This sounds like the blythe statements CEOs often make, but don’t mean about environmental concerns.
This article makes it sound like they are practicing what they preach in Vermont.
Green Mountain’s chief executive, Mary Powell, sees the program here as the best way to please customers while making the system more environmentally and physically sustainable.
As a practical matter, the less electricity the utility pulls from the regional transmission system, especially at times of peak demand, the less it has to pay in fees, producing savings it can pass on to customers. One way it does this is by remotely controlling the batteries installed through its programs, drawing upon the stored energy as needed.
Utility Helps Wean Vermonters From the Electric Grid https://nyti.ms/2u7fk0L
Closing the Standing Rock protest site is a travesty of corporate greed over public will. One might expect this under the Trump regime, but not Obama.
The American people have a right to protest the environmental sanctity of their land. The Army Corp is doing the bidding of their corporate overlords.
Protesters should decide if it’s safe to stay the winter. The protest is about safety. They should decide if their safety at the site is a greater issue than the safety of their drinking water. Safety is a choice people make, not a condition imposed by the government. If the government wants protesters to be safe they shouldn’t turn water cannons on them. Closing the protest area is about ending an embarrassing protest.
Speaking of safety, the people of Flint, Michigan dont have safe drinking water after the local government meddled. Decisions at Standing Rock should be about the long term safety of their water. The Dakota Access Pipeline is the bigger threat here.
Officials to Close Standing Rock Protest Campsite http://nyti.ms/2grJDc0
Anti-intellectualism and anti-government hysteria are the main reasons we don’t adopt environmentally friendly energy policies.
Its not the costs, which would be “modest”
I’ve noted in earlier columns that every even halfway serious study of the economic impact of carbon reductions — including the recent study paid for by the anti-environmental U.S. Chamber of Commerce — finds at most modest costs. Practical experience points in the same direction. Back in the 1980s conservatives claimed that any attempt to limit acid rain would have devastating economic effects; in reality, the cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide was highly successful at minimal cost. The Northeastern states have had a cap-and-trade arrangement for carbon since 2009, and so far have seen emissions drop sharply while their economies grew faster than the rest of the country. Environmentalism is not the enemy of economic growth.
Its not the lost jobs; there won’t be many.
At this point, coal mining accounts for only one-sixteenth of 1 percent of overall U.S. employment; shutting down the whole industry would eliminate fewer jobs than America lost in an average week during the Great Recession of 2007-9.
Or put it this way: The real war on coal, or at least on coal workers, took place a generation ago, waged not by liberal environmentalists but by the coal industry itself. And coal workers lost.
Its the blind belief that the free market solves all problems and the government only makes problems. Combine that with a fervent belief that there is no problem and nothing is even happening.
NYTimes: Interests, Ideology And Climate