Get Energy Smart! NOW!

This year could be a breakthrough year to truly change the nature of dialogue and action in Washington, DC, and nationwide. One of the great realities of the 2008 campaign: there will be a tremendous increase in the Oval Office and Congressional IQs when it comes to energy issues. In energy illiterate America, we have real opportunities to send energy smart people to DC such as Energy Smart Mark Begich, the next Senator from Alaska, and Energy Smart Debbie Cook facing down energy-illiterate Dana Rohrabacher in California’s 46th district. Minnesota’s third district offers another real opportunity, with a real choice for the District’s voters: do they want someone who mouths words about the future while remaining cemented to a polluting energy past or someone committed to a forward-thinking, climate-friendly, prosperity enhancing energy policy? This is the very real choice when considering Republican Erick Paulsen versus DFL Ashwin Madia on energy issues.

Energy questionable Erik Paulsen

Paulsen talks some talk when it comes to renewable energy sources, with discussing how Great Lakes’ wind power in Minnesota could help power the nation and mentioning the “potential” of solar energy. The challenge is whether one should believe those soothing words:

these positions conflict with his voting record on energy issues in the State House: earlier this year, Paulsen voted against Minnesota’s participation in a regional greenhouse gas reduction program. He has opposed requiring that 20 percent of the state’s energy be produced from renewable sources by 2020, and also voted against requiring that renewable energy make up at least a minimum share of the electricity that utilities sell in Minnesota.

In fact, what Paulsen really stands for is in-line with Sarah “Energy Expert” Palin and the McCain Disdain for Meaningful Energy Plans with support for nuclear power and “increasing the supply of American-made energy”. Notably, solar/hydro/wind/geothermal/biomass power are all, evidently, not “American-made energy” options:

This can be done by using the energy-rich ocean resources in a way that protects the environment, while providing an additional 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion additional cubic feet of natural gas. While this is not the only solution, it must be part of a comprehensive energy plan.

By the way, read these words: “We have large amounts of domestic oil and natural-gas resources.” Okay, “large” can be an impressive word. Sure, America’s reserves are “large” if you compare our oil resources to a swimming pool, but how about comparing them to our requirements. The United States has, roughly, two percent of the world’s oil reserves while we represent more than twenty percent of the world’s demand. While it would take decades to get production from offshore to even one percent of current US demand, the truth is that we can’t meet US demand for oil with increased US production. Simply, purely, bluntly, truthfully: CANNOT DO IT! What Paulsen is doing is offering up a one percent, one cent, 20 year from now solution to a very real problem today. Nothing about energy conservation. Nothing about electrification of transport. Nothing …

Another point about Erik Paulsen. You can search his campaign website. Here are examples of the results of some searches with meaning:

Hmmmm …

Energy Smart Ashwin Madia

Here is a case where, again, the candidate should speak for himself. From Ashwin’s energy platform:

Growth through a Green Economy
Federal legislation that requires a specific percentage of energy come from renewable sources would provide an immediate economic stimulus to states like Minnesota, with the capacity to be major producers of alternative energy. A cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions would create new market incentives for energy innovation. We can use the revenue generated by this cap and trade system to give back to consumers and keep energy prices affordable for middle class families.

We also need expanded federal incentives for businesses and individual consumers for the use of sustainable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels…We should take the billions in government handouts to oil companies and put that money into research and development of new renewable energy sources. This would help us transition to a green economy in a fiscally responsible manner.

Reducing Prices by Reducing Demand for Oil

Unaffordable gas prices have forced demand down, but they also put additional strains on family budgets that are already stretched by a difficult recession. Expanded federal incentives for fuel-efficient hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles would dramatically reduce our demand for foreign oil.

Environmentally Responsible Drilling

Oil companies should explore the lease areas already granted to them before exposing additional areas of valuable coastal property to the perils of oil spills. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore oil spills, resulting in 743,700 gallons of oil being dumped into the ocean. If there truly are ways to expand domestic supply in an environmentally responsible manner, we should grant new offshore oil leases on a case-by-case basis. We should not simply give a blank check to Big Oil to drill whenever and wherever they want.

A Role for Nuclear Power

… nuclear power should continue to play a modest role as part of the larger solution of addressing the crisis of global climate change. … support federal policies and investments to determine environmentally safe ways of disposing of nuclear waste. The costs of such efforts should be incorporated into the price of energy sold by nuclear power plants.

This is a balanced portfolio, recognizing that greening the economy is a path toward strengthening the economy. Included are power generation options (including ‘responsible’ additional drilling and nuclear power), but also a recognition that efficiency should be on the table as well.

By the way, as to those searches. From Ashwin’s Achieve Energy Independence page:

We see the effects of global warming all around us. Global climate change has the potential to cause enormous economic damage and political instability worldwide.

The rest of the paragraph highlights the linkages with security:

Further, our reliance on foreign oil makes the United States dependent on unpredictable nations in unstable regions such as the Middle East. Reducing our use of foreign oil is a national security imperative.

In summary …

As elsewhere in the nation, there is a clear choice in Minnesota’s 3rd District. If you care about fostering a prosperous, climate-friendly future, Ashwin Madia is the only choice.