U.S. Senate may scrap Cap and Trade in exchange for Cap and Dividend

I may have spoke too soon the other day. It seems that a few Republicans in the Senate are not only on board with Cap and Trade but could be willing to support a Cap and Dividend model as the centerpiece of the climate change legislation that the House of Representatives passed last year. I've been a fan of Cap and Dividend since I read about the concept in a few publications and blogs.

The key difference between Cap and Dividend and Cap and Trade is that the revenues that are raised through the auctioning of permits, which would allow businesses to emit a certain level of greenhouse gases, would be paid out in the form of dividends to American citizens, whereas in a Cap and Trade system the revenues go to the Federal Government, where they are supposed to be used to fund renewable energy projects. The problem, as we have seen with many of these types of government programs, is that legislators seems to always find away to use the money for something other than its intended purpose (in Allegheny County you have Dan Onorato trying to use tax revenues intended for public transit or air quality improvements to build roads).

When it comes to Cap and Trade or Carbon Taxes, many Americans have a legitimate concern (and for once, Republicans have a valid argument against Democratic legislation) that utilities would pass on any increased costs in the form of a new tax or fee on their utility bills. The utilities are almost guaranteed to pass these costs on to us, which is why a Cap and Dividend is the way to go. The dividends that are paid out to citizens would in essence offset any taxes or rate hikes on our utility bills. A bonus of the Cap and Dividend is that it acts as an incentive to consumers to reduce their electricity consumption, since a lower utility bill would mean they would have more of the dividend to keep for themselves.

This past December Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) unveiled the CLEAR (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal) Act. Which, at only 39 pages, is much simpler and clear cut than the Waxman-Markley climate bill that was passed last summer.

CLEAR is a “100-75-25-0” policy:

• 100% of the permits to bring fossil carbon into the U.S. economy will be auctioned from day one – there are no permit giveaways.
• 75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to the public as equal per person dividends.
• 25% of the auction revenue is devoted to investments in energy efficiency, clean energy, adaptation to climate change, and assistance for sectors hurt by the transition from the fossil-fueled economy.
• Zero offsets are allowed: polluters cannot avoid curbing use of fossil fuels by paying someone else to ostensibly clean up after them.

What's not to like about that?

For more on the CLEAR act, check out Senator Cantwell's website.

For more on Cap and Dividend read Scientific American's Cap and Dividend, not Trade: Making Polluters Pay

Supreme Court Ruling is a Huge Blow to Climate Change Legislation

Big business just got a huge shot in the arm yesterday thanks to a Supreme Court of the United States ruling that removes restrictions for federal campaign financing by corporations, unions, and other special interest groups (See "A Shocking Win for the Fat Cats"). The argument made by the majority boils down to the need to give corporations the same freedom of speech that you and I have under the Constitution of the United States. I blogged over at Thoughts on Government about how wrong this reasoning is, but here at Green is Good I wanted to touch upon how corporations can now directly spend their money to work to defeat any legislation that threatens their bottom line.

Health care firms were already spending an average of $1.4 million a day, yes, a single day, to defeat health care legislation. Now that the SCOTUS has made a ruling that will remove the restrictions that force corporations to use PACs for federal campaign contributions, one could argue that any legislator who supports a bill that hurts corporate profits will now be under fire from those same corporations and industry groups. Besides health care, the climate change legislation comes to mind as the most critical legislation that is now under threat of being derailed thanks to this ruling. The utility industry groups have already been sending out letters to their customers, telling them that climate change legislation would lead to higher rates or a tax on the utility customer. The SCOTUS ruling will open up a floodgate of more mailings, more commercials, and much more money being spent to defeat any legislators who support cap and trade or cap and dividend legislation.

This ruling will make it more likely that any Democratic Senator or Congressman in a red state or district will think twice about supporting a bill that puts them squarely in the bulls eye of corporate America. Our legislators, those who do not have a spine anyways, will not vote for something that is unpopular, even though it is, in their mind and heart, the right thing to do. My friends, we are becoming a plutocracy - a nation where our laws and policies are no longer written for your average citizen, but for the citizen (think T Boone, Bloomberg, Soros, etc) and the corporations that have the deep pockets to buy any politician who supports their agenda. If you haven't already, please watch the great documentary The Corporation for more on how treating corporations as if they were citizens poses a serious threat to our democratic republic.

