The dollars are flowing to companies large and small. Automotive start ups like Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive, companies with little track record and no profits to speak of, have scored nearly $1 billion combined in guaranteed loans. Meanwhile established car companies like Ford and Nissan have been granted $5.9 billion and $1.6 billion respectively to further development of electric vehicles. That’s in addition to the government’s purchase of General Motors at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.

Outside the auto industry we’ve seen companies such as Solyndra, a solar power start up based in Silicon Valley that qualified earlier this year for a $535 million DOE loan guarantee. Prior to the loan guarantee Solyndra had been funded to the tune of $800 million in private venture capital financing. At the beginning of September the DOE also announced over $500 million in grants given mostly to large wind power developers. Since then many large utilities across the country have benefited from over $3 billion in smart grid stimulus awards. More recently the DOE has announced more than $600 million for energy storage projects.

If you look at the entire list of what has been funded so far you’ll see that no technology has been left behind. Electric vehicles, solar, wind, smart grid, geothermal, energy efficiency, energy storage  and carbon capture have all received funding. Thus one of the biggest obstacles to the development of new clean energy technologies has been removed. The collapse of the credit markets and oil prices dried up the investment pot. But the U.S. government has stepped in to fill the vacuum. So companies now have access to the capital they need to develop better batteries, construct manufacturing plants, research future technologies and much more.

With the financing obstacle removed for many companies, the only thing that’s left for companies to do now is to deliver on their promises. Electric car manufacturers have promised affordable vehicles that eliminate (or greatly reduce) the need for gasoline use in day-to-day transportation. Solar producers have promised gigawatts of solar facilities across the deserts of the southwest and rooftops across America. Wind power developers have promised clean, reliable, emission free electricity with very low impact to the environment. Smart grid companies have promised a new age of energy information technologies that will virtually eliminate blackouts and give consumers unprecedented control over their energy use and costs. Geothermal developers have promised a vast supply of emission free, uninterrupted baseload power from deep below the surface of the earth. On top of all the promises we’ve heard many times over the past decades there is also the promise of millions of “green jobs” as a result of a new clean energy economy.

The billions of dollars in play right now may only represent a down payment on future possibilities for clean energy development in the United States. Results are important though. If you have an investor who throws in a million dollars most of the time they want to see some progress before they commit more money. In this case the investors are the American people who’ve heard promises about the benefits of affordable electric vehicles and solar technology for decades. If public support for new energy investment erodes in 2010, politicians, especially ones up for re-election, will get the message and adjust their influence accordingly. That’s why it’s so important that clean energy companies show that they can produce the technologies they have promised, with the benefits that they have promised, at a cost that the majority of the public can afford.

A web based service called CO2stats is a great case in point for illustrating both of those issues. The owner, Alex Wissner-Gross Ph.D.appears to be a very smart guy. Dr. Gross and his service hit the news recently via reports of a study he conducted that measured the “carbon footprint” of Google searches.

CO2stats, which is run out of a Boston apartment (source) sells “green certified site” badges. CO2stats is also offering to make websites “carbon neutral.” How does one make a website carbon neutral? You pay them of course and they’ll do it for you by purchasing, “…the appropriate amount of audited renewable energy from wind and solar farms.” (source) Anyone who knows anything about energy knows that no amount of credit purchases can “offset” the burning of a fossil fuel or the release of emissions into the atmosphere. You just can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

This company also claims to be able to know, “…what type of energy is being used to power the networks that are connecting your visitors’ computers with your servers.” Let me be one of the first to call that claim highly suspect. You can create a model to speculate on what type of power is being generated based on the location of the server and the fuel diversity profile of the region, if available. But no one can really know what percentage of fuel is powering a particular computer at any given time. So perhaps the “team” at CO2stats has some sort of a model. How accurate is that model?

