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.

Van Jones resigns from his post as White House adviser

Van Jones, founder of Green for All and the leading voice of the green jobs movement, has stepped down from his post as White House environmental adviser. Jones was seen as the President's "Green Jobs Czar" and his views on the environmental movement, his past as a political activist, and the partisan attacks (a while back he was taped referring to Republicans as "assholes") have led to cries for his resignation. Jones, realizing that falling on his sword made more sense since it would be less of a distraction than trying to combat the distortions and smears, said, in his statement, that "I came here to fight for others, not for myself."

Here are the facts related to the right wing media attacks on Jones's character:

1. Van Jones was among the many who were arrested in San Francisco for protesting during the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict in 1992. Jones was a law student at Yale at the time and was working for the San Fran based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and was monitoring the demonstrations at the time he was arrested.
2. Later that same year Jones said he became a "communist." He was a leftist activist for the next several years but upon realizing that their cause resulted in little or no progress he came around to the idea of capitalism, saying that he "...realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists....who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs" The full story on Jone's political past can be found in this Bay Area newspaper story.
3. Jones referred to Republicans as "assholes." It seemed like he was trying to be funny, because he even admitted the too could sometimes be an asshole, and that sometimes you have to be an asshole to pass legislation. Jones said this on 2/11/2009, prior to his being named to his post as White House adviser.
4. Jones spoke out about the role of race in environmental issues an decisions. Here he is talking about how white polluters, in the form of big business CEOs have "steered poison" into colored peoples' neighborhoods.

So basically, the far right didn't want a guy with a radical past and history of speaking the truth of the role of race in the environmental movement working closely with the President and his administration. Fair enough, and I think the Obama administration should have known better than to hire someone with Jones' background, because it plays into the right's hand and their argument that Obama "surrounds himself with radicals", although, up until this point, their accusations have turned out to be wrong.

I doubt Van Jones is going to lose sleep over resigning. Part of what makes Van Jones the leader that he is today is his radical roots, and his willingness to speak bluntly about the environmental and green jobs divide. As Al Gore has proven, someone with the drive of a Van Jones can probably do more for their cause working outside of government than they could from within.

UPDATE: This editorial from the San Fran Chronicle pretty much sums up what I posted above, but I wanted to highlight the following paragraph:

"Those of us who have observed Van Jones' work over the years know him as a dedicated activist whose once polemic and confrontational style on matters such as police misconduct has been redirected and transformed into a more polished and inclusive advocacy of the environment. In the politics of the San Francisco Bay Area, a fiery radical past is almost a rite of passage."

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.

My Green Inauguration Trip

This past week I made the trip down to Washington DC to see the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. I had what I believe may have been one of the greenest inaugural trips out of any out of the owner. Instead of driving I carpooled with a friend who was already driving her Honda Civic Hybrid down to the capital. I think we only consumed 10 or 12 gallons of gas for the round trip. While in the capital I utlized one of the nation's better metro systems, I rode both natural gas and hybrid electric buses, and, when I wasn't too exhausted from standing out in the cold all day Tuesday, I made the one mile walk to and from the metro to the apartment I was staying at. Including gas, tolls, and metro fare I probably spent $50 on getting from Pittsburgh to DC and around DC. That's not too shabby. If you don't mind walking once in a while, and if you rely upon a car sharing service like Zip Car when you must have a car, living a car free life in Washington DC is very easy. Besides having hybrid electric buses I noticed that the district had a number of different electric vehicles for security and maintenance. Below is a picture of one of the electric security vehicles I came across while in the National Mall. Like this EV, DC was definitely 100% electric during the inauguration weekend.

Obama chooses Nobel Prize winning Physicist to be the next Energy Secretary

This might be one of Obama's best cabinet selections to date. Dr. Steven Chu is your typical energy secretary, as he is not a politician or energy industry executive. Some had speculated that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was in the running to be Energy Secretary, and as Bill Richardson's two year tenure as Energy Secretary showed, politicians are the wrong choice as our nation's top energy chief The Wonk Room blog over at Think Progress had a nice write up on the announcement and this paragraph tells why Steven Chu is such an awesome choice as our next energy secretary.

