Plumber Joe Wants Solar Power and a Plug-in Hybrid
- Daniel Hinerfeld
- Deputy Director of Communications, The Robert Redford Building in Santa Monica
- Blog | About
- Posted October 16, 2008 in Moving Beyond Oil
I've been fascinated by CNN's "live audience reaction meter" during the presidential debates. The meter's green and orange lines rose and fell as 30-or-so undecided male and female voters in CNN's focus group indicated how they felt about what the candidates said.
After watching all four debates, it appears that each time any candidate spoke about developing clean alternatives to fossil fuels and using energy more efficiently, undecided voter approval hit the ceiling.
But even more interesting is the way these undecided voters discriminate among different alternatives to oil. For instance, in the third and final presidential debate (scroll to “oil imports”), voter approval rises marginally in response to nuclear power as a way to reduce oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela. But the moment wind, tide, and solar power are mentioned, both lines jump up, with undecided men apparently registering maximum approval.
A moment later, as so called "clean coal" rears its filthy head, the lines begin to come down again.
Likewise, notice how expanded offshore drilling doesn't get nearly as high an approval response as the prospect of building highly fuel efficient cars right here in the United States.
The evidence is clear: approximately 30 undecided voters in Ohio favor clean, renewable energy and efficiency over fossil fuels and nuclear power. That's one unscientific message all elected officials should take to heart.
Reminder to readers: Comments on the substance are always fair game, but we cannot accept comments on candidates or the election. Thanks.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Jim Bullis — Oct 16 2008 09:44 PM
I took encouragement that the words used were, "critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that's built -- in the United States of America."
Notice that there was no pre-supposition that these would be electric, plug-in, or hybrid technologies. While these are potentially useful parts of the solution, the key word is "efficient." Hopefully we will guard against deception when it comes to deciding what is efficient.
For example, we will not accomplish efficiency by making an SUV a "hybrid" or by using electric motors to drive high performance muscle cars. Any kind of plug-in electric arrangements need to be evaluated as to their use of fossil fuel in central power plants, with particular attention to the likelihood that coal will be the fuel used.
If the right kind of efficient cars are built, the solution could go a long way toward solving the global warming problem as well as the energy dependence problem.
Douglas M — Oct 18 2008 11:33 AM
I am writing to propose a way in which we can help effect a change in global warming. It may not seem like that big a deal, but maybe some people will take notice if the idea spreads, and the company's bottom line is affected.
Basically, I was doing a web search to see how much money the big oil companies are spending on green technology. It seems that Shell is investing significantly more money than Exxon/Mobil in "green" energy projects, and what particularly impressed me about Shell is their investment in wind and solar energy projects. Look for yourself, but I couldn't find any information about Exxon supporting a wind energy project. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's beside the point. I really don't think any of the major oil companies are spending enough on "green" projects, but we have to start somewhere, and I think Exxon is lagging so we'll use them as a starting point.
What I propose is this.
1. Do not buy anything from Exxon/Mobil as long as their investment in renewable energy projects remains below that of Shell. Shell has a head start, but they better pay attention, and use the increased profits to boost their commitment to renewable energy, otherwise we can take our business elsewhere.
2. Check the Shell and Exxon sites frequently, to see if they have posted how much they have invested in renewable energy, and buy your gas according to your conscience.
3. Pass this message to all the people in your e-mail downline to help spread the word. (Very Important, make it VIRAL)
We can not rely on politicians in Washington to take action, although I think they will under the new administration. We can solve it, but only if we work together. We all know that Exxon had record profits last year. Isn't it about time that they take responsibility for their part in the global warming crisis? Or if you don't believe in global warming, maybe they should do their part to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.