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
4 comments:
Very interesting article! I agree to that Christians should lead the charge in good stewardship with the earth and energy, making responsible decisions in all we do. Thanks for keeping us informed!
"I think it is urgent that we develop nuclear power, as well as wind, solar, and in places like Peru"
Nuclear Power?????????????? For your own information, this option is not green at all. Its effects are creating more pollution and other. Research!!! Before posting info that mislead the public.
Hello Anonymous,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
You may be right about nuclear waste "creating more pollution [than any] other." I'd be very happy to look at any studies or other info that you can direct me to.
Maybe I should explain more fully my perspective on nuclear.
First (1), my criteria for deciding whether a particular form of energy should be pursued is not whether it fits with current definitions of "green." My criteria is whether it is moral, wise, and contributes to the perfection of God's creation, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I realize that it is still quite debatable under those criteria and I'll be happy to look at whatever information you care to present.
(2) I am strongly convinced that nuclear is not a long-term solution. Wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and geothermal, together with efficient storage and transmission technologies are where we need to be going long term. I view this similarly to hybrids and battery electric--intermediate steps to get us more easily to where we need to be.
(3) A good friend of mine spent 20 years as an engineer at the Savannah River Nuclear plant and my views on nuclear power have largely been shaped by conversations with this friend and by a moderate amount of reading on my own. It is my understanding that nuclear plants are safe (in their operation), tremendously efficient, relatively cheap to build, and that waste has been cut down to a minimum (i.e., the amount of waste that would be produced over the next, say, 30 years as we transition to a fully renewable energy economy, would be very small and easily handled).
4. I believe that much of the prejudice against nuclear power stems not so much from an objective look at how safe or unsafe it may be, but rather from our collective guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This will probably get me into another debate, but I do believe that the US bombing of Japan was a violation of Christian just war theory and that even threatening to use such weapons is immoral (i.e., the diplomacy of deterrence). Having said that, however, I see no inconsistency in supporting nuclear power as a bridge to a fully renewable energy economy. As I said earlier however, if you can give me a good argument to the contrary, I'll be most happy to consider it.
Thanks again for your comments.
P.S. No need to post anonymously. We're all friends here.
Pickens' plan is self serving. he wants the state to give him our money to do this so that he doesn't have to risk his own. doesn't sound like he has much confidence in his plan, other than making money at taxpayer expense.
Post a Comment