It’s hard to decide if the selection of Dr. Chu is more remarkable for who he is — a Nobel laureate physicist and experienced public-sector administrator — or for who is not. Unlike previous secretaries of energy, he is neither a politician, oil man, military officer, lawyer, nor utility executive. His corporate ties are not to major industrial polluters but to advanced technology corporations like AT&T (where he began his Nobel-winning research) and Silicon Valley innovator Nvidia (where he sits on the board of directors). Chu is a man for the moment, and will be a singular addition to Obama’s Cabinet.

Here is a 9 minute clip of Dr. Chu at the last National Energy Summit. He is wicked smart when it comes to all things energy - he gets climate change, energy efficiency, and clean tech.

A huge win for environmentalists and energy progress

Earlier today California Representative Henry Waxman defeated Michigan Rep. John Dingell in a secret ballot vote to claim Dingell's seat as the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. From Politico:

The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.

This is a huge win for both the Obama administration and each one of us who has been advocating change at the top for a long time. We now have an environmentally savvy Congressman heading the energy committee instead of a protector of the status quo, as Dingell has held that post since 1981 and has been a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to raise fuel standards for the Detroit automakers. I don't have to go into details telling you how abysmal his track record over the past 27 years has been. My friends - the change we need is on the way!

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.

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.

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.

Change we cannot afford to believe in: Sarah Palin chose to protect the oil industry over polar bears!

I've been trying to stay non-partisan on this blog but ever since the general election kicked in to gear it has become harder and harder to out of the fray since energy and environmental policy are two huge issues for this election. After last night's Republican National Convention, where Mayor Rudy Giuliani touted McCain's energy policy with shouts of "Drill drill drill!", I feel compelled to get off the sidelines. John McCain used to be the maverick of his party, as he believes that global warming and climate change are caused by man, and he says that energy independence would be a priority of his administration. However, his pandering to the oil industry and the base of his party, who think that lifting the ban on offshore drilling is the best way to ending our dependence on foreign oil, is just more of the same that we've seen throughout the Bush Cheney years - all talk and no action.

McCain's selection of Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has definitely energized the conservative wing of the Republican party - but what does it say to independent and swing voters who think energy and environmental policy should be at the top of the nation's list of priorities? Sarah Palin is a total reversal of McCain's previous positions on energy and the environment. She believes in drilling in ANWR, she does not believe that climate change is man made. She even went as far as saying that polar bears should not be on the endangered species list because protecting them may "cripple oil and gas development" in parts of Alaska. Here is the full story from this past May; the following is the key snippet on her position:

The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican

.

Thomas Friedman wrote that John McCain's turnaround on environmental issues to appease his party's conservative base leads one to wonder how he can still claim to be the candidate who will put America on the path to energy independence.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

When even George W. Bush has admitted that climate change is a result of human activity, the Republican party's claim that Sarah Palin is a reformer and an agent of change is about as believable as her claim to have been against the poster child of wasteful pork barrel spending, Alaska's "bridge to nowhere."

Katy McGinty: A Green Gubernatorial candidate for Pennsylvania in 2010?

Last month Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty resigned from her post effective July 18th. Katy McGinty, in my mind as well as the minds of other environmental and clean energy advocates here in PA and across the country, was the primary driving force behind Pennsylvania's transformation from a rust belt state to one of the leading states for clean energy development. Now the question that is on everyone's mind is -what will she do next?

Over at PolitrackerPA blogger Wally Edge wonders if McGinty's resignation signals her desire to run for Governor on 2010:

Kathleen McGinty gave her notice last week to Governor Ed Rendell. McGinty, who has been with the administration longer than most people have stayed with Rendell, has been a star for Rendell. McGinty has proven to be a loyal soldier, articulate speaker and brilliant resource for the governor. With her departure speculation began immediately that McGinty was laying the ground work for a run to be Rendell’s replacement. After talking to a variety of prominent Democratic activists and fundraisers we have confirmed McGinty is indeed making her calls, but there is no mention of a run for Governor at this time.

I attended an event in Pittsburgh this past spring where Katy McGinty spoke about the progress of Pennsylvania's green movement. I left away very impressed at not only her knowledge of the issue but her passion for change. Besides being passionate about PA's green agenda, she stated that environmental issues and economic development opportunities should go hand in hand. "Every environmental issue is an economic development opportunity in disguise" is what she said. Let's hope Pennsylvanians are wise enough to support our first "Green" Gubernatorial candidate if Katy McGinty decides to run in 2010!