What is really instructive to me when scanning the value proposition contained on the CO2stats website are the claims that they can assist with growing your business. The site exclaims, “Your subscription includes free advertising on one of the web’s largest green ad networks, spanning thousands of sites.” Could we see a comprehensive list of those sites please? CO2stats also claims that the presence of their special “green” badge will increase the amount of time that visitors stay on the website. All this leads me to wonder. Is there anything that CO2stats can’t do for a business? Click the huge SIGN UP NOW button, enter your credit card and find out.

Excuse me for being skeptical and a bit cheeky. I’m of the opinion that enterprises like CO2stats are merely marketing exercises, selling carbon offsets that are of dubious value to both the holder and the environment. Purchasing a carbon offset is tantamount to buying a get out of jail free card in the game Monopoly. And who knows what type of “green” extortion could occur the (hopefully not near) future? It’s possible that “environmental” groups could start charging companies that don’t have the approved “green” symbol on their websites with crimes against the earth.

The clean energy movement needs real solutions to difficult problems. It doesn’t need rhetoric designed to make people feel guilty about using their computers, having children, starting a business or doing anything else that uses energy. The clean energy movement certainly doesn’t need get out of jail free cards either. My hope is that in 2009 more people look beyond the hype and the marketing to realize that the long term energy problems can’t be solved by paying someone to allow you to post a certified “green” badge on your website.

On ethanol, “Obama supports continued subsidization of corn-based ethanol production, despite the inflation in food prices that the switch to growing fuel instead of food is causing.”

On nuclear power, “Nuclear plants are dauntingly expensive–estimates of their cost seems to double every six months–and new nuclear plants cannot compete with existing coal- and gas-fired generation.”

On wind and solar, “Neither is the favorite of many environmental groups. Wind machines spoil their views, as the Kennedys argue from their Hyannisport waterfront compound…And solar installations take up huge swathes of land–almost 20 square miles in the case of one being built to service a tiny portion of the
electricity consumed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco area.”

On electric vehicles, “McCain would offer a taxpayer-funded prize of $300 million, and the infrastructure to service them. But the Arizona senator has given no indication of the government subsidies he has in mind to fund the replacement of your once-friendly gas stations with battery-charging substitutes.”

On cap and trade, “Neither concedes that consumers will end up paying the bill, or that the system has been a fiasco when tried in Europe…”

I think that the aforementioned points (and others in the article) do indeed address the real challenges facing the development of clean (or cleaner) energy technologies. It’s certainly not all about money. Throwing $150 billion at the cleantech industry guarantees nothing. And even if the investment (from government or otherwise) exists to develop new technologies there are many political and legal issues that could prevent those technologies from being deployed.

Many people are inclined to ask, "What happened on Friday?" That’s not the right question though. Something has been happening over a much longer period of time. It’s only now that anyone is taking notice. The chickens are coming home to roost if you will.

The situation is this. We have fast rising fuel prices, not only for oil but natural gas too. Almost everything we do requires fuel. Fuel allows people to use technology to create energy. Energy powers our homes, businesses our lifestyles. The need for energy is ubiquitous, hence the need for fuel is ubiquitous. The vast majority of the energy in the United States is generated via fossil fuels.

The U.S. isn’t the only consumer of fuel in the world. The U.K. and Europe also demand vast quantities of fossil fuels, albeit much less than the U.S. There was a time when the market was driven by demand in the U.S., U.K. and Europe. That time has past. Demand is also driven by India, China and other developing nations as well. The irony of the situation is the fact that prosperity in the U.S. and other places is the direct cause of the demand coming from India and China. Don’t blame India and China though. They’re building their economies just like the U.S. has done for decades. And we in the U.S. are driving that growth.

The situation is simple and complex at the same time. Higher fuel costs increase the cost of energy. Since energy is required to do almost everything this means that every aspect of the economy is affected by rising fuel costs. Of late the market has seen flat supply of the most necessary fuels while demand has increased. So if supply of fuel is increased along with a reduction in demand then we are likely to see lower prices for fuel and energy. Those lower prices will help to stabilize the economy in the U.S. That’s the simple part.