PA State Rep Daryl Metcalfe: Veterans supporting global warming and climate change legislation should "Remember Benedict Arnold"

Via Keystone Progress, Pennsylvania legislator Daryl Metcalfe (R - Cranberry Twp) responded to in invitation to an energy independence bus tour with a letter of his own, stating that any veterans "promoting the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change" would be traitors to "the oath they took to defend the Constitution of our great nation." I'm not making this up. I'm sure the teabaggers are eating this up, but I find it outrageous that an elected official would equate supporting a Cap and Trade system to the treasonous acts of Benedict Arnold.

Below is the letter from Rep. Metcalfe:

Subject: Re: Veterans for American Power Bus Tour coming to your state

As a veteran,

I believe that any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist
propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control
more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type
policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath
he or she took defend the Constitution of our great nation!

Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses
their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda.

Drill Baby Drill!!!

For Liberty,

Daryl Metcalfe

State Representative

Veteran U.S. Army"

Progressive group Keystone Progress is calling on constituents to reject Rep. Metcalfe's position and call for an apology to our veterans. Jon Powers, Iraq veteran and COO of the Truman Project, provides his take on the controversy over at his diary on the Daily Kos.

Mayor Ravenstahl to Outline City's Green Initiatives

Well this should be enlightening. Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl will be speaking to members and guests of the Pittsburgh Technology Council about the city's green initiatives. The talk is in two weeks at the offices of Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney at One Oxford Center in downtown Pittsburgh. I will bet money that the mayor takes credit for Councilman Bill Peduto's LED light initiative. I will be out of town that day so unfortunately I won't be able to provide my readers with details about how little the mayor knows about this subject.

Mayor Ravenstahl to Outline City's Green Initiatives

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

7:45 - 9:15 a.m.
Join us on April 29th as Mayor Ravenstahl outlines his administration's efforts to reduce the city's impact on the environment, while also creating real savings for the taxpayers by reducing wasteful consumption practices. Through the Mayor's Office of Sustainable Development and Energy Efficiency, the City of Pittsburgh has worked to promote the use of new technologies and sensible procurement practices to reduce its energy costs. Towards those ends, in recent months, the City has reviewed and implemented the use of new technologies such as super-efficient LED traffic control devices and street lamps, and has sought opportunities to install solar cells in city facilities. On the sustainability front, the City has created a Green Initiative Trust Fund and has expanded the practice of single stream recycling for residents, which will greatly improve the participation rate in the City's recycling program. Please do not miss this unique opportunity to learn more about Pittsburgh's commitment to implementing sustainable business practices.

Cost:
$40 Member
$175 Non-Member

Registration Info

Is the Recession good for the Pittsburgh Region's Air Quality?

Illyrias points us to this PG article about Pittsburgh's air quality getting better. The article is titled "Air Quality improves as economy worsens." Is this a "bright side" to the recession? No, because the only "bright sides" to recessions and crises is when they force you to finally make changes that will leave you better off than you were before things went down the crapper. For Pittsburgh, this isn't a bright side because once the economy gets back on track the air quality will go up to the old levels. It's like gasoline prices - sure, the prices are reasonable now, but it took a global economic collapse to get them to that point, so are we now better off because gasoline prices were chopped in half? Heck no. Something has to fundamentally change so that once things return to normal - when there are more trucks on the roads and when factories are running closer to full utilization - our air quality doesn't return to prior levels.

Here is an example of something we can do right now to improve regional air quality in the long run. The Port Authority of Allegheny County should finally convert it's fleet of buses to run on compressed natural gas. Washington DC's buses run on natural gas and diesel electric hybrids. Unlike the buses here, DC buses do not emit the sooty black exhaust that has led to terrible, some would say toxic, air quality in downtown Pittsburgh. The buses run all over town, so there is no doubt that they have contributed to the region's poor air quality rankings, and recent studies have shown how bad air quality in cities, caused primarily by exhaust, have damaging effects on our heath and longevity.

Did you know that as far back as 1990 the Port Authority was testing compressed natural gas fuel for its buses? Yep - but Port Authority - Equitable partnership received half a million dollars to test CNG buses back in the early 90's.

