Boone Pickens's new
plan is by no means the most interesting thing happening in energy development, renewables, etc., nor do I think it will accomplish the stated goal of replacing gas burning power plants (these plants are too new to simply shut down and too expensive to convert into coal burners), but I applaud Pickens's vision nevertheless.
The Christian faith requires us to be good stewards of the environment and the resources God has given us. It also requires us to think about the wider effects of how/where we spend our money. Supporting Hugo Chavez or the Middle East should not be an easy option for us. I think it is urgent that we develop nuclear power, as well as wind, solar, and in places like Peru, hydro and geothermal energy. I also applaud the major automakers for their work with plug-in hybrids, electric, and hydrogen fuel cell cars (we should pray that GM survives long enough to bring the
Volt to production). Our long-term vision should be for a supremely efficient world run on all renewable energy. Pickens's plan probably will not accomplish his stated, short-term goals. It will be a noble step forward, however, towards our long-term goals, and hopefully it will get a lot of attention. The US has been dreadfully irresponsible in its energy policy for at least the last 40 years. Maybe an oilman can help us better appreciate the urgency of the situation.
******
I've added this addendum because, for some strange reason Blogger is not allowing me to respond to the comments that people leave. This is a specific response to Gumbofilé.
Part of what I hate about the current state of US politics in general, and discussions of energy policy/environmentalism in particular is that all sides have become too cynical of each other and are too quick to assume the worst about the other side's motives and intentions. Such cynicism does nothing to promote dialogue. It tends to shut down the discussion and leaves each side talking only to itself.
Even if one is convinced of the sinister motives or intentions of an opponent, it is seldom good debating strategy to tell the opponent of our suspicions. Also, St. Paul's advice to Christians was that they should "bear all things, endure all things, hope all things, believe all things" which may be applied in our context as "put the best construction on other people's words and actions"--good counsel for Christians and non-Christians alike, methinks!
Now to the specifics of your comment. Let's just grant (for argument's sake) that Pickens is only being self-serving. How does that imply that the plan itself is a bad plan? His motives really have nothing to do with the relative merits of his proposal. I have certain misgivings about the specifics of his plan, but applaud his initiative to move forward with renewables. The end result, I think, will be good in spite of some questionable details and no matter what may be his basic motivations for doing it.
However, having said all that, let me present a case for believing that Pickens may not be so sinisterly motivated as you suggest:
Pickens is eighty-something years old. He has made his billions. His entire estate is being left to charity. Just in the past couple or three years he has given away over $700,000 to charity. It seems much more likely that he wishes to do something noble in his old age. He believes that the US has gotten herself into a difficult situation and nobody else is taking a serious stab at solving the problem. He thinks he has an idea that will work (or at least help) and so he is willing to take a personal gamble and begin dealing with the problem.
Wes Baker