The hard part is figuring out what the most important problem is and how to solve it. There is a supply problem. Not enough oil is being pumped to give the market a good feeling that the value will go down. There is a demand problem. If supply increases but demand does not decrease then there may not be a drop in prices. There is a technology problem. The technology required to greatly reduce demand for fossil fuels is moving along slowly. There’s no doubt that for all the funding they’ve received of late that clean energy technologies still cannot compete with fossil fuels in terms of the ability to meet our energy requirements. These problems and others constitute the complex part of the scenario.

Countries really need strong leaders to assist in solving these sorts of complex problems. The problems related to fossil fuels are no different. The situation is dire. The rapid rise in fuel costs is starting to ripple through the U.S. economy with companies like Ford, General Motors, American Airlines, Continental Airlines (heck all the airlines) crying uncle. Gas prices are sharply higher. Food costs are sharply higher of late. This rapid rise in fuel costs is a very real problem that affects everyone. So how do we get costs under control?

Our leaders (and that means Mr. President and elected representatives) need to step up and get cracking on a pragmatic energy policy. The policy should include aggressive measures to diversify the mix of fuels we use. That means more wind, solar and biomass. It also means more nuclear power (that’s right nuclear) and electric transmission to go along with it. It also means cars that use much less gasoline than they do today.

A new energy policy should also devote assets to increasing the U.S. supply of fossil fuel. New sources of natural gas and oil are desperately needed. Without these we have no way to counter the reduced output and growing demand around the world. Drilling is unpopular but very necessary if we want to build energy security for the U.S. and the world markets.

Education should be a very key component of a new energy policy as well. All the public sees now is sound byte rhetoric from legislators looking to make headlines. Where are the leaders getting on television, explaining the situation and telling people what they can do to help? They don’t exist today. The President of the United States could do this and I have no idea why he hasn’t. Are these issues not of utmost national importance?

The situation we are in today has taken decades to create. So there’s no reason to believe that it won’t take that long to reverse. If we get started today, the United States can continue to reduce our demand for fossil fuels. We can also continue to increase our fossil fuel supplies in order to stabilize the market. We can also become the leaders who will reap great benefits from implementing the latest clean energy technologies. Finally, every American (especially those who live very large) can pitch in today by getting smarter about energy and changing their ways accordingly.

Are our leaders in Washington ready to lead the way? For the sake of the nation and the world, I sure hope so.

At some point as I grew up I came to realize that some problems could not be defined so simply. Problems were rarely about a bad person causing harm and a good person saving the day. I found that the most difficult problems are far more complex than that. They require not one side versus another but a variety of sides with varying interests and intentions. Everyone needs to pool their resources and give a little in order for things to work out.

This is how I feel about the many passionate debates around clean energy. Getting to a clean energy future requires hard work from all stakeholders. It can’t be about us vs. them. It needs to be about us working together. Alas, some of our leaders don’t see it that way.

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would extend the Renewable Energy Tax Credit. This is a credit currently in effect but set to expire at the end of 2008. The credit allows owners of clean energy projects to take credit against their taxes based on the amount of energy actually generated by the projects. I believe the credit stands at $.19 per kilowatt hour. It’s a nice payday for profitable clean energy producers and a needed incentive at this point in the game. This incentive, for better or for worse, spurs investment in wind, solar and other renewable technologies.

The passing of the bill to extend these credits would normally call for a cheer or two from me but there is something else. Built into this bill is a provision that removes certain tax incentives meant to keep U.S. oil companies competitive in the world markets. Some don’t like these subsidies but they were voted for by Reps from both sides of the legislative aisle for a reason. In any case, the issue of these subsidies does not have to be tied to the production tax credit (PTC) issue. Unfortunately the two issues are tied together.

