Something smart I wrote:

for my Environmental Norms in Global Politics class.

I don't know who's read today’s (Monday, Nov. 8) NY Times yet, but I found the article,"Cost of Tapping Green Power Makes Projects a Tougher Sell" quite pertinent to our class. In brief, the article talks about the declining projects/companies/efforts for clean energy in America, for example "wind power dropped 72 percent from 2009 levels" because - due to the recession and lower demand - fossil fuels are cheaper than wind energy production. This kind of echoes a norm in America that we never want to pay too much for something especially when there's something else that's cheaper - I mean, we love deals, bargains, 'steals', do we not?

In the article, it cites state governments (commissioner, and the attorney general in Kentucky) as advocates for utility customers saying they couldn't afford paying more for the cleaner alternative although "residential customer's rates [would have increased] by about 0.7 percent".

I think, in this case, the Kentucky government is failing to see the bigger picture. Fossil fuels are cheaper temporarily, but the argument that payers can't afford green power is a weak one; the U.S. can't afford to fall behind in renewable energy (cough, cough China) or in the "greening of capitalism" in the U.S., the planet can't afford to not to have cleaner energy (from an ethical-environmental perspective). If we don't pay now, we'll "pay" later in other ways (environmentally & economically). If we want renewables we have to be willing to pay for them and willing to invest, but the article says investors are reluctant due to "all the uncertainty" - reminding me of our visit from the Danish journalist and how she was shocked at how our "uncertainty" really  holds us back from making environmental policy important and realized. This year we failed to pass a national renewable energy standard while "many countries are on track to meet the EU's goal of 20%" of renewable energy sources by 2020.

The article still points out that advocates are optimistic and argue that "as technology matures" and the market takes root, clean energy will be more attractive. Prof. Ingebritsen has also talked about in class the power of technology and innovation and its key role in pushing America towards being a hegemonic country again, a global entrepreneur, and norm leader IF we adjust our environmental/political/social norms.

Anyway, you should read this article in the paper or online if you haven't already. I thought it'd be a great example for an exam maybe or just to help draw more connections to the class.