As part of a nationwide effort to test alternative fuels under the Alternative Fuels Initiative Program sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now Federal Transit Administration), the Authority ordered five natural gas buses to test and evaluate their performance and effectiveness in helping to reduce air pollution. Testing of compressed natural gas was made possible through a special agreement with Equitable Gas Company, which contributed $500,000 toward the project for installation of a compressing and fueling station at the Authority’s West Mifflin Division.

Despite being way ahead of the curve we only have 5 buses (out of nearly 1000 total, so .5% ) running on CNG today. Why was it never expanded to the broader fleet? It's the same reason the County Commission killed Spine Line project and brought us the North Shore Connector - they suffer from a lack of vision and a failure to relate to the needs of the masses - yet the voters fail to hold them accountable when it's time to go to the polls.

A friend of mine used to work for equitable and he gave me a packet of information and old news clippings on this. It is interesting to read press clippings from 1990 and think of how progressive the Port Authority could have been. It's a shame that the Port Authority didn't have the vision and leadership to follow through on this initiative. It's a shame because we get much more of our natural gas domestically than we do oil, and compressed natural gas fuel is much cleaner and emits a lot less CO2 than our diesel powered buses. Another option for our bus fleet is diesel-electric hybrid buses, or, for the smaller shuttle buses, 100% electric power. These buses are on the market and are used in cities throughout the world. It is time for Pittsburgh's buses to spot spewing soot and to put the region on track to have sustained air quality improvements. If Allegheny County sincerely wants to be "green" then they should take the steps to expand their CNG fleet. All buses that are being retired and replaced should be replaced with cleaner burning, more efficient buses running on CNG or Hybrid electric. This needs to be the standard going forward.

Sierra Club pleased with the Stimulus Bill, President Obama's first month in office

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope hailed the passing of the Stimulus Bill as the "biggest victory" by an American President in his first month in office. I'm sure his comment there is debatable, but one thing that is certain of President Obama's first month is that White House policy on clean energy and the environment is a complete 180 from the previous administration. If the Obama EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Interior can continue to make the kinds of changes they have made this first month over the next 11 months, this will indeed be the green-energy revolution, and the change, that we need and have been waiting for.

A recent Sierra Club email touted The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which contains approximately $80 billion in funding for promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and higher-mileage cars. This includes:

• $25 billion for energy efficiency
• $20 billion for renewable energy incentives
• $11 billion in grants and $6 billion in loans to modernize the electric grid and increase its capacity to deliver power generated by renewable sources, and
• $17.7 billion for mass transit, Amtrak, and high-speed rail.

Here are Carl Pope's Stimulus Package highlights, which are listed on his blog:

The signing a day earlier of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is, as far as I can recall, by far the biggest victory mustered by an American President in his first month in office. Environmentally, the bill is the most important piece of legislative support for clean energy ever adopted. Its provisions include $80 billion for a wide variety of environmental programs. The President, before he signed it in Denver, visited a solar-energy manufacturing facility. It was a nice bookend to the visit he made to a Ohio wind-turbine factory last month, when he launched his campaign to get Congress to pass the bill.

In addition to directly funded investments, the bill also contains important, if little commented on, incentives to industry, states, and local government to go even further. Some of the second-year funding for energy efficiency, for example, is contingent on states following California's lead in giving their public utilities as much incentive to save energy as to increase electricity generation.

Live Webcast: The Stimulus Package and what it means for Pittsburgh

Tune in to VivoLive.com this Wednesday at 5:30pm for a live webcast of a discussion of the Stimulus Package and what it means for Pittsburgh. Yours truly will be in attendance to hear from Pittsburgh's green champion, Councilman Bill Peduto, and the rest of the panel which will consist of representatives from the offices of Arlen Specter, Mike Doyle, Ed Rendell and Jane Orie; State Representative Chelsa Wagner; Eve Picker, and an official from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission. The PG's Early Returns blog has more on what this blogger hopes will turn into the unveiling of the Pennsylvania High Speed Rail project (wishful thinking, I know).

"Small but much appreciated" victory for public transportation in the final House Simulus Bill

After the disappointment of learning that only 1.2% of the stimulus bill would be dedicated to public transportation, I reached out a policy analyst at Building America's Future, a coalition led by Governor's Ed Rendell and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Mike Bloomberg that is lobbying members of Congress to increase funding for our nation's infrastructure improvements.

