I read the New York Times OnLine every day here in Linkoeping, Sweden and I read it soon after it is issued, this made possible by the 6 hour time difference.
Almost every day in this newspaper that is read throughout the world, I read one or more articles about the latest developments on the energy scene in the United States.
At the present time, most of the "column inches" on energy are devoted to the development of natural gas trapped in shale, development made possible by "fracking" a technology that has side effects and water supply demands that are in keeping with the sound of that word - try it, say it out loud a few times.
Proponents are given ample space to sing the praises of this development, and even a seemingly non threatening NYT writer like David Brooks (in the Times today, 7 November) can only sing the praises of fracking.
I have just read The Debate Forum, which also is devoted today to fracking. There you will see the level of thought concerning renewable energy that dominates in the USA. The writers may mention solar and wind but that's it. You will never see a serious article about renewable energy use in Sweden or Denmark to name two countries that are leaders in renewable energy.
Why? Read Paul Krugman's column, also today, with title Here Comes the Sun. There you will read what is obvious to anyone not counting on getting rich by selling rights to a fracker, there are so many people, many of them in the Congress, who can meet the needs of their greed by preserving fossil fuels as the only source, that serious development of renewable is not possible.
I write this in an effort to convince myself that it is a waste of time to try to comment on this subject by writing comments to Time's articles or by sending Letters to the Editor. If you look at an older post here in 2010 you will see a picture of Ground Source Geothermal at Champlain College in the USA. When I wrote that post I thought / Finally/Äntligen, even in the USA. I was wrong.