14 DAY TRIAL // US environmental organization Sierra Club recently released a report stating that, over the past few years, several coal, oil and gas companies have engaged in activities aimed at discrediting renewable energy sources and putting a leash on the development of this green industry.
Thus, according to the “Clean Energy Under Siege” report, various companies specifically targeted public opinion and sought to manipulate it.
It is not difficult to guess that their end goal was that of boosting their profits, seeing how the development of green energy sources is bound to negatively impact on their businesses.
More so since, as explained by said organization, the use of renewables in the US is increasing at ever faster rates.
By comparison to the year 2009, twice as much wind energy is presently generated in this part of the world, solar cells are now much cheaper than they used to be in the past and, therefore, more people can opt for sun power, and EVs are slowly take a firm hold on the American market.
To put it bluntly, as the report does, “That level of growth and success has made renewable energy more of a force to be reckoned with in energy markets. It has also drawn competitive attacks from oil, coal and gas interests.”
Sierra Club wishes to make it as clear as possible that, should such companies be allowed either to hinder future investments in the green energy market, or to shut down some of the green energy producing facilities presently existing in the US, the national economy might also have to suffer, as a considerable number of jobs will be lost.
Thus, the organization's Executive Director, Michael Brune, argued that, “From California to Pennsylvania, clean energy jobs are under attack by fossil fuel interest groups – yet many in Congress are sitting on their hands while tens of thousands of American jobs hang in the balance.”
Apparently, this anti-renewables campaign organized and carried out the country's top polluters involved financial arrangements with certain politicians and researchers.
The former were supposed to deal with the legislative aspects, while the latter tackled the issue of making renewables sound less appealing to the general public.