Government expenditures on energy infrastructure and incentives for energy projects are not new.

There is talk in Washington of using the money to stimulate the economy to improve the energy infrastructure of the United States.

How would this work?

Proposals are for things like a 1930’s style Work Projects Administration (WPA) that would build things like power lines, solar farms and wind farms.  This is a 21st century version of the things that the WPA built during the great depression using the labor of millions of workers on “relief”.

“Over $4 billion was spent on highway, road, and street projects; more than $1 billion on public buildings; more than $1 billion on publicly owned or operated utilities;” -Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

Other proposals are to spend taxpayer money on incentives to increase the use of “green” energy technologies such as wind and solar power and to encourage energy efficiency measures.

Here is a database of all of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy incentives at the state and federal level.  Maintained by the NC Solar Center at the College of Engineering at North Carolina State University.

http://www.dsireusa.org/

If you hear someone calling proposals for the government to get involved in building energy infrastructure or providing incentives for energy related programs as “unprecedented”, you can respectfully point out their error.

There is precedent for large scale federally funded projects for energy infrastructure.  There is also an ongoing effort by local, state and federal governments to provide incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

We need to focus our economic stimulus efforts on achieving endependence.

Endependence = energy independence that ends dependence on polluting fuels.

There are real enemies in this war.

To prove the truth of this statement, check out these passages from a New York Times article about Exxon/Mobil.

But while Exxon is slowly unshackling itself from Mr. Raymond’s stance on global warming, it remains faithful to his legacy by dismissing most green alternatives and sticking with hydrocarbons. Although the company’s tone has changed, its strategy has not. Despite growing pressures on oil companies to invest in alternative energy, Exxon’s long-term view remains unapologetically tied to fossil fuels. -NYT, 11/16/08

For the moment, Exxon does not see much business sense in investing in solar, as BP has, or wind, like Shell, or geothermal, like Chevron. -NYT, 11/16/08

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16exxon.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&th&emc=th

Up until recently, Exxon/Mobil was one of the biggest funders of the global warming deniers (liars) club.  The same scientists who helped the tobacco industry deny the harmful effects of cigarettes are now helping the oil, coal and natural gas industries deny the effects their products have on the climate.

This video from the Canadian Broadcasting Company shows how the global warming “debate” has been kept alive after almost all climate scientists agree that humans have a huge impact on increasing the rate of global warming.  Most of the funding for these efforts came from Exxon/Mobil.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

The video is chocked full of information about the game of “hide the science” that the fossil fuel companies have been playing.

As the Orwellian wordsmith, Frank Luntz, the originator of the term “climate change” says at the end of the video when asked about how we can solve the climate crisis (something he now believes in):

“Be honest, do not yell, focus on solutions that will actually make a difference.”

Although Luntz now believes that human causes of global warming are real, he has aided and abetted the real enemies in the War for Endependence.

In all honesty, there is lots of yelling in War, and we are starting a War for Endependence.

Endependence = energy independence that ends dependence on polluting fuels.