Here is his response:

"Yesterday could have been worse. Initially the transit number was at $9 billion, but an amendment sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler to add $3 billion was passed yesterday with the final bill, so the stimulus package included $12 billion. A small but much appreciated victory for public transportation! "

NY Rep Jerrold Nadler's amendment was, in my opinion, the most significant of the few amendments that were actually approved, as it added $3 billion to the original $9 billion appropriated to public transportation. I feel a little better now.

We are not done though. If you want more funding for renewable energy and public transportation please write, call, or email your US Senators!

So far the Stimulus Bill looks like a major disappointment

Change may have happened at the top, but both the lower and upper houses of our Congress still suck. If you peruse The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 you will see many pork projects brought to you by House Democrats and a huge amount of the bill dedicated to tax cuts, brought to you primarily by Republicans, who year after year fail to provide any ideas for our economy beyond tax cutting. According to Talking Points Memo, the Senate draft looks even more disappointing.

Here is brief summary of my problems with the House Stimulus Bill:

• Too much pork!! Way too much going towards pork projects and programs that have nothing to do with economic stimulus (billions for student financial aid, energy assistance for seniors, and a number of pork projects like the $200 million revitalization of the National Mall)
  
• Too much (approx. $300 billion) going towards tax cuts or credits, most of which will not creates jobs or stimulate the economy
  
• Far too little going towards rail and public transportation projects (only $10 billion) and a disproportionate amount going towards highways ($30 billion)
• Only $18.5 billion going towards the DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
  

Okay okay, so are there any good parts to the House Bill? Sure. Energy wise, despite such a small portion of the bill going to the DOE and renewable energy, there are some good projects that will advance our clean energy economy, and even help clean up our producers of dirty energy. Here are the highlights

• $8 billion for the DOE's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
• $4.5 billion for modernization of our electricity grid (smart grid!)
• $2.4 billion for Carbon Capture and Sequestration demonstration
• $2 billion for the DOE's Advanced Research Projects
• $1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program
• $600 million for Plug-ins and Hybrid vehicles for the Federal Government's Vehicle Fleet
• $600 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate sensors and climate modeling technology
• $350 million for the R&D and evaluation for improvements in energy generation, transmission, regulation, use, and storage, for military installations, military vehicles, and other military equipment (An energy independent Military?)

Total for energy related projects: $20.7 billion

Sunlight Labs extracted the appropriations from the bill into a spreadsheet, where you can view the stimulus funds appropriated to each department. They were baffled that they were only able to find $356.4 billion in appropriations within the text of the bill. Where is the other $475 billion? Well, $300 billion of it is going towards tax cuts for individuals and businesses. I think some tax cuts for small businesses makes a lot of sense, but additional tax cuts or tax rebates for individuals? Last year's tax rebate showed that the any positive impacts due to the fiscal stimulus checks were both minimal and temporary, and now we are going to try to tax cut our way to prosperity again? We need to start building things again!

***Please note that Obama has stated to House Republicans that he "had no pride in authorship of the current bill. " THANK GOD Obama isn't as clueless as some of the idiot House Democrats. Good god - don't these people realize that it is time for change instead of the same old bullshit in our politics and legislation?!

Obama could bring us this stimulus package, the first major piece of legislation during his presidency, in two ways. He could pull a George W. Bush and simply rubber stamp a bill produced by his own party. The other option is to do the right thing. He could make both parties put country first by working together to draft a bi-partisan bill that will create jobs, improve our infrastructure, and put us on the road to energy independence. That is the kind of change we need! If Obama wants to turn this stinker around, and improve his already high approval rating, he will do something audacious. He will veto this dog shit of a bill when it gets passed in both the House and Senate. He will piss off the members of his own party by demanding that they remove the funding for the pork projects, and he will ask them to replace some of the tax rebates /cuts with tax cuts for small businesses, which will show some love to the Republicans.

NOTE: Pennsylvania is slated to receive $22.07 billion of the stimulus money, with a little over $2.3 billion going towards the state budget shortfall. I would bet that Governor Rendell makes sure that the North Shore Connector gets that $120 million it needs in order to be completed.

The Washington Post has a good story on the Democrats who oppose the stimulus plan as is.