Governor Rendell's Energy Independence Bill finally approved

Finally, after almost a year and a half of wrangling over a 40 cent a month tax, the majority of Governor Ed Rendell's legislation for Energy Independence was finally approved by the state Senate during the 2009 budget negotiations. The new legislation, , which originally was for $850 million, will consist of $650 million in spending on a number of clean energy and energy conservation initiatives with the biggest chunk - $180 million, going towards solar power programs for residences and businesses ($100m) and capital investment ($80m) to lure new solar power manufacturers to the commonwealth. This is great news for Pennsylvania and, despite not getting the full $850 miillion, it is a big win for Ed Rendell, who may have his eye on the Secretary of Energy position. It is also a big win for DEP Secretary Katy McGinty, whom I feel should make a run for Governor in 2010. Both the TRIB and PG have more on this great news.

21 billion barrels in proven oil reserves won't last long

So John McCain caught wind that the United States has 21 billion barrels of domestic proven oil reserves. That was his justification for lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling during his love fest with the oil and gas industry in Houston earlier today. Regardless, the fact that we do have 21 billion barrels of oil reserves shouldn't give anyone any comfort since the United States will consume that amount within fewer than three years. McCain's solution is a short term fix that chooses political expediency over energy independence for future generations.

Below is a table of the top oil consuming nations. The US consumes about 21 million barrels of crude oil a day. This is a little over 7.6 billion barrels a year, and that figure will rise as our daily consumption rises. It should be clear that 21 billion barrels is not that much crude oil and not worth the cost that comes with offshore drilling and drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

For John McCain and those fact-challenged Republicans who think that drilling in ANWR and off of our shores is the solution, I suggest you start educating yourselves. A good place to start is the wonderfully informative The Oil Drum blog.

World Oil Consumption for 2007

#1	United States:	20,730,000 bbl/day
#2	China:	6,534,000 bbl/day
#3	Japan:	5,578,000 bbl/day
#4	Germany:	2,650,000 bbl/day
#5	Russia:	2,500,000 bbl/day
#6	India:	2,450,000 bbl/day
#7	Canada:	2,294,000 bbl/day
#8	Korea, South:	2,149,000 bbl/day
#9	Brazil:	2,100,000 bbl/day
#10	France:	1,970,000 bbl/day

No longer a Maverick

John McCain, Republican nominee for President and the artist formerly known as "the maverick," now supports lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling. Today, John McCain spoke to the big the oil companies in Houston and has told them that the answer to high gas prices is to drill for oil off the shores of places like Florida, a state the relies on heavily on its beaches and ocean wildlife for its tourism industry. John McCain is now going along with the Republican party line that says the United States should start drilling in federally protected lands, such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and said that the individual states should have the right to "choose to permit exploration" on these lands.

The problem that McCain and most Republicans, including my Congressman, Tim Murphy, have is that the volume of oil reserves in places like ANWR is so small that its impact on oil prices in the global market would be negligible. A recent report (May 2008) by the US Department of Energy Report agrees, and concluded the following:

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

So the DOE report states that drilling for oil now would only move oil prices by about 40 to 50 cents a barrel. What does this do for us at the pump? This translates to an average savings of around how about 5 to 6 cents for a gallon of gasoline. The report also mentions that the crude oil wouldn't even be available to refineries until 2013. So how does that help us now John McCain?

It doesn't, and it should be clear that the negative impact on wildlife in ANWR is not worth the tiny benefits resulting from drilling for oil there. But John McCain doesn't see things this way. Here is an excerpt from his speech to the energy industry down in Houston today:

Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a “refuge” for a reason.

But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.

We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us from oil entirely. But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will serve us better. In the short term, we must take the world as it is and our resources where they are – even as we press on with new and cleaner sources of energy. We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic dependence on oil, and over the next two weeks, I’ll be offering a vision that will be bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other necessities of life.

What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear lessons along the way. Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my opponent. He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He’s doesn’t support new domestic production. He doesn’t support new nuclear plants. He doesn’t support more traditional use of coal, either.

Each major election year the Republican party call for drilling in ANWR and try to blame the Democrats for the high oil prices since they are blocking drilling on that land. Not too long ago I received a mailer from my congressmen, Tim Murphy, that showed a map of our oil reserves and said that in order to lower gas prices we must drill off shore. This is pure political BS and it shows a lack of knowledge of the realties of the geopolitical world of crude oil. In 2004, a similar report from the DOE said the same thing as the 2008 report, but that didn't stop the Republicans from politicizing high oil prices back then either.

