Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Energy’

While at Netroots Nation a few weeks back, I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel discussing climate change, Texas’ energy future, and energy security featuring Houston Mayor Bill White (you might have also heard he is running for US Senate).

Mayor White gave very measured, political answers. Throughout the panel, never did the words “Cap and Trade” leave his lips, but he did remain skeptical of anyone who claimed to have it all figured out and that their answer would be easy and painless. He also showed legitimate concerns about the impacts of renewable energy mandates done wrong on low-income consumers. As a representative from a consumer advocacy organization, it is refreshing to hear White’s commitment to protecting our most vulnerable even as we chart a new energy future.

Mayor White’s stated goals are to become more energy independent for basic security reasons and to be in control of our energy future. To do so, he maintains that we must reduce our pollution based on sound science, and do so in a way which does not burden low-income households. He proposes three main mechanisms to meet these goals:

  1. Cut the amount of fuel we use in vehicle travel without impinging on people’s ability to travel freely– specifically by increasing our efficiency per mile traveled.
  2. Cut the amount of energy consumed in buildings. Why drive up the cost of business by paying for electricity?
  3. Decrease the amount of power we get from coal and substitute that power with cleaner sources

Despite some skepticism, Mayor White certainly showed that our energy future could have our cake and eat it too, namely through increased efficiency in building codes, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and use of cost-effective renewables. See the edited video here:

[vimeo 6300204]

Public Citizen does not and would never endorse candidates. Even if we could, it’s hard to get an exact read on Mayor White and how he would act as the next Senator from Texas on the issue of federal climate policy — so even so we could offer little endorsement other than a candid analysis of his words and his record.

When asked off-camera about how he would vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the climate bill which passed in the House in June and due up for debate in the Senate over the next 2-3 months, he remained committed to energy efficiency but overall rather vague. White showed skepticism as to large long term goals rather than smaller but gradually increasing cuts in emissions. His version of the bill, he said, would have strong building code mandates, a renewable energy efficiency standard (which is it, Bill?) with a price cap on renewables to protect consumers, and change dispatch priorities to wean the nation off of coal fired power. He did not, however, indicate whether or not he would support implementing a federal cap on carbon dioxide emissions or the cap and trade mechanism.

This is a question likely to come up in the next few months when ACES comes to a Senate vote, and hopefully Mayor White will have a clearer answer prepared when that time comes. But if the final answer is no on ACES, would he have some specific policy solutions about how to improve the bill, or would he just cast the same “no way, never” vote that we’ll likely get from John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison?

That being said, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak so fluently about energy policy. Mayor White’s record on energy as Deputy Secretary of Energy stands on its own, as does his impressive work on making Houston a national leader on energy efficiency. We may still be uncertain as to where he stands on ACES, but we certainly know his feelings on energy efficiency both in word and deed – which is nothing to sneeze at.

Read Full Post »

Rule #1 for being an organization even pretending to be a grassroots movement: Actually have some grassroots supporters.  Even manufactured outrage groups ginned up by Freedomworks or the Tea Bag people or United Health Care actually have people who believe and will regurgitate their corporate PR spin.  But, presumably because the coal industry couldn’t find and photograph any actual human beings who supported their agenda, they have had to resort to buying and using internet stock photos.

As DeSmogBlog had previously reported,

“The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal).” the latest “grassroots” organization to join the public conversation on behalf of the coal industry, appears to be a project of the K-Street public relations firm, the Adfero Group, one of industry’s most accommodating voices in Washington, D.C.

The FACES website, which includes no contact information, is registered to Adfero.

And now the Front Porch Blog from Appalachian Voices has reported that

We’ve touched on the fact that the new coal industry front group “FACES” has yet to come forward with a list of their members.  Well, thanks to a few new media> gumshoes, including our own Jamie Goodman and our friends at DeSmogBlog, we’ve learned that not only is FACES hosted by a K-Street firm called Adfero, but all of the “FACES” of coal are actually just istockphotos. They couldn’t even get real photos of their supporters.

You can see the actual photos and screencaps by going to the Front Porch Blog.

If Big Coal wanted to hire models to be the faces of coal, we could’ve saved them the trouble and recommended these photos:

ZoolanderCoalMine

I think Im getting thwe black lung, pop!

"I think I'm getting the black lung, pop!"