Obama's National Security Adviser "Puts Energy First"

The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog has a story on President-elect Obama's choice for our National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones. Gen. Jones has been on record stating that energy is a national security issue. This should be a no brainer, but it is a 180 from the Bush administration, which has talked the talk but failed to walk the walk when it comes to taking action on climate change and energy security. Here is an interesting quote from Jones, provided by Environmental Capital:

“We are in a race against the clock and complacency is our greatest enemy. If we do not take this challenge seriously, America’s economic prosperity, national security, and global standing will be at risk. The status quo is not only an option, it is a recipe for failure.”

Can I get an Amen!? This is another sign that energy independence will be at the top of Obama's list of priorities. My friends, the closer we get to PE Obama's inauguration the more I can sense that change to our backwards energy policy is around the corner. How about you?

An emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.

"The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet." - Al Gore

If you haven't already read Al Gore's New York Times Op-Ed from the other day titled "The Climate for Change", where the former Vice President shows us his five-part plan that he is recommending to President-Elect Obama and the new Congress. I agree with all five of his recommendations and have followed each of them with my comments, which are in bold.

1. The new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

This is essentially 1/2 the Pickens plan. Notice how Al Gore is not recommending or pushing natural gas vehicles on us. This is a great first step since we will increase the pace of utility-scale solar plants and wind farms if we want to generate 100% of our electricity from carbon free source in 20 or 30 years, let alone the 10 years that Al Gore wants us to shoot for. Vice President Gore does not mention Nuclear Power but I agree with Obama's position which is that Nuclear should be part of the mix as long as we implement safe and secure procedures for storing spent fuel.

2. We should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

Do you know how often our power is out for hours due to your standard thunderstorm? Far too often, and it is due to the updated and dumb electricity grid that spans every corner of our nation. If we are going to invest trillions in new 21st century electricity generation we need a 21st century grid that will deliver that electricity to our door steps and to our electric vehicles, which, if powered by clean electricity, will be the solution that kicks our oil dependency habit.

3. We should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.

Well, any bailout is going to be controversial, but I have to agree with both Al Gore and Tom Friedman, who in his column today, wrote that while we should not give the automakers a blank check but we should consider giving them a bailout with strings attached - as long as those strings insist on the automakers transforming their vehicle fleets to become hybrid electrics:

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

4. We should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

Can we start with Pittsburgh's City County building at 414 Grant Street? It has to be the least energy efficient government buildings in all the land. The effort to retrofit buildings should start with schools and public buildings, and then the federal government should leave it to the individual utilities to manage this program, which will work as long as the utilities are given incentives to reduce their average customer's electricity consumption. California has been doing this for a while now and despite having a growing population and expanding economy over the last twenty years their per capita energy usage has remained flat.

5. The United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.

Do we implement a carbon tax or do we implement a cap and trade system? I've seen good arguments for both sides, and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue since either one would be difficult to achieve politically, not to mention the costs that would be passed on to consumers would be too burdensome on many citizens who are already struggling in today's economy.

One policy initiative that I am in favor of that would fall under a carbon tax is a feebate on vehicle purchases. I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, but I do think individuals should have the freedom to purchase big gas guzzlers - as long as they are adequately paying for the full cost of doing so. That full cost would come to fruition if there was a fee charged to consumers on all purchases of vehicles that are consider gas guzzlers. On the flip side, consumers who choose to purchase fuel efficient vehicles and hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles should be rewarded with incentives such as rebates. This proposal is gaining steam in some states and I expect it to get some consideration at the federal level.

More on President-elect Obama's Energy Priorities

The New York Times posted a Q&A with a number of energy and enviromental gurus over at their Green Inc. blog. Note the pessimism of the first expert, Vaclav Smil, who tells us not to get our hopes up for some type of overnight changes from the Obama administration. I see his point, but I think the differences between the Obama administrations approach to energy policy and the current administration's approach will be night and day. Oil executives will no longer drive the agenda of the White House when it comes to energy policy. That major change right there is reason to be hopeful that we will start to see progress towards energy indpendence and reasonable policies addresssing climate change. We are not expecting President-elect Obama to make us energy self sufficient by the end of his second term, but we are expecting him him to put us on a path towards energy independence. This blog will be cheering him but we will be critiquing his decisions as well.

Vaclav Smil, a professor at the University of Manitoba who has authored numerous books on global energy issues, told us informally that anyone expecting Mr. Obama to “transform the world” will be quickly disabused of the idea — particularly when it comes to energy policy. “The degree of disappointment that must follow such a gross naivete will be phenomenal,” Mr. Smil wrote.

