By Matt Welch The February winter storm shocked Texans to the core. For days, the energy capital of the United States shivered silently in the dark while snow covered the streets, the world shut down, and the human and economic costs soared. Only a fool would continue forward without recognizing that something needs to change so that […]
In our highly charged political environment, the question of whether to incorporate more renewable energy resources as part of our overall energy infrastructure is—as with most issues—often viewed in the prism of being either “left” or “right.” Unfortunately, this simplistic view distorts an increasingly important issue, and one that has much deeper significance than whether, from a political perspective, conservatives or liberals perceive renewable energy positively or negatively. In fact, transitioning to a more robust renewable energy portfolio has important implications for air quality, water supply, economic development, and national security.
Monday is a pivotal day for legislation that could extend the life of coal-powered electricity in Indiana, a measure supporters say would briefly pause a transition to cleaner energy sources but that critics argue is bad for the environment and energy markets.
If you believe some politicians and media pundits, the way we produce energy in the United States is extremely controversial.
To hear them tell it, some people are wedded to fossil fuels and other people only want renewables. The two sides are locked in vicious political combat and the idea of them ever working together is impossible, according to the political and media elite.
Ohio is an agriculture state. Family farms often span generations. In places like Paulding County, farmland sustains soybeans, corn, hogs, cattle and wheat. In recent years, a new cash crop has taken root alongside this more traditional harvest: clean energy.