Here’s a quote from House speaker Nancy Pelosi from the New York Times article, “The price at the pump increased 17 cents just in the past two weeks,” Ms. Pelosi, of California, continued. “Just yesterday oil prices reached another new record at $101 per barrel. This is at a time when oil companies are making record profits. Last year, ExxonMobil earned $40.6 billion in profits, the largest corporate profit in American history, and yet the administration refused to repeal billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil.”

This obsession with tying the fight against ‘big oil’ to renewable energy legislation is ridiculous. This isn’t an episode of Batman. Nancy Pelosi is not Adam West. The CEO of ExxonMobil is not Cesar Romero. If cracking the clean energy nut were as simple as knocking a big oil company out of existence maybe that would have happened by now. The situation is not that simple. In spite of what many legislators and citizens think, U.S. oil companies are not a roadblock standing in the way of a clean energy future. Oil companies are a big player in a much larger game. But there is plenty of innovation occurring and progress being made without seeking to punish big oil.

My perceptions are based on all the rhetoric we see coming out of Washington. I don’t see a lot of understanding with respect to the real problems that exist in the U.S. energy policy. I see a lot of finger pointing at supposed bad guys. This is an ultra simplistic approach to a complex problem. The whole scenario plays out like a bunch of angry, stubborn children saying, “I’ll show you!” We all get hurt though. It’s time to grow up and realize that these are two separate issues.

The anti-big oil provisions included in this latest bill are likely to derail the proposal in the Senate. That means more uncertainty and delays in clean energy investment. Perhaps our legislators in Washington should work to pass the extension that they know is so important to our clean energy future. And then once that’s done they can go back and fight it out about how to punish big oil for foisting a variety of ills on the populace.

Unfortunately, when anything becomes all the rage it also becomes susceptible to hype and bubbles. I don’t think we have a clean energy bubble yet (we’re not even close to that) but the hype meter is starting to tick up a bit.

The Silicon Valley company called Tesla Motors plans to build a fully electric sports car known as the Tesla Roadster. Tesla Motors has no track record as an auto company. The Roadster been beset by technical problems (specifically with the transmission) and recently went through a reshuffling of the top executives.

To date Tesla Motors has delivered exactly one of their Roadster’s to their CEO Elon Musk. Production models should be coming sometime later this year (maybe?) and even then it is likely that those vehicles will need a transmission replacement within two years.

From the outside looking in it seems to me that Tesla Motors is treading on dangerous ground. They have promised a revolutionary product and even taken deposits to the tune of millions of dollars. Tesla Motors on very dangerous ground in my opinion.

Companies that try to change the paradigm in any industry face an uphill battle. Trying to change the paradigm in the auto industry is an especially risky venture. And if Tesla Motors fails to deliver this vehicle, the repercussions will affect more than just the people who invested $100,000 in a deposit.

Every new, high profile clean energy company that fails will push further scrutiny on other companies in the industry. And the more that this happens the tougher it will be for the companies working on strong ideas to find investors and customers. If Tesla Motors fails then people will say, “Oh, those electric cars can’t work.”

Failure is not something written in stone with respect to the team at Tesla Motors. I believe that they can succeed if they focus on getting the Roadster to market. Unfortunately they already seem to be losing that focus. A news item appeared this week indicating that Tesla is already looking forward to their next line of vehicles.

Tesla Motors is planning to build a gas-electric plug in hybrid. I was a bit taken aback when I saw the news. After all, these folks haven’t demonstrated the ability to mass produce their flagship vehicle. How can they expect to launch a second line when they haven’t gotten the first line right yet?

According to the news item, “The San Carlos, Calif.-based company will produce two basic types of its Whitestar sedan, due toward the end of 2009. One will run completely on batteries. The other will be a range-extended vehicle, or REV, CEO Ze’ev Drori said in an interview. In an REV, a small gas motor recharges the battery pack while the car is being driven.”

I’m inclined to think that this attempt at expanding the product line is one that is meant to entice investors into providing Tesla Motors with a capital infusion. A plug-in hybrid sounds like a much more practical solution. But such a vehicle in a luxury sedan design is a challenge even for major auto companies.