And let’s remember that it is not that far of a drive to get out to coal country even from Washington DC, where both West Virginia and Pennsylvania coal-centric communities are less than a 3 hour drive.  It just must really be that hard for fat cat K Street lobbyists to take time out of their busy schedules wining and dining at $2300 / plate fundraisers and take a camera out to coal country to see the actual faces of coal.

Here’s an example of what they might actually find if they did:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ats3dClc0No]

Real voices from coal country know that coal is killing us.  It kills their local economies and destroys precious landscapes and water supplies and kills workers because greedy mine owners care more about profits than human lives, such as in the case of the Crandall Canyon disaster in Utah last year.  It pollutes our air and contaminates our water when we burn it, so much so that a USGS study this week found that every fish they tested in the US had mercury contamination.  And even after it’s burned, the coal ash waste is a problem.  From when they dig it up out of the ground to when they try to store the ash, coal is dirty, cradle to grave.  And grave here is meant in the literal sense.

Don’t be fooled by expensive-cocktail-drinking, $1000-shoe-wearing lobbyists in Washington and their stock photos.  The real faces of coal are against it, and we should be moving away from it as quickly as possible.

Read Full Post »

Your intrepid friends at Public Citizen tried to attend the astroturf “Energy Citizens” rally yesterday in Houston.  We’re busy pulling together our bloggings and all the footage we shot, but keep checking back here for updates throughout the day.

We were not allowed in the meeting, as we did not work for an energy company, but we managed to sneak some great footage before being escorted out and being told to leave the premises.

We have:

Footage of the 34 busses used to bring people into the rally from different energy companies.

Normal Citizens who weren”t good enough to be “Energy Citizens”– people who weren’t allowed in the meeting, as this was for energy company employees only!  Interviews include lots of crazy conservative teabaggers who hate cap and trade (I understand why Public Citizen and Sierra Club might not be allowed in– why weren’t even they allowed?), nice ladies who were escorted out of the building because they dared to bring American flags to the rally (why does Big Oil hate America?), and lots of people angry at oil companies because they’re hiding this from the public.

“Energy Company Employees Say the Darndest Things” — watch as your friends in the oil and gas industry display ignorance as to the salient details of the ACES bill and spout misinformation about it, or, the people who do know a lot about the bill talk about how it’s a bad piece of legislation because of corporate giveaways to the coal industry!  Here’s one quick tidbit:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXFt8fwh_0]

Want more?  Read my full press statement after the jump:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

intern-where-is-my-reportDear readers:  We need fall interns for our Austin office.  Think you’ve got what it takes to make me coffee contribute in a meaningful way to our team? Want to be the next Citizen X?  Check out the following infos and apply today!  Feel free to ask questions about the internship in the comments section, and I’ll respond if your wordpress avatar looks impressive right away!

Public Citizen, a national non-profit consumer advocacy and watchdog group, seeks motivated interns in our office in Austin. For over 25 years, the Texas office of Public Citizen has worked on protecting consumers and standing up for the common citizen in the halls of power. When corporate interests send in their high-priced lobbyists, the public can rely on Public Citizen to advocate for what is in their interest.

PC Texas currently works on mostly energy issues, as energy usually represents the second or third largest household expense for most families. We are currently involved in working on federal climate change policy, increasing the use of renewable energy and efficiency as new power resources, and stopping proposed coal and nuclear plant expansions across Texas. We also have a vibrant communications team which specializes in both traditional and “new” media outreach.

QUALIFICATIONS: An intense desire to work in the public’s interest, excellent writing and verbal skills, organized, ability to work under pressure, team player, self-motivated. Background in energy, environmental issues, politics, economics, public policy, etc helpful. Desire to learn a MUST. Interns interested in communications work should have some background in media/communications/PR, etc.

All internships are 20 hrs/week and unpaid and will take place at our office in downtown Austin at the corner of 13th and San Antonio (3 blocks East of the Capitol).

If interested please email Melissa Sanchez msanchez@citizen.org with a resume and a short writing sample.

Read Full Post »

Energia MiaCPS has a meeting today at Firefighters Union Hall (8925-IH10 WEST) from 6:00-8:00 pm. Anyone from District 8 is encouraged to attend and speak for the cause. Each person gets three minutes of talk time and the Local Power/Energia Mia Coalition needs to have its concerns about the South Texas Projects Proposed expansion voiced by as many people as possible. This is especially true of our concerns about the proposed reactors’ heavy water consumption during times of drought (like this one), the proposal’s high cost and the high likelihood of costs over-runs, and the huge financial burden this means for San Antonio ratepayers.

