Difficulties in Promoting the Switch to Renewable Energy Sources

Subsequent to the nuclear disaster at the Daiichi Nuclear Plant in Fukushima, recently the Japanese Prime Minister Kan has asked for one reactor (Hamaoka) in Chubu to shut down until it installs more safety measures for earthquakes and tsunamis.  The Government of Japan (GOJ) is also beginning to promote renewable energy such as solar and wind power to make up for shortfalls of nuclear powered energy.  The government as recently as last year was subsidizing solar panels on new home construction, for example, so this is not their first effort.  These subsidies come from tax dollars or rate payers, of course, so they are not always popular with the public at large.  This same situation exists in the United States, creating a serious obstacle for changing over to renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel and nuclear power.

What with how stubborn or uneducated or just plain fanciful the general public is on such things as the environment and what fossil and nuclear fuel can do to you short and long term, it almost requires such an horrific disaster to prompt some sort of change.  Of course, if the change is mandated by the government in the States, half the people cry "Socialism!", regardless of how it may positively benefit them.  No one wants to pay higher taxes or electricity rates for a benefit that they don't "see" immediately in their own home or wallet.  The homeowner who installs the solar panels sees the benefit, but his neighbor who is paying a higher rate to partially subsidize the solar panels does not see that cash benefit.  He is also unlikely to appreciate the benefit of lowered pollution that he and his family is reaping by having his neighbor install solar panels which provide power substituting for the largely coal powered electricity that most people use.  It's much easier to just bitch about higher taxes and electric rates and vote as such, destroying any and all programs providing incentives for positive behavior by the citizenry.

This nuclear disaster is right in your face every day, so it's easier to use as a cudgel to move the public and the government, frankly, in the right direction on promoting renewable energy sources.  In the title article, the GOJ estimates that wind power along the Pacific coast of Northern Japan could replace the nuclear power currently used, for example.  And how about all those new homes that will be constructed as cities rebuild, not to mention every other building; warehouses, restaurants, hotels, etc.  Imagine the power generated by mandated solar panels on every roof above a certain number of square meters.

Absent such a prolific disaster as the one we are currently facing, it is more often than not difficult to impossible to motivate the public at large to support such efforts if they are not immediately, directly affected.  For example, the people whose water supply is poisoned and lungs are destroyed by mountain top coal mining or strip mining are ready to say yes to renewable energy, but if you don't live right next to such a destructive operation you don't see the incentive in your daily life.  "Sure, the air is getting more polluted every day and the effects of that pollution on the climate and our lungs will surely kill me or my grand, grand, grand, grand children, but hey, what's in it for me today?"  It's damn hard to convince people of what to do for their own good if the effects will not be realized for some years down the line.  Even with such a disaster, the effects are usually only temporary on the country as a whole.  As life gets back to normal for most of the population, they usually experience amnesia about the whole thing.  "Crisis, what crisis?  I don't want to pay more taxes!"

I guess we'll just have to wait until the U.S. experiences their own horrible nuclear or other disaster to see people convinced.  Until then, it sure feels like we're hitting our heads against a brick wall.