Proposal 3: Renewable Energy

Other episodes in this series:

Specials

Date:

October 11, 2012

Listen

Right-click or ctrl-click to download the .mp3 audio

Voters could put a commitment to renewable energy in the Michigan Constitution next month. Supporters of the ballot question say Michigan can be a leader in the production of clean energy like wind and solar. Opponents say the constitution is not the place to set energy policy and the changes would restrict Michigan’s ability to provide affordable electricity.

Please read before you comment (will open in new tab/window): Community Discussion Rules

See More: biomass, clean energy, Proposal 3, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy

Comments

energy amendment

Submitted by Steve (not verified) on October 12, 2012 - 9:47am.

So here's what I don't understand: If wind (or whatever alternative energy source) is so astoundingly economically favorably, why does it need to be in the constitution? Why would the normal market forces not propel us toward the most economically successful technology? If the economic claims being put forth are true (and I hope they are), then the industry would naturally, of its own accord, move to these technologies anyway. It makes no sense to make rigid legal mandates for things that should be market-determined.

Steve, Your argument seems

Submitted by Jason (not verified) on October 14, 2012 - 7:47pm.

Steve, Your argument seems slightly myopic in failing to consider other justifications besides the invisible hand of the market. For example, there is an argument to be made about environmental sustainability which you do not address, nor do you address the fact that public demand is generally CREATED more often than it innately exists (creating demand is the basic point of contemporary advertising). Just because the public is not currently demanding a particular good or service does not necessarily indicate its societal value. On top of all this, if there is a public demand, an affluent member or sector of the economy can use its wealth to counteract any demand that might exist. We find one example of this in the proposed international bridge between Detroit and Canada. A wealthy individual (Matty Maroun) has used his considerable financial assets not only to create a ballot initiative, but also to misinform citizens in Southeast Michigan about the economic and logistic practicality of said bridge. I think more evidence than faith in capitalism is needed to support your argument.

Proposal 3 energy amendment

Submitted by Dave (not verified) on October 14, 2012 - 11:45am.

Steve makes a good point. There is absolutely no need to make this a Michigan Constitutional issue. People need to remember that when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine or you have 3 feet of snow covering your solar panels there has to be a back up energy system ready to kick in -- fossil fuel, geo-thermal or nuclear. We need to put money in to these systems as well as responsibly develop green energy; but let's not do it the way Obama did and careless throw billions upon billions on green energy companies and consultants will tax tax payers to the cleaners. Right now I have a bad, very bad taste in my mouth for these green energy companies, consultants and environmentalists and find there is no reason to make this a Constitutional issue. I'm voting NO on Prop 3.

The reason is quite apparent.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on October 12, 2012 - 1:13pm.

The reason is quite apparent. As Jessie Ventura said, all you have to do is follow the money. The big oil companies don't want competition.