and government policy makers have doubts about the value of energy conservation. “How can we grow our economy by using less of something?” they ask. To solve our energy problems permanently, we have to acknowledge the unsustainable philosophy of “more is better, bigger is better.” We should change this philosophy to “less is better, smaller is better.”
Only then will we be able have a more sustainable energy future.
Learn what you can do to save energy in your home with The Homeowner’s Handbook to Energy Efficiency.