How the Left Came to Reject Cheap Energy for the Poor

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
a revisit of the 2013 article because stupid people these days. it's mainly americany but hey, apply the basics wherever needed.




Progressives once championed state-led projects to advance human and economic development like FDR's (left) Tennessee Valley Authority. Today, despite enjoying the fruits of a modernity created in many ways through such public efforts, they urge a return to low-energy lifestyles and promote decentralized, market-driven proposals. A true progressive vision for the 21st century should — and will — be shaped more by leaders in the developing world who have no illusions about energy poverty, like Dilma Rousseff of Brazil (right), than by Western environmentalists.

Eighty years ago, the Tennessee Valley region was like many poor rural communities in tropical regions today. The best forests had been cut down to use as fuel for wood stoves. Soils were being rapidly depleted of nutrients, resulting in falling yields and a desperate search for new croplands. Poor farmers were plagued by malaria and had inadequate medical care. Few had indoor plumbing and even fewer had electricity.

Hope came in the form of World War I. Congress authorized the construction of the Wilson dam on the Tennessee River to power an ammunition factory. But the war ended shortly after the project was completed.

Henry Ford declared he would invest millions of dollars, employ one million men, and build a city 75 miles long in the region if the government would only give him the whole complex for $5 million. Though taxpayers had already sunk more than $40 million into the project, President Harding and Congress, believing the government should not be in the business of economic development, were inclined to accept.


enjoy the rest here


The Breakthrough Institute - How the Left Came to Reject Cheap Energy for the Poor
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,654
6,994
113
B.C.
a revisit of the 2013 article because stupid people these days. it's mainly americany but hey, apply the basics wherever needed.




Progressives once championed state-led projects to advance human and economic development like FDR's (left) Tennessee Valley Authority. Today, despite enjoying the fruits of a modernity created in many ways through such public efforts, they urge a return to low-energy lifestyles and promote decentralized, market-driven proposals. A true progressive vision for the 21st century should — and will — be shaped more by leaders in the developing world who have no illusions about energy poverty, like Dilma Rousseff of Brazil (right), than by Western environmentalists.

Eighty years ago, the Tennessee Valley region was like many poor rural communities in tropical regions today. The best forests had been cut down to use as fuel for wood stoves. Soils were being rapidly depleted of nutrients, resulting in falling yields and a desperate search for new croplands. Poor farmers were plagued by malaria and had inadequate medical care. Few had indoor plumbing and even fewer had electricity.

Hope came in the form of World War I. Congress authorized the construction of the Wilson dam on the Tennessee River to power an ammunition factory. But the war ended shortly after the project was completed.

Henry Ford declared he would invest millions of dollars, employ one million men, and build a city 75 miles long in the region if the government would only give him the whole complex for $5 million. Though taxpayers had already sunk more than $40 million into the project, President Harding and Congress, believing the government should not be in the business of economic development, were inclined to accept.


enjoy the rest here


The Breakthrough Institute - How the Left Came to Reject Cheap Energy for the Poor
They don't care about the poor they care about their votes .
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Actually they do care they just want to cut multinationals out of the profit equation
I think some things belong in governments hands and others are best left to the
private sector with some legislative powers to make sure the greedy don't get to
greedy
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
as a commentator says,



this article is yet more nonsense, based on the usual phony premise that looking beyond nuclear power and the centralized grid model is somehow….what?...a threat to corporate interests? perish the thought.
every left social progressive i’ve ever met wants cheap energy which is truly cheap, ie can be gotten without destroying the earth. in other words it needs to be cheap in both price & cost.
that can’t be done with fossil fuels and nuclear power. it CAN be done with renewables and an increasingly decentralized grid, otherwise known as distributed generation.
in this, we are supported by, of all things, the market! remove the insurance liability cap for nukes and the free-ride given coal, oil and gas as they destroy our planet and renewables can throw in all the government subsidies it gets and still come out very far on top.
forcing the nukes shut before the next Fukushima, and driving down the fossil fuel industry before it completely unbalances the climate…and bringing on renewables to replace them….that is what the “left” seems to be about these days.
impractical, you say? we say quite the opposite.
energy that’s cheap, clean, safe, job-producing, quick to install, community-controlled….those are the core goals of the green power movement.
our survival depends on winning them all. so we’ll see you in solartopia.







the premise behind the article is total BS