What I Didn’t Say About Obama and New Energy

Spread the love

I was interviewed for a story on NPR’s Morning Edition which aired Thursday.  Tamara Keith asked me what Obama’s election meant for Alternative Energy, and I felt many of my points were downed out by the others she interviewed.  Here’s what she didn’t put in the story:

  • Obama mentioned three challenges ahead in his acceptance speech.  He said, "We know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime: two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century."  Of these three challenges, two were thrust upon him, but he chose to tackle climate change.
  • When choosing which Alternatives Energy to support, Obama is likely to consider if they 1) will be cost effective, 2) will create jobs, 3) are necessary for transformation, and 4) promote citizen involvement.
  • The sectors which best fit the above criteria are Energy Efficiency (Cost effective, Jobs, Citizen involvement) and Transmission and Smart Grid (Cost effective, necessary for transformation.)
  • Obama has the skills needed to get people thinking about energy, and overcome the behavioral and attitude barriers which cripple efforts to promote energy efficiency.

At the same time, AltEnergyStocks.com Editor Charles Morand was doing a live interview on the CBC Radio Noon show at practically the same time.  Here is his article about EarthFirst Canada (EF.TO, ERFTF.PK), which was the subject of the interview.

Tom Konrad


  1. Obama “chose” to deal with climate change? Maybe… I would hesistate given what we know about climate change to state that dealing with it is a choice. If peak oil is a near term reality, is moving off fossil fuels really a choice that we have? It may seems so, but that is just an appearence.

  2. Obama chose to see what he can do about climat change. In contrast, Bush has been spending the last 8 years choosing to ignore the problem…. the problem is there either way; we have a choice of how we deal with it.
    Fossil fuels will peak, but it would be unforgivably complacent to think that they will peak soon enough and decline quikly enough to reduce our carbon emissions as fast as they need to be reduced to deal with climate change.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.