NEWS
Forum addresses energy concerns
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sean Sullivan:
- Forum addresses energy concerns (October 22, 2007)
- Think tank looks to UW for innovation (October 19, 2007)
- Committee passes bill to benefit unemployed (September 13, 2007)
- Students pick Grosskopf as 'chief' (May 8, 2007)
- Sierra Club sues over coal plant (May 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Think tank looks to UW for innovation (October 19, 2007)
- Conference comes to UW (September 19, 2007)
- Chancellor-WPUI conference discusses energy (October 21, 2003)
- It's getting hot in here: Mayor joins UW professors in global warming discussion (September 26, 2006)
- UW Student Group Combats Pollution (April 16, 2004)
by Sean Sullivan
Monday, October 22, 2007
University of Wisconsin students and experts from several parts of the country discussed the future of energy in the United States Friday.
The conference, organized by the UW branch of the Roosevelt Institution, a national student-run think tank based in Washington, D.C., was part of the group’s efforts to formulate innovative energy solutions.
On a panel titled “Environmental Issues and Energy Policy,” panelist and recent UW graduate Patrick Murphy presented his paper on creating a national renewable energy standard. Murphy presented two approaches that would encourage renewable energy use in the United States.
While noting the pros and cons of both of his approaches, Murphy emphasized the upside of the second approach due to its cost efficiency.
“One [method] is the contract-based approach … that mandates that each utility purchase or generate electricity directly from renewable sources, and feed that electricity into their grid,” Murphy said. “The second [approach] is the market-based approach, which requires each utility to purchase or generate a certain amount of renewable energy — this is specifically based on a renewable energy credit.”
Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s Energy Program director, followed up Murphy’s presentation by voicing his concerns on the strong political power of large energy corporations. Tyson advocated government grants that would make solar panels affordable to working families.
“I think more in terms of getting off our dependence on big, centralized power plants controlled by energy companies. I want Americans to be independent of energy companies,” Slocum said.
According to Slocum, 76 percent of tax dollars going to subsidize energy go to coal, oil and nuclear corporations, only 8 percent of federal dollars finances wind, solar and geothermal, and only 16 percent goes to energy efficiency.
“That’s why when you look at the pending energy bill that is before Congress, there are billions of dollars for subsidies for coal, billions of dollars in subsidies to build brand-new power plants, but hardly anything to provide financing to American families so that they can afford to install solar panels on their roof or afford to make eco-friendly renovations to their home,” Slocum said.
Harvard University junior Jarret Zafran opened a panel titled “The Energy Issue in Political Campaigns,” suggesting the federal government spend $500 million on an advertisement campaign to increase public environmental consciousness.
“The program should end up paying for itself,” Zafran said. “If the average American family reduced their energy bills even minimally, they would have more money to spend on other taxed goods, and the benefit of addressing our environmental concerns now helps ward off higher costs later.”
Nate Loewentheil, Roosevelt Institution executive director, said the conference was well-structured because it provided a broad view of the energy industry, allowing students and panelists to directly discuss their concerns. Loewentheil added much of the success came from the involvement of students at the conference.
“We are now planning on getting [experts and students] together professionally in Washington, D.C.” Loewentheil said. “We have brought these industry people together to try to figure out some of their differences and get on the same page.”
Anonymous (October 22, 2007 @ 10:12pm):
solar, wind and geothermal energy produce about 0.1 percent of our total energy (about 0.3 percent of our electricity.) An 8% subsidy is too much for such a small amount of energy.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