Next week another CPS meeting will be held Tuesday, August 4 (District 2) from 6:00-8:00 pm at Freeman Coliseum, 3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Here are some other important Local Power/Energia Mia events:

August 10 – Mayor Castro’s Town Hall Meeting (Part 1) from 5:30-9:00 pm at the City Council Chambers (across street from City Hall). Questions that were given to the Mayor’s office from some environmental groups will be answered by CPS, who will have them a week ahead of time so they can’t “wuss out.”

August 12 – Town Hall Meeting (Part 2) from 3:00-5:00 pm, same place. This will be a chance for City Council members to ask their own questions of CPS.

We need as many people to turn out at both meetings as possible. City Council must know that we care about this issue and that we have numbers on our side. Get as many people as you can to go to this – we want people standing in the aisles. Invite those at your district meetings who spoke to oppose nuclear expansion.

August 12 – same night! – Texas Public Radio will have its own Town Hall Meeting on nuclear energy. They are requesting audience members to bring and ask questions of their panel. I will pass information on as it becomes available.

Future CPS presentations that need to be attended in force; plan the ones you will attend:

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Tuesday, September 15 (District 4)
Knights of Columbus
5763 Ray Ellison Blvd.

September 16 – San Antonio Clean Technology Forum’s panel discussion/luncheon with guest speakers. It will cost, but we need to show a strong presence, as this is the clean energy investment business community we have to persuade to oppose nuclear. More when we know more 🙂

Read Full Post »

Dont Nuke The Alamo:  Local Power Coalition, opposes new Nuclear Reactors

Dont Nuke The Alamo: Local Power Coalition, opposes new Nuclear Reactors

Don’t Nuke The Alamo!  As we all know, San Antonio’s CPS energy is on the verge of investing in a third and fourth reactor for the South Texas Nuclear project in Bay City. In addition to the environmental and social concerns we have about nuclear power at Public Citizen, we also want to make it known that these reactors are a huge financial gamble. Our best independent studies on the topic show that it will likely be well over budget (possibly 100% over budget) and there is every reason to expect unplanned time delays and hidden costs.

Fortunately the citizens of San Antonio are working to voice their concerns about the project and encourage CPS to reconsider this investment. I recently attended the first meeting of Local Power (or Energía Mia), a coalition of various environmental and social organizations from the San Antonio area, to talk about ways we can voice our concerns about the proposal and get our Mayor and City Council to take action. For anyone interested, the next local power meeting will take place on July 28th at the San Antonio Progress Action Coaltion (SAAPAC) office. Plans were made to target local council members by participating in and producing Public Service Announcements, Forums, District Meetings, Right-wing talk radio interviews and radios ads, and letters to churches and neighborhood associations.

Anyone concerned about these issues is welcome to help and attend any events. SAAPAC head Cindy Wheeler expressed plans for the group to make a concentrated effort to identify the San Antonio residents who will experience a 5% or more rate hike on their electric bills if the reactors are built and help them voice their opposition.

The attendees made plans to attend the CPS Neighbors Night meeting series which will take place all around San Antonio on the designated nights at 6:00pm. At these meetings any interested person can sign up to speak. Here is the schedule for the remaining meetings:

Thursday, July 23 (District 1)
Tripoint Center (YMCA)
3233 N. St. Marys St.

Tuesday, August 4 (District 2)
Freeman Coliseum
3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Wednesday, August 5 (District 7)
St. Paul’s Community Center
1201 Donaldson

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Thursday, July 23 (District 1)
Tripoint Center (YMCA)
3233 N. St. Marys St.

Thursday, July 30 (District 8 )
Firefighters Union Hall
8925 IH-10 West

Tuesday, August 4 (District 2)
Freeman Coliseum
3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Wednesday, August 5 (District 7)
St. Paul’s Community Center
1201 Donaldson

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Tuesday, September 15 (District 4)
Knights of Columbus
5763 Ray Ellison Blvd.

Read Full Post »

greenChoiceSince the Austin American Statesman published a couple of articles on the less-than-stellar sales of Austin Energy’s Green Choice program, many media outlets have picked up the story and the takeaway message is something like “liberal Austin finds out the hard way that renewable energy is too expensive”. It’s really regrettable that this message is permeating throughout the country because it’s just not true.

Austin Energy’s sales of the most recent GreenChoice batch have been low, but I hope that folks will understand that the blame lies not with wind energy itself but some serious underlying problems with the rate structure of this program and the way the energy market is regulated in Texas (hint: it isn’t).

