OPINION & EDITORIAL
Fund conservation programs
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Conservation through cooperation (April 22, 2003)
- Board misses point (December 1, 2006)
- Environmentalists offer few solutions (April 14, 2005)
- Stuck in soot (November 29, 2006)
by Guest Columnist
Friday, April 22, 2005
In response to Mr. Baumgarder’s April 4 article “Environmentalists offer few solutions,” here, once again, are the solutions to meeting Wisconsin’s energy needs that we are offering and will continue to talk about, since it is misinformed and short-sighted to argue that allowing the construction of new coal-fired power plants is the only solution to meeting our energy needs.
First, there are energy conservation and efficiency efforts. According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, these efforts have the potential to reduce electricity usage in the U.S. by 24 percent; that’s equivalent to 200 500-megawatt power plants. There’s a lot of potential here and state audits show that for every dollar invested in efficiency consumers save five dollars.
The solution: protect the Public Benefits Fund and make sure that it funds the efficiency and conservation programs that it was intended to fund. Here’s what this means: more than $100 million for efficiency and conservation programs in the state, less pollution, less mercury and more money in your wallet. Unfortunately, in the last couple years this fund has been raided to balance the state budget. The bottom line is that we, as citizens and consumers, are harming our environment and our pocketbooks by not demanding that we protect funding for efficiency and conservation; so let’s start there.
Second, is coal our only option? Hardly. In the late ’90s Wisconsin recognized the potential to meet its energy needs through energy conservation and investment in renewables. For years we have known that renewable sources of energy are viable. Mr. Baumgarder claims that a single turbine will not produce enough energy to power an apartment. Actually, turbines come in a number of sizes and can produce 600kW to 2MW each. To put that into perspective, according to the PSC, “one megawatt has the capacity to power nearly 500 residential customers.” We could also diversify our fuel mix with other emerging technologies such as solar, geothermal and biomass.
You might ask: Is this fiscally responsible? After all, we would have to build the renewable infrastructure. Well, first of all, don’t think for a second that ratepayers will not pay for new coal-burning facilities. Additionally, billions of tax dollars subsidize fossil fuels; let’s imagine for a second that we instead invest that money in renewable technologies — those wind turbines are quickly becoming much less expensive. And subtract the $8 billion that we spent in 2003 to import fossil fuels into Wisconsin (since we don’t have these resources in the state), compared with the wind and sun, which are, well, free!
So, the solution: increase our investment in renewables and require that our utilities get more of their energy from renewable sources; after all they are already getting more than 2 percent from these sources. We already have wind farms and solar panels, and guess what? They work! We think a 10 percent renewable goal by 2015 is reasonable and a step in the right direction. And it will be equivalent to building more “power plants,” since we will need more wind farms and biomass to meet the 10 percent goal, but without jeopardizing our public health and environment by burning more coal. Just for perspective, other states already have stronger goals than that: California’s renewable goal is 33 percent, New Jersey’s is 20 percent and Germany’s is 100 percent, all three by 2020.
Need more convincing? What about jobs? Germany is showing an excellent return on its investment in wind power. According to www.sustainablebusiness.com, “By the end of 2003, Germany had an estimated 45,400 permanent jobs resulting from the wind industry alone, a figure expected to increase to 103,000 jobs by 2010.”
According to the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory of the University of Illinois, 14,000 new jobs could be created in Wisconsin as the result of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. And on top of that — the towns of Red River and Lincoln, the home of one of Wisconsin’s wind farms, receive $57,000 a year in tax payments from wind turbines owned by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Madison Gas and Electric.
This is the energy future that we envision for Wisconsin and the solutions we are offering. They are viable, reliable, safe and good for the environment and consumers. It’s time that Wisconsin move forward with an efficient and clean energy future.
David Shaffer is a junior majoring in biological aspects of conservation. He is a WisPIRG Student Intern.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 3:30am):
conservation is 4 weinies
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 7:42am):
Conservation in the name of efficiency is one prong of the attack.
The end goal shouldn't be to reduce power usage. The goal should be to get everybody the power they need in the most efficient, cost-effective and environmentally-friendly manner possible.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 8:10am):
Too bad wind power is victim of NIMBY.
Pebble bed nukes is the answer.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 8:43am):
Here's an article about celebs that believe in conservation - for everybody else.
Celebs Ignore Death, Poverty on MTV Enviro Series
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200504\NAT20050422a.html
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:22am):
"Celebs Ignore Death, Poverty on MTV Enviro Series"
That's actually very funny. I'm sure some loudmouth will use this as a reason to bash anyone who cares about conservation or the environment, but it's worth it. God those girls are dumb.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:24am):
I'm all for conservation, just as long as I get to stay at the top of the food chain.
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 9:43am):
"That is a good thing," suggested Dr. Ehrlich, explaining that "the more people who starve today, the less competition there will be for food tomorrow."
http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2005/04/earth-day-2030-new-eye-blinked-open.html
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 5:34pm):
There's enough food being produced to stop hunger... the problem is distribution.. Here we have food stamps but.. Its too expensive to ship food to Africa and place of real need.. The solution is to make transportation not cost so much, ie. nuclear power, just make it so cheap to transport things across the ocean that it's beneficial to send your excess there instead of storing it here.. and the nuclear waste? as a thank you for our kindness, the Africians can keep it and play with it til they start glowing green..
Anonymous (April 22, 2005 @ 8:01pm):
"Its too expensive to ship food to Africa and place of real need"
Not the problem. The problem is the tyrants that rule Africa, they steal from their people to get fat and rich. Notice how Mugabe turned Zimbabwe from a bread basket into a starving basket case.
It won't matter how much money or food is sent to Africa, they'll find a way to kill each other.
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 12:37am):
ok... in that case, fuck Africa.. I'm rich bitch! lol
Anonymous (April 23, 2005 @ 9:32am):
Africa fucks itself, it's tribal and religious disputes aren't going to be solved by more money. Money just fuels the carnage, ever heard of "conflict diamonds"?
