As I listened to what Obama’s inaugural address, I found myself alternating between listening to the specific things he was saying, and thinking about his overall message and what people might take from it. To the specifics, he did specifically mention energy policy changes, harnessing the sun and seems committed to renewables. Great news.
But the overall message does seem more important – the problems, challenges and responsibilities that people, companies and nations had yesterday are going to still be there tomorrow, but that we can rise to meet them. Real hope. Powerful stuff. The contrast between that and anything our current leadership here in Canada might have to say is striking.
In Canada, we prefer our politicians to be safe and boring, and usually it works for us – we avoid leaders like Bush, but it seems we lose out on the Obamas too. Food for thought.
Energy, unsurprisingly, is turning into a major election issue in the US this year. With the latest round of ads with the two candidates hitting each other over energy, it seems like a good time to start talking solar politics.
Over the next few months I’ll be summarizing various legal and political issues regarding solar, including tax incentives, legal requirements for renewable energy, political platforms on energy and solar and generally trying to summarize events in solar politics.
But, to start, let’s look at the two new Energy policy ads in the US:
As it pertains to solar, Obama mentions the German national renewable energy plan that began in 2000 and which made Germany the clear world leader in energy (50% of all the world’s solar power is implemented in Germany). So it’s encouraging that it’s being talked about. It doesn’t have to just be solar (or even mostly be solar) but a real focus on renewable energy has to be the cornerstone of any realistic energy policy.
Coming soon, an analysis of Obama and McCain’s Energy and Environmental Policies, especially as they pertain to solar.
Oh, and for the record, we’re Canadian, so we don’t get to vote and so I’m really not interested in taking sides – they’re both proposing positive changes to National Energy policy, and personally I don’t think either are progressive enough or committed enough to breaking US dependence on oil and coal. (Not that Canada is much better.)