The high cost of GreenChoice highlights the failure of the deregulated market. Consumers are now unfairly burdened with the transmission costs to get wind energy from West Texas to the center of the state. Wind has to pay a toll to drive the power transmission highway, but coal, gas, and nuclear get a free ride. Not all utilities charge similar transmission costs, and in many places that would be factored into the simple cost of doing business, but in Austin consumers are asked to foot that bill. Then there’s the fact that coal, gas, and nuclear power currently have priority on the transmission grid.  If the wind can provide 300 MW of energy at a given time and coal can dispatch 300 MW, but there is only room for 400 MW of power to run through the lines, coal gets to move 300 MW and wind can only move 100 MW.

Another problem with Green Choice is that in addition to paying for 100% wind, customers are forced to pay the maintenance and capitol costs to upkeep Austin’s dirty power sources. That just isn’t fair – folks shouldn’t have to pay a premium for clean energy and then be asked to foot the bill for polluters too.  Folks argue that GreenChoice customers should pay a portion of the upkeep for traditional dirty power sources when the wind isn’t blowing, but they shouldn’t pay the same *full* capital and maintenance costs that average customers pay. If anything, GreenChoice customers should be offered a pro-rated charge for those costs, so that they only pay the maintenance costs for when they are actually getting power from those dirty sources. Right now, Austin Energy is asking GreenChoice customers to pay an Equal share of maintenance and upkeep for an Unequal share of power – not fair.

Then there’s the fact that Austin Energy got a bad deal on this contract. They bought into a ten year power purchase agreement when natural gas prices, and energy prices in general, were at an all time high (remember $4/gallon gas?).

Austin Energy could easily restructure this program so that it is more affordable. GreenChoice wouldn’t be so expensive if wind was operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Austin Energy can make that happen.

Read Full Post »

An Open Pit Uranium Mine

An Open Pit Uranium Mine

Proponents of nuclear power do a lot to paint it as an environmentally friendly, cheap fuel source. It is not, and we at Public Citizen work hard to dispel these kinds of myths. We have said a lot about how expensive a major nuclear undertaking can be (San Antonio is on verge of dumping several billion dollars into one of these projects) and how they emit radiation into the air and produce radioactive waste that hangs around for thousands of years and can be a huge contamination risk. None of this gets much attention in mainstream discourse, so it is up to concerned citizens like us to shed light on these things.

There is one destructive aspect of nuclear power that public discourse tends to be especially silent on. Just as coal industry apologists brush over the enormous damage caused by coal mining, any discussion of nuclear is power is likely to be silent on the damage done by uranium mining.

The damage to human health associated with uranium mining is huge. Historically, uranium miners have had a significantly higher risks of developing small cell Carcinoma, which is a likely product of their exposure to Radon-222 — a cancer causing agent created by decaying uranium. The presence of Radon gas also makes uranium mines a very dangerous work environment. This led to the 1990 passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which awards $100,000 to miners, millers, and transporters who subsequently got cancer after exposure to uranium — though families of many of the victims have had difficulty receiving this money (many cancer stricken miners were Navajo, and their marriage licenses were not universally recognized).

Last year the French mining company Areva was nominated for a Public Eye Award (a recognition intended for companies who brought about the most social or ecological damage) by Pro Natura (Switzerland’s branch of Friends of The Earth), and the Berne Declaration development campaign. The nomination came from the company’s perceived failure to adequately disclose the risks associated with uranium mining to its workers in Niger, as well as neglecting to treat patients who are unable to pay at company hospitals. Workers also mentioned deaths caused by radioactive contamination of air and ground water.

Aside from the dangers of uranium exposure, mining projects  also cause considerable damage to the local environments and to the health of people who live nearby. The American Southwest is covered with abandoned uranium mines from the Cold War Era that have yet to be cleaned up, not to mention waste piles, open tunnels, and pits — all of which emit cancer causing radiation and leach arsenic and heavy metals into the soil and drinking water. Oddly enough, much of this radioactive debris eventually came to be used as building material for local houses. It is likely that exposure to this material is at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates among Navajos (from almost non-existent) to well above the national-average by the end of the cold war.