“There will be precious little of any rapid change,” he added, “as
energy systems are inherently inertial and as energy transitions take decades to
accomplish. Besides, he will preside over a bankrupt nation.”

Also participating their Q&A:

Roger Ballentine, the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force during the Clinton administration and now the president of Green Strategies, an energy and environmental consulting firm in Washington.
Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate change strategy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning policy research organization in Washington.
Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, an association of shareholder-owned utilities.
Carol Raulston, senior vice president for communications at the National Mining Association, a trade group in Washington.
Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

Below are the list of questions that the experts answered via email. The URLs will take you to their answers.

1) What should the new administration’s top three energy priorities be? What can and should the administration push in terms of energy in its first 100 days?
2) What do the election results signify for the future of renewable energy?
3) How likely is it that a meaningful cap-and-trade bill to limit carbon-dioxide emissions will pass Congress and be signed by the President in the next year?
4) After 4 years, will the new administration have moved us closer to severing our dependence on foreign oil?

The First Green President of the United States

With regards to Obama and his strategies for greening American, his policies may not be perfect, but when it comes to the big picture Barack Obama gets it. The following candid statement of his on the ridiculousness of some of the debate questions gives us an inside look at his approach to solving the climate crisis.

When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

With our economy and financial markets in shambles, it is fair to ask what could a President Obama realistically achieve early in his first term in the White House to put us on the track to energy independence and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. My friend Costa beat me to the punch and wrote a nice summary of the potential green measures taken by the new Obama administration over at Sustainable Research.

The following sites also detail Obama's energy and environmental policies.

Earth2Tech: FAQ: The Obama Energy Plan
Gristmill: Is Obama's energy plan change we can believe in?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Obama's Energy Plan will create green gold rush
Reuters: Obama's Energy Plan may be Curbed but not Halted

In addition to some of the action items listed in Obama's policy papers and the aforementioned websites I have a short list of the top priorities that I think the Obama adinistration will address starting during its first 12 months.

1. Launch the $150 billion clean tech venture fund ($15 billion in clean tech investments and grants each year)
   
2. Work on a detailed plan that incentivizes American automakers to retool their factories and start building more hybrid electric and plug in hybrid vehicles. Back in 2006 Obama co-sponsored legislation called "Health Care for Hybrids" where the government would provide assistance for the automakers' employee health insurance in exchange for a commitment and investment by Detroit automakers in more fuel efficient vehicles.
3. Create a National Infrastructure Bank which would be in charge of distributing funding for billions in dollars of new infrastructure and infrastructure improvement projects. My friends - this would be real fiscal stimulus we can believe in.
4. Create the ground work for a national cap and trade system - this probably will not come into effect until at least year two or three of his first term
5. Create an incentive program to reach Obama's goal of 1 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on the road by 2015
6. Re-launch the federal initiative for a carbon sequestration pilot plant (FutureGen 2)

The following details are from the Obama campaign's New Energy for America Plan:

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

• Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

ENERGY PLAN OVERVIEW:

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.

Learn More...

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Learn More...

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Learn More...

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

Drill baby Drill! vs. Alternatives now!

WNYC's Brian Lehrer show has an awesome series called "30 issues in 30 days," which is a daily segment that he started running late last month. The special segment runs through the end of October and has tackled important issues such as immigration, education, middle east policy, and infrastructure. Last Friday they aired the #1 issue as voted by listeners, and that was energy independence. Drill baby Drill vs. Alternative Energy contains some interesting interviews, such as the one with the guy who traveled across the US in a car that ran on veggie oil, but the interview I want to highlight is the one between David Kruetzer, an energy policy analyst from the Heritage Foundation, a right leaning think tank, and Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Tyranny of Oil."

The debate highlighted the contrasts between the two sides of the energy independence debate - which is the one side's belief that we have enough oil offshore and in places like ANWR so there shouldn't be an urgency to displace oil, or the other side, which says we need start working on replacing oil completely right now. I think I'm in the latter category, although I agree with Senator Obama that it is okay to compromise on additional offshore drilling as long as incentives for renewables are part of the package.

I learn something new every time I listen to a lecture or read a book on energy issues, and listening to their debate was no different. It is well known that the US is #1 in worldwide energy consumption, but did you know that we are #3 oil producing nation in the world? Hard to believe but it is true! (Although Mr. Kruetzer seemed surprised by it!) The full show is at this page or you can listen using the embedded player below.

