QUICK NEWS, June 3: TALKING PLUG-IN CARS WITH THE PRESIDENT; THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND; THE WORLD WANTS BETTER ECONOMICS

TALKING PLUG-IN CARS WITH THE PRESIDENT EV Advocate Goes the Extra Mile to Talk Electric Cars with President Obama; Paul Scott spent his own savings to get the president’s attention on EVs.

Paul Scott, May 31, 2013 (Greentech Media)

Editor’s note: Electric vehicle advocate Paul Scott just spent $32,400, a chunk of his retirement savings, for a ticket to President Obama's June 7 Santa Monica fundraiser. A co-founder of Plug-In America who has been instrumental in the movement that inspired theWho Killed the Electric Car? movie, Scott explains below what he wants to say to the president about electric vehicles in the two or three minutes his money will buy.

If you had something important to say to the president, how much would you spend to get his ear?

On June 7th, I'll be spending $32,400 to eat lunch with President Obama. Two dozen other high-dollar donors will be there, but I'll be the only one in the room who does his own laundry. I'm not wealthy -- at age 60, I'm spending a large percentage of my retirement savings to sit at the table.

Why? Because it's a deeply troubling time in our country and in our world. Whether you choose to believe it or not, climate change is a greater threat to life on Earth than at any time in modern history. Our economic recovery remains shaky at best, and millions remain unemployed. Say what you will about dubious fracking practices that may result in more U.S. oil exports -- we'll be treacherously dependent upon hostile nations for much of our petroleum for a long, long time.

But I, and thousands of other Americans, have been practicing solutions to these seemingly intractable problems by driving electric vehicles (EVs) that run on renewable energy. I want to tell Obama about the economic benefits of this transition away from oil during his visit to Santa Monica to raise money for the Democratic Party.

As we all know, money drives the political game. Those with a lot of money are given access to politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, and those of modest means are only heard at the ballot box. Adding to the problem is the use of vast sums of money spent to pollute the democratic process with massive slur campaigns filled with misinformation and outright lies. The truth rarely gets heard.

What I want Obama to hear is that for over a decade, I've been driving a zero-emission electric car powered by sunlight. It runs on solar electricity generated by the solar panels I purchased over ten years ago. This is, in fact, the reason I can afford to speak to the president. By powering my home and car with clean energy, I'm no longer forking over thousands to the oil, coal and natural gas companies. I recently calculated how much I've saved by paying only a small utility bill for these basic needs since 2002: roughly $16,000.

This is about half what it is costing me to meet with Obama.

What would our planet and political process look like if millions of Americans stopped giving hundreds of billions to polluting industries and instead spent their savings on locally generated renewable electricity and local goods and services? It's reasonable to assume that the inexorable march toward climate calamity would slow and that millions of jobs would be generated. And if people contributed even a small portion of this savings to causes they believed in -- school fundraisers, healthcare for a relative, animal rescue, and, especially, political causes -- the playing field would begin to level.

They tell me I'll have two to three minutes with the president. I will represent the average American who wants a clean environment, a fair political process and a livable society. Switching from oil to renewable electricity will clean the air, diminish the power of the fossil fuel industry, and strengthen the economic vitality of our communities by stopping the flow of the $700 billion spent on oil every year, much of it leaving the country. We must redirect that wealth toward making life better for everyone. It can be done. This is what I will tell Barack Obama.

Tweet

THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND Judge wind energy honestly

Jeanie Kaidy, May 30, 2013 (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle)

“Every energy source, traditional or alternative, comes with economic and environmental drawbacks…Considering the cutting-edge technology that is currently emerging, a more honest cost benefit analysis should not be restricted solely to wind power, but to wind power versus all other traditional fuels…

“…There are several ways to overcome [wind’s variability]…State-of-the-art grid-connected systems developed at MIT store excess power generated by turbines…[for] when wind is not blowing…Turbines require oil and lubricating fluid [that could leak but]... Each fracking [natural gas] well requires 350 barrels of toxic chemicals that can permanently poison aquifers. Last month, 210,000 gallons of crude spilled from the Exxon pipeline into the backyards of Mayflower, Ark…”

click to enlarge

“…[Old turbines require decommissioning but there is] nuclear waste still on site at every reactor in this country…[with] no safe means of disposal. According to Bloomberg Business News, the two-year wait for new turbines has created a thriving market for refurbished turbines…[Wind gets a federal tax credit but taxpayers] hand over huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industry while energy companies make record profits…

“…[Birds are killed by wind turbines but they can be positioned so that they do not interfere with major migration routes or breeding grounds. The American Bird Conservancy supports wind power as a strategy to mitigate climate change which will ultimately cause far more bird deaths than wind turbines…If we are going to have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of this low-impact, economically viable energy source, then let’s make it an honest one.”

Tweet

THE WORLD WANTS BETTER ECONOMICS Public Backing for Going Beyond GDP Remains Strong: Global Poll

29 May 2013 (Ethical Markets)

“The public around the world remains strongly in favour of replacing GDP with a broader way of reporting national progress, according to a new global poll…conducted by GlobeScan on behalf of Ethical Markets, business think tank Tomorrow’s Company and the ICAEW…It shows that…68 percent of citizens on average - in the countries surveyed favour replacing GDP with a broader indicator embracing health, social and environmental statistics as well as economic ones. Twenty-three per cent would rather retain a focus on money-based economic statistics.

“The survey was previously conducted in 2010 and 2007. This year’s results show that while globally the proportion favouring going ‘beyond GDP’ has not changed since 2010, there were some significant shifts in individual countries…The proportion of the public favouring measuring national progress using non-economic factors grew significantly in China (up by 12 points to 80%), the UK (up 11 points to 81%) and Australia (up 10 points to 81%)…”

click to enlarge

“…India (where 44% want to see a new system), Kenya (43%) and Germany (57%) are the most sceptical of change…In 2010 Germany and Brazil were with the countries with the largest margins favouring a new system of measuring national progress. But this year public opinion there has swung significantly in favour of a traditional money-based approach. Thirty-four percent in Germany and 32 percent in Brazil now prefer keeping a focus on money-based statistics…”

[Tony Manwaring, Chief Executive, Tomorrow’s Company:] “Value creation has changed fundamentally in the Age of Sustainability, it must now integrate economic, social and environmental factors in order to deliver in the long-term. If this is true for companies and investors, then it is even truer for countries…As Bobby Kennedy put it many years ago, GDP 'measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile'. We welcome these findings as big step taken on the road for measuring what matters for the sake of people, planet and profit.”

Tweet