Currently all uranium mining done in the United States is in the form of in-situ leaching, a process in which boreholes are drilled into a deposit, it is filled with an acid or alkali, and the dissolved ore content is pumped to the surface for recovery. It is a controversial process, often objected to by local land owners, because it acidifies ground waters and can release toxic heavy-metals as well as radioactive materials. There have also been concerns about spillage of acid leachates into the soil or water supplies. In other parts of the world, open pit mines and underground mines are still used, which continue to expose workers to danger, damage the local landscapes, and create waste heaps of toxic and radioactive waste rock.

There are a lot of hidden expenses and environmental as well as human health problems with nuclear power, despite claims that it is a “clean”  fuel source. I think we need to be a lot more skeptical and a lot more forward in our rejections of these claims. I also think that the dangers of uranium mining give us another reason to support new clean energy sources like wind and solar power.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

US_House_CommitteeLast week we saw the Waxman Markey bill go to the Energy and Commerce committee. Watching the markup process increased my interest in the role special interest money plays in the political process.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is responsible for oversight in legislation concerning: telecommunications, energy, international commerce, public health, consumer protection and much more. The Energy Department, Health and Human Services, the Transportation Department to the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and Federal Communications Commission all fall under this committee’s jurisdiction.

Being that this is the committee that was given the responsibility of approving the Waxman Markey bill (the legislation that will determine our future energy policy); I was particularly interested in the amount of influence the energy industry had on shaping these positions of its members. The only way I could actually come close to measuring this is by looking at how much energy companies contribute to these candidates and how much their votes reflect the contributions they receive. As a control for this highly informal quasi-experiment I compared the contributions Energy and Commerce Committee members received from the energy industry the amount of contributions members of the Ways and Means Committee (which deals with taxation and welfare) received from the same industries. I limited this to congressmen who received $10,000 or more in contributions from energy companies during the 2008 election cycle.

I found that in the 65.52% of energy and commerce committee members received energy contributions above $10,000, while 58.53% of Ways and Means members received contributions above $10,000, during the 2008 campaign season. On average Energy and Commerce members received $53,972, while Ways and Means members only received $35,986, on average. The biggest recipients of both parties on the Energy and Commerce Committee got substantially more than their counterparts on Ways and Means Committee. In fact the biggest recipient on Energy and Commerce got $267,559 more than the largest recipient in Ways and Means. The Democrats in both committees received fewer contributions from these industries than the republicans, but the biggest recipient among Energy and Commerce Democrats, Louisiana’s Charlie Melancon, received $40,176 more than Charles Rangel the biggest Democrat recipient on the Ways and Means committee. It should be noted that a bigger percentage of Republicans on both committees received contributions above $10,000 in Energy Contributions. 100% of Republicans on Energy and Commerce received $10,000 or more while only 44% of Democrats did. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Let the news storm begin.  For those thirsting for more information on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a few recommendations:

Watch Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, weigh in on Democracy Now! — Environmental Groups See Divide over Landmark Climate, Energy Bill Weakened by Industry Lobbying

Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current takes Charlie Gonzalez to task for his efforts to weaken ACES (look for a cameo quote from our very own Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director here at the Texas office — Gonzalez bombs climate change bill

The Washington Post’s business column op-ed: Climate-Change Bill Hits Some of the Right Notes but Botches the Refrain

The Economist breaks down the Handouts and loopholes

And to close out, words from the President:

I commend Chairman Waxman and the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for a successful effort to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill out of their committee today. We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America. The bill is historic for what it achieves, providing clean energy incentives that encourage innovation while recognizing the concerns of sensitive industries and regions in this country. And this achievement is all the more historic for bringing together many who have in the past opposed a common effort, from labor unions to corporate CEOs, and environmentalists to energy companies. I applaud the committee for its action and look forward to signing comprehensive legislation.

Read Full Post »

Representative Mark Strama has crafted a genius amendment to HB 3405. The bill, co-authored bypicture-1 Representative Swinford and Representative Anchia, calls for an incentive program for solar power generation through surcharges on utility bills, and Mark Strama is looking at how Texas Schools specifically could benefit from the construction of solar panels on their rooftops.

Strama pointed out that schools are already architecturally perfect for laying out photovoltaic panels. School’s roofs are almost completely flat and in direct sunlight — So why not blanket them with solar panels?

And talk about two birds with one stone—Strama’s plan would also help out with that ever-present issue of funding for Texas education. Not only would schools save on utility bills, but they could actually generate revenue. Energy usage is cut back during the summer months when school is out of session, and that extra energy could be sold right back into the grid at a profit.

Some schools already have some solar panels in place, but these systems are paltry in comparison to Strama’s vision. With over 8,000 schools in Texas, can you imagine how that would affect Texas’ distributed solar production?