While I would love to see Tesla Motors succeed and revolutionize the industry, they could do more harm than good if they fail to produce a deliverable product that works. Its one thing to undertake an effort like this with private capital. Its another when you fund R&D with deposits from customers.

Now is not the time for speculation about future product lines. Now is the time for Tesla Motors to be very quiet and get down to business perfecting the electric sports car that they’ve been promising the world for eighteen months.

A Complex Problem

Here’s the problem. It is nearly impossible to get all the major countries of the world to agree to the same thing at any given time. There are widely differing interests here. The Europeans are very friendly toward these climate change accords, partly because many of these countries don’t rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity. In France, 70% of electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. Even still, its not clear how many of these countries will meet their Kyoto targets. We know that our neighbors to the north in Canada will not meet their targets.

The developing nations feel penalized by any approach that sets standards across the board. After all, the U.S. and Europeans have had the benefit of being able to pollute for fifty years while some countries are just now moving into their industrial revolution. They feel like they’re being priced out of the market just as they are hitting the world stage.

The U.S. Conundrum

The U.S. is stuck between the developing nations and European interests. We have too great a reliance on fossil fuels (for many complex reasons) to make very drastic changes without seriously damaging the interests of businesses that the government relies on to pay a lot of taxes. And the U.S. government is not in a position to give up our clean energy technologies to the poorer countries that are demanding access in exchange for agreeing to meet emissions reduction targets. The best technologies are being developed by private corporations. So the U.S. position is that everyone should be subject to emissions reduction targets on equal terms.

It is also worthwhile to point out that ten years ago the U.S. Senate voted a whopping 95-0 against the U.S. signing Kyoto for mostly the same reasons. The U.S. does not want to be held out as a scapegoat for a worldwide problem.

Who Is Really To Blame?

To hear some people tell the story it is the United States that is to blame for the lack of a signed and delivered worldwide agreement to reduce carbon emissions. I will repeat. It is nearly impossible to get all the major countries of the world to agree to the same thing at any given time. Why should this situation be any different? For the U.S. this is a no win situation. If we agree to the reductions demanded by the European nations then we must also agree with the demands of the developing countries who want preferred access to the technology or more likely a nice fat check in lieu of the solar panels and wind turbines.

So you can blame the U.S. for “holding up the process” but you must remember that treaties are only pieces of paper and do not guarantee action or success. The results of Kyoto have taught us this very well. People also need to understand the U.S. form of government. There’s a reason that the U.S. Senate vote went the way it did in 1997. When the U.S. Representatives take back the details to their constituencies their will certainly be plenty of debate.

Opinions Will Fly

This debate is not going away anytime soon. And there is debate happening. Just look at these two pieces in Wired and National Review describing the political situation surrounding the Bali Action Plan. Wired says, “The US, especially under the present administration, is loathe to do anything that might hurt the oil, gas, and coal industries.” National Review states, “If hypocrisy were a clean energy source, the U.N. could solve the problem of climate change instantly.” Fighting words indeed. When the debate stops that’s when I get worried.

Each Country Must Take Action

Part of the answer to this whole mess involves every country taking what action they can. I can’t speak for other nations but I know that the U.S. is making progress in reducing emissions. A recent Department of Energy report confirms that fact. We’re seeing greatly increased capital investment in new, clean technologies across the board. Wind and solar seem to be particularly robust in their growth. Is it enough? It depends who you ask.

There isn’t a country out there that needs to wait for a U.N. agreement to do something to reduce harmful emissions. Let’s not argue about who the naughtiest kid in the class while we all know that there’s something we can do to improve the situation in the here and now.

Here is a paradox for you. America has access to an unlimited amount of energy that can be generated without the use of fossil fuels and without emissions that harm the environment. Sound good right. Oh and this energy source can generate electricity at a really low cost. Even better. So what’s the catch?