Heinz Talks: Climate Change and Energy Policy—Advice to Our Next President

The next president of the United States, whomever he may be, will be faced with crucial decisions regarding America’s federal policies toward climate change and energy strategy.

To address the importance of these issues, The Heinz Awards, Teresa Heinz and the Heinz School for Public Policy invite the public to a free program, Heinz Talks: Climate Change and Energy Policy—Advice to Our Next President at the Mellon Institute Auditorium on Monday, Oct. 20th at 5 p.m.

This marks a pivotal time in our nation's history as a new president takes office, says Lee Branstetter, associate professor of Economics and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a panelist. "The direction and emphasis of the U.S. government will change and these issues will be treated more seriously than in previous administrations.

"The Heinz Foundation and family have demonstrated incredible leadership in the realm of environmental policy. Our whole region bears witness to this rich legacy of concerned engagement and scholarship in this area."

Teresa Heinz, chairman of The Heinz Endowments, will open the evening and the panel will be moderated by Moira Gunnm, host of NPR’s Tech Nation. The panel includes several esteemed national and local leaders including John Holdren, recipient of the 7th annual Heinz Award for Public Policy and Lee Branstetter, and Granger Morgan, both of Carnegie Mellon University.

A blog called Heinz Talks! has been created for the event.

Details on the event and how you can RSVP can be found here at PopCity.

Debate Question: Manhattan Project or 100,000 entrepreneurs working out of their garages?

Tonight's debate featured a great question on the candidates approach to energy independence. Tom Brokaw asked John McCain if the strategy for achieving energy independence should be the government launching an Apollo/Manhattan Project or having 100,000 entrepreneurs working on energy solutions in their garages. McCain didn't really answer the question, saying that he favored the government getting involved and then handing it over to the private sector. It was not a good answer. I was interested in hearing Obama's answer but for some reason Brokaw didn't let him answer. I have heard most candidates say they favor an Apollo or Manhattan style project. I don't think this is the right approach, and so I dug up a few websites from Obama's positions on energy policy. Here is an excerpt from a speech he made back in February of 2006.

The federal government can help in two ways here. First, we can reduce the risk of investing. We already do this in a number of ways by funding projects critical to our national security. Energy independence should be no different. By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy security of our own military.

Since he began running for President Senator Obama has proposed having the Federal Government spend $150 billion over 10 years on strategic investments in clean energy projects. While $150 billion is not enough, I believe we need closer to $1 Trillion if we are to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, I do think his plan is a step in the right direction. Here is the link to their short, mid range, and long term energy plans followed by the paragraph on their $150 billion investment plan.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug‐in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly‐skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. All together these investments will help the private sector create 5 million new green jobs, good jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Lies at the Podium...McCain lies about his energy policy throughout RNC speech

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republicans want you to believe that they have a real plan for energy independence. They continue to denounce Obama for "opposing nuclear energy" and chant "drill drill drill" or "drill now!" whenever the topic of energy independence comes up. Regarding their distortions of Obama's position on the issue, anyone who has followed Obama's campaign or who saw the last Democratic debate with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards knows that Barack Obama was the only Democrat with a pragmatic proposal for Nuclear power. Obama has stated several times that "Nuclear power has to be part of the mix" when it comes to our long term energy policy, but that we have to figure out a plan for disposal of nuclear waste that makes more sense than shipping spent fuel on trucks and trains cross country to Nevada's Yucca Mountain (McCain supports sending Nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain). Obama does not oppose Nuclear power - but he thinks we should first devise a plan for storing waste rather than diving in and committing to build 40 something new reactors around the country.

The nuclear power lie is not the end of it by any means. Fellow energy collective member and author Joseph Romm compiled a great list of "McCain's 10 energy lies" over at the Huff Post.

Here are few good ones:

My fellow Americans, when I'm President, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much.

LIE #1: McCain has no plan to reduce oil imports -- indeed, throughout his career he has explicitly rejected every plan that might reduce oil imports substantially, including fuel economy standards, biofuels, and renewables. Heck, he even rejected the plan offered by billionaire conservative oilman T. Boone Pickens to aggressively deploy clean energy and alternative fuels over the next ten years (see The real, Luddite McCain: "The truly clean technologies don't work").

We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas.