Here is the link to McCain's speech, and here is one to the DOE report on ANWR from May of 2008. John McCain may be one of the few Republicans who believe in Global Warming and Climate Change, but lately it seems like he is more likely to follow the non-leadership of the Bush administration on ending our dependence on foreign oil, since focusing on diminishing domestic oil reserves instead of new forms of renewable fuels is just delaying the inevitable - which is the economic catastrophe that results when global peak oil is reached and oil prices are so high that today's $4 a gallon for gasoline looks cheap.

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?

Bike the vote

Bike riders and fans of alternative transportation out West are rallying behind Senator Barack Obama's position on their issue:

“As president, Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account. Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks, and he will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. Building more livable and sustainable communities will not only reduce the amount of time individuals spent commuting, but will also have significant benefits to air quality, public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

While their numbers are not huge, it is significant that they recognized Senator Obama's commitment to making funding for bikes paths and alternative forms of commuting a priority for his administration's transportation program, especially after Bush's Transportation Secretary said last summer that bikes and their infrastructure should not be part of federal transportation funding.

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.

Local Conservative Talk Radio hosts go off on the Energy Bill's "eliminiation" of incandescent light bulbs

I couldn't believe my ears last week, when I, for a change, tuned to 104.7 FM's Quinn and Rose morning talk show. Quinn and Rose are your typical polarizing talk show hosts who happen to think they're right 100% and the other side is always wrong 100% of the time.

It should be no surprise to my readers when I say that on environmental and climate change issues the Democratic Party candidates seem to get it more than the Republican candidates. So, being conservative talk show hosts, Quinn and his co-host, Rose, started going off on the Energy Bill, particularly on how it supposedly eliminate incandescent light bulbs from the marketplace. They, not surprisingly, during their rant slammed global warming, climate change, and Al Gore. Typical conservative talking points, right?

But then it got amusing, and sad, at the same time.

"How could Bush sign this bill?" whined Rose. "You know who is going to profit from this? The Phillips company. Is Bush in bed with the Phillips family or something. I don't understand how he could do such a thing. What was he thinking?!" Then she went on to talk about how women need the bright white light of incandescents when putting on make-up, and how she was going to stock up on hundreds of incandescent light bulbs because in the future she would have lamps with no compatible light bulbs, which means she would then have to turn to the black market.

I found her ignorance laughable, because, the Energy Bill is not eliminating incandescent light bulbs. The Energy Bill is mandating that all light bulbs starting with the 100 watt bulbs in 2012 must consume from 25 to 30% less electricity. The phased in mandate for more energy efficient light bulbs continues through 2014 when 40 watt bulbs must meet the new energy efficient ratings, and then finally, in 2020, all light bulbs must be 70% more efficient than today's light bulbs. So, I do not expect incandescents to go away entirely because companies are already improving the technology which has been around for roughly 100 years. Competing technologies, like Compact Fluorescents (CFLs) and LEDs are becoming cheaper, longer lasting, and more effective at offering light that competes with the best of the incandescents bulbs.

In Rose's defense, how was she supposed to know the truth about the Energy Bill? How do our citizens and concerned radio show hosts learn and then communicate the nuts and bolts of our federal legislation if they do not have access to the information in a way where they, in this age of text messaging and ADD, can consume, comprehend, and analyze the key points of legislation such as the latest Energy Bill. I do not know of such a system where that information is at my fingertips.

I am hoping that the next time legislation as important as the Energy Bill is up for vote, the average person who does not follow the issues as closely as your or I can simply go to a website and see what is going on, without the bias or construing of the facts that we see on talk shows or talk radio. Then, before their Representative in Congress votes on the Bill, the citizen could communicate with them to discuss their concerns and hopefully get their questions answered in a timely fashion.

If we do not know the issues and stakes at hand, then our Representatives do not know of our concerns. So how can we influence them to vote a certain way? Said another way, absent of this dialog with our Government - we will continue to see legislation that is influenced by the lobbies and corporate interests who have the time and money to get in front of the members of Congress.

We need a more democratic information system in place than what we have today. There are a number of websites that do a good job of tracking votes, campaign donations, and legislation but there needs to be more - a one stop shop that informs citizens and encourages their participation in the legislative process.