I’m talking about nuclear energy. But there are two sides to the story. You should also know that there is a down side to nuclear energy. Nuclear plants contain radioactive material. And that in itself scares people. A nuclear plant accident could jeopardize many lives. So it is very hard to get a nuclear plant sighted anywhere near a populated area. Nuclear plants also risk being targets for bad guys. Another reason why people are wary of tapping the nuclear resource. And its true that we have to figure out what to do with the spent nuclear fuel.

There is an attractive up side to nuclear. And there is a disturbing down side. Does one cancel out the other? Maybe so.

The nuclear experience in the United States has had some problems in the past, most notably the Three Mile Island incident. No deaths occurred as a result of the incident but everyone sure got a scare. Thankfully, nuclear power has had a very good track record in the United States since that incident. But we also have endured a marked decrease in the use of nuclear power to generate electricity just the same.

Now with oil where it is (around $89 today) and a major conference on climate change occurring in Bali, people are thinking about nuclear energy again. Some are thinking positively and others negatively. But think about it we must because nuclear power is a source of clean energy that will reduce our need to consume imported fossil fuels.

Once a pariah in the world of electricity generation, nuclear is making a comeback. Even Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace believes in nuclear energy as a clean energy resource. And while there are still many nuclear naysayers there is also a growing cadre of supporters.

Is major investment in nuclear energy the right thing to do for the United States? I think so. It is worth noting that the country of France gets about 70% of their electricity from nuclear power. Last time I saw a picture on TV (I have been to Paris once) there were no electric croissants bouncing down the Champs Elysees. In the U.S. about 20% of our electricity is generated from nuclear sources. With a country as large as the U.S. we can stand to increase our nuclear capacity.

Questions must be answered though. Safety in construction and ongoing maintenance should be of tantamount importance. Proper handling of nuclear fuel must be a top priority. Education for legislators, business people and the general public is critical.

Today the Governor of New York along with the Attorney General and other state legislators have asked a variety of questions of the people who operate the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in Buchanan, NY. There is generally wide opposition from the Spitzer administration with respect to the relicensing of the plant under current conditions.  The position is not one against nuclear power, rather this is a position against the current state of the plant. This is evidenced by the statement that, “…we should close Indian Point as soon as there is sufficient replacement power available, and in the interim we will continue to insist that all environmental, safety and security issues are fully evaluated and addressed, in order to protect the health and safety of the communities surrounding the plant.”

Much of the rhetoric in the mainstream press is likely to be focused on efforts to shut the plant down, thereby injecting unnecessary static into the debate. Its a shame because the comments of the administration are obviously not a demand to shut down the plant. Rather, they are the right of a government to make inquiries to ensure that citizens are protected. The question of whether or not to continue operation of Indian Point is up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The question of nuclear power is a murky one. There are not cut and dry answers. The one thing that is clear is that we must not dismiss nuclear as an option out of hand. This clean energy source is but one of a suite of technologies that we can use to power the clean energy future. Ah, but nuclear is an incredibly powerful and reliable resource. And that’s why all parties should continue the discussion and pledge to honestly support a position that leads our country to a safe, reliable and prosperous clean energy future.

It shocks many people I speak to who find out about the opposition to the Cape Wind Farm which is proposed in Nantucket Sound. I’ve discussed this specific issue in a previous editorial but the issues definitely point to a wider problem.

When evaluating projects that employ new technology there is going to be an impact. The question that should be asked is, “What is the balance between the negative impacts of the change and the long term benefits?”

We are living in a time when hard choices need to be made about our environment, our economy and our energy future. Its true that an offshore wind farm, for example, is going to cause an impact. There will be a disruption to the sea bed during construction. Energy will be used in the manufacturing and installation of the windmills. Birds and boats will need to adjust their navigation patterns. So there are negative impacts. But the sea bed will recover within a few years. Birds and boats will adjust their navigation patterns. After all, there’s a heck of a lot of sea out there. And then we will have decades of clean energy that enhances our economy, environment and national security.