LIE #4: McCain has fought against wind and solar and alternative energy for his entire career because he genuinely but mistakenly believes "The truly clean technologies don't work" (see "Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company" and "Why McCain hates renewables but pretends he loves them.")

She's tackled tough problems like energy independence and corruption.

LIE #9: Palin has done nothing to help achieve energy independence because there is nothing the State of Alaska can do. As Pickens and EIA and every independent expert keeps telling us, this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of.

Progress on the Pittsburgh Regional Integrated Transporation (PRIT) Plan

Two weeks into the cityLive!/PopCity transportation initiative and I have to say so far so good. We started off with only a handful of individual contributors but the number has been growing steadily. There is about 75 days left so if you want to have a say please register and start wikiing away at The Pittsburgh Regional Integrated Transporatation Plan page. If you are on Facebook join our group.

UPDATE: The Post Gazette's Brian O'Neil covers the PRIT initiative in his column today.

Buying a hybrid isn't enough

It is easy being green - but in the grand scheme of things simply going green by recycling or purchasing a hybrid vehicle is not going to do much to offset climate change. That is the message I got when I read Michael Maniates Washington Post article from this past November. Maniates, a professor of political and environmental science at nearby Allegheny College, states that we need change on a massive scale if we want to have a real impact on saving the planet. He says that all of the marketing of books and shows about how easy it is going green is doing disservice to the movement . I totally 100% agree with him. Listen - I want to do my part in reducing my carbon footprint - and I have already begun doing so, but in the end me taking public transit to work is not going to make a difference when our entire society and communities are centered around automobile transportation.

Big changes have to happen in cities and suburbs throughout America and it is going to take changes from the top down to move our culture away from gasoline powered automobiles towards mass transit and alternative forms of transportation like biking and.......and walking. Yes, walking can be a form of transportation too! With smarter design and emphasis on new urban and sustainable development people can live, work, and play all within walking distance. I get all crazy eyed when I hear of people who just have to drive their car a quarter of a mile to a grocery store or those who won't take the light rail because the nearest station is a half mile away from their office building. To them I say this: "It is time for us to wake up and stop being fat lazy Americans!!!!"

He concludes:

The time for easy is over. We're grown-ups who understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices. We're ready for frank talk about how we best confront -- in ways rewarding, confusing, creative and hard -- the planetary emergency before us.

If we can send a man to the moon, can't we quit our dependency on foreign oil?? If we don't need foreign oil then we shouldn't have to get involved in middle east conflicts like the Iraq War, do you not agree? If we have billions to spend on new transportation infrastructure - like more light rail, commuter trains, and even high speed rail - instead of spending it on the war we will have enough infrastructure work to generate a sustainable boom in our economy and also freedom from being at the mercy of the airlines - who also guzzle up gallons and gallons of oil, once the rails are completed. Also, as a result of using more mass transit, we would spend less time in our cars and more time walking, which will make us healthier and happier. If we all have to walk more, we'll lose weight and we will live longer, resulting in a lower price tag for universal health care , much lower than what they've initially calculated.

Isn't it something that these big issues - energy independence, transportation, health care - are all interrelated? I now walk at least one mile per day when I get to take the light rail into work. The estimate is probably closer to one and a half to two miles if you include walking on my lunch hour and walking to and from my car in the massive lot by the rail station. My wife recently said she noticed that I was losing weight. I have not been going to the gym, and I sit behind a desk at my job pretty much all day. I am losing weight because I no longer drive my car into work 5 days a week.

This got me thinking - what if we were paid to take mass transit into work, or what if mass transit, like the light rail system I use, is free? Assuming there would be enough capacity for such a move (there isn't here in Pittsburgh), the results of this experiment would, I assume, shock a lot of people. A project like this would take a massive federal subsidy since fare revenues could not be used to fund the system's operations - but there could be alternative revenue streams to make up for it. How about print and video advertising in the rail cars and stations to offset the loss of fare revenues? I think this works since free rides would equal more riders and more eyeballs for the ads. What do you think about this idea?

LVC's 2008 Presidential Primaries Voter Guide

The League of Conservation Voters has a breakdown of the candidates on environmental and energy issues. This LCV website lists the individual scores of each Republican and Democratic candidate based on their lifetime voting records. Below are some tables that show how each candidate compares with the others on their responses to an LCV questionnaire.