Politics? Alternative Energy? Do They Coincide?
Will the election of Scott Brown of Massachusets have any effect on the outcome of our move to alternative energy? Whether we like it or not, President Obama’s alternative energy agenda does affect our national interests and attitudes conscerning alternative energy advancement and fossil fuel production and use. Renewable/alternative energy is, without dispute, more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel but the fossil fuel advocates are very deeply entrenched and invested in maintaining the status quo. It is up to us to monitor their words and actions and decide if it’s in our best interests.
Most of our “common sense” tells us that we don’t want to deter the progress we’ve made, as far as r&d, implementation, use and the many financial(tax, incentives, etc.) advances. Renewables definitely help to provide a cleaner source of energy. We don’t want to return to more of the same… that brought us to this point. Fossil fuels are a limited resource with some undesirable results, along with their intended use, in obtaining and using them.
In looking at Scott Brown’s track record we find that he both supported and opposed the furtherance of renewables/sustainables. He supported the Massachusets Ocean Management Plan while opposing the Cape Wind Project. He stated that his decisions were based (mainly) on location. He supported the 2008 Green Communities Act but opposed “cap and trade”. He is a big supporter of nuclear energy, with no emmissions.
Where does this indicate his future decisions could lead? Let me know what you think by leaving me a comment. Just click on the “comment” link immediately following this post. Tune in next week for another interesting, controversial discussion on alternative energy. Till then, May God Bless You. Tim
This link is working this week.
Though Scott Brown is seen as a Republican, is he more of an independent? It sounds almost like “politics as usual” with his yes and no votes. What makes him any different? S
Hi Stephanie,
Scott Brown is a Republican and that takes the Dems deciding majority away. He could go on either side for his vote but is more likely to at least consider the impact of bills on the environment(by his history). I have always perceived politics as a “give and take” game or question of semantics. I don’t know if politicians,as a whole, take a firm stand on controversial issues during an election cycle. Too many are swayed by poll numbers and lobbyists to represent their constituents or just do the right thing. I hope this doesn’t “muddy the water” even more. Thanks for the questions. Tim