Land-based wind, nuclear plants, hydroelectric facilities, geothermal plants and other clean energy facilities will have impacts on the environment during their construction and operation. But when we look at these projects we must evaluate the long term benefits against a standard that takes into account all of the critical issues in play. Its not just about a view being altered. Its not just about the inconvenience related to a construction project. Its about the safety, security and health of an entire nation and possibly the world.

So when people think about opposing a clean energy project because of the inconveniences that those projects may cause in the short term or in a local area, those people also need to the think of the greater good on a wider scale for a much longer period of time.

Have you heard of the Cape Wind project? Imagine 420 Megawatts of clean energy just off the coast of the state of Massachusetts. That’s nearly enough to eliminate the need for a land-based fossil fuel power plant. What could be wrong with a facility like this? Its hard to know where to begin.

Even though we need zero evidence to highlight the threat to our planet via climate change. Even in the face of $100 oil and rising demand for electricity. And at a time when our economy and currency are in seemingly dire straits. People cannot seem to put aside their personal desires in order to forward the greater good.

The vision of clean energy being generated in Natucket Sound that started six years ago continues on an extremely slow path to reality due to the repeated protests of those who would be affected (you would think positively) by the siting of the farm. The farm is planned to be situated in federal waters but former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney tried to have the state lines redrawn so he could kill the project.

Some of the arguments I have heard included the vision of the allegedly unsightly turbines that will be barely visible from shore. Others say that recreational boating will suffer. Some argue that the migration patterns of birds will be affected. There are more arguments. But frankly all of the impacts will be trivial compared to a future where the skies are polluted and our economy is in tatters.

The U.S. has thousands of miles of glorious coastline that can provide a bounty of clean energy while still allowing people and wildlife to prosper. So why not utilize a small fraction of our offshore resources for the betterment of our environment and economy? This is not drilling for more dirty fossil fuel. This is an enterprise that moves America forward technologically, economically and ecologically.

Wind power has thrived in other parts of the U.S. but has floundered comparatively in the very congested and high demand regions of the Northeast. Now is the time to begin reversing that trend.

Development of offshore wind projects, where incidentally the wind blows more reliably than many other places, is critical to our clean energy future. Myopic excuses and ridiculous grandstanding in the name of Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome are holding up the first of many positive advancements for wind power in the United States.

It’s time to stop the madness and let this wind project move forward.

I have heard economists state that they think the price of oil will retreat into the $60 to $70 dollar range by the middle of next year. I’m not so sure of that. What I am sure of is the fact that the performance of the U.S. economy is very much tied to our energy consumption habits. And as people in the U.S. continue to rely on sources of energy that need to be imported we become more and more vulnerable to forces that we can’t control. Be sure that those forces, in places like Russia or the Middle East will control that vulnerability.

Is it any wonder that while the price of oil is near historic highs that the value of the U.S. dollar is at historic lows? I don’t think so. Action needs to be taken soon.

The U.S. as a country is in a big mess. We’ve been in messes before and there is a way out. Our country desperately needs to leverage our technological know how to unlock the power of clean energy. Clean sources of energy pose great problems in terms of supply volume and reliability. But this is a country of problem solvers. And if we can put time, money and brain power into solving these problems then this whole situation could be turned around in just a few short years from now.

Investment in clean energy technologies will reduce dependence on foreign oil. This in turn will be a contributing factor in driving down prices and eliminating the leverage that Middle Eastern countries have on our policies. The increased investment will create many jobs at home and usher in a new era of technology exports. Both of these situations will greatly stimulate our economy. Our skies and waterways will be cleaner too. Investment in clean technologies means a huge win for our country in a lot of ways.

I think that there are a lot of complex reasons why we haven’t moved further ahead in developing and deploying answers to the problems of unlocking the power of clean energy. For sure we have made progress. But this thing needs to get kicked into a different gear.

If the current situation does not kick investment and innovation into gear than nothing will. I’m willing to be that things will kick into gear soon enough. The U.S. and the rest of the world will be in a much better position because of it.