Of course, the price tag is the only factor that could hold this plan back. Still, with so much energy savings in the future, this one looks like it will be tough to shove under the table.

Watch KXAN’s news coverage here.

Read Full Post »

burningthefuture1

Next Thursday, April 30, at 7:30 pm Austin Film Festival Presents will screen the film Burning the Future: Coal in America at Alamo Lake Creek off Research Blvd.

Burning the Future: Coal in America is a documentary that examines the explosive conflict between the coal industry and residents of West Virginia. Confronted by emerging “clean coal” energy policies, local activists watch a world blind to the devastation caused by coal’s extraction. Faced with toxic ground water and the obliteration of 1.4 million acres of mountains, our heroes launch a valiant fight to arouse the nation’s help in protecting their mountains, saving their families, and preserving their way of life.

The showing will be FREE for AFF members, $4 for public

For more information, and a full listing of AFF Presents screenings and other AFF events, click here.

Read Full Post »

President Obama has voiced that two of his top priorities will be climate change and energy.  Earlier this month he picture-5announced an energy plan that would call for 14% reduction in emissions from the 2005 levels by 2020, and an 83% reduction by 2050.

But House Democrats Henry a. Waxman (California) and Edward J. Markey (Massachussettes) want more!  They drafted a bill with even more gusto to capture greenhouse gases—a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020!

Remember that this power team was also responsible for the bill to put a moratorium on coal plants introduced a year ago.   The new Waxman-Markey bill will require every region of the country to produce 25% from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal.  This could be a huge factor to increase the demand for sustainable energy to spur wide-range development and adoption of energy technology.

Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee said regarding his bill:

This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution.  Our goal is to strengthen our economy by making America the world leader in new clean energy and energy efficiency technologies.

However, the bill also makes some concessions to the states whose economy rests upon coal and energy-related industries, with the hope that it will smooth the transition to cleaner forms of energy.   To read more, check out this press release from Tyson Slocum at our D.C. office.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This bill is a really great start.  Obama started the bid at a 14% cut, the House upped the ante to 20%, but according to the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the real target we should be shooting for is about 35%.  Unfortunately, none of the bills in the House or Senate is shooting for this target.  The good news is, according to an analysis by McKinsey and Company, almost all of that 35% can be achieved at a net cost savings through things like energy efficiency.  And realistically, that’s only 3.5% per year for the next decade. ~~Citizen Andy

Read Full Post »

urgentCongress is voting on Obama’s much anticipated stimulus package today. If you want this package to include measures to promote renewable energy and a public works project to make public buildings more energy-efficient — and if you read this blog, I bet you do — tell your legislator now! It will only take a minute, and could make a HUGE difference for America’s energy future.

Act Now!

Read Full Post »

This morning President Obama outlined his energy and environmental policy and how it fit into his broader effort to jump start our flailing economy. It was a like taking a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually addressing the environmental problems we face reasonably. Finally!

sexyobamapic

He focused on the problems we face as an opportunity to secure our interests and security, create jobs, and restore America’s moral standing in the world. Outlining his plan in four pragmatic steps, he stated unequivocally that “it will be the policy of [his] administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”

1) The plan aims to create 460,000 jobs that will provide the workforce to double the domestic production capacity of energy. Among the projects he listed were 3000 miles of transmission lines to move this energy and to increase the energy efficiency of government buildings and private residences.

2) It aims to revitalize the American Auto Industry by encouraging energy efficient innovation, hoping the new cars will be produced in the US and meet more stringent emissions standards by model year 2011. He ended by saying that by 2020 all cars would get at least 35 mpg, reducing daily oil consumptions by 2 million barrels a day.

3) Referencing the Bush Era EPA’s rejection of California’s and 13 other state’s waiver requests to increase emissions standards, he said “Washington stood in their way”. California had sued the EPA for inaction…it took them two years to review their application. And they rejected it. He wants the EPA to empower rather than stifle states to make these changes. He said that the EPA will review the California waiver rejection and insinuated that it would be approved.

4) He argued that energy independence was important to secure our interests and safety, as hostile governments maintain power over the US because we depend on them for oil. Dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and unhealthy climate problems are the facts that underpin his plan and it is his intention to use these to guide pragmatic problem solving. He emphasized that facts, not ideology would be used to inform the conversation on these issues. (What a concept!) He said the aim ought to be for America to set the standard and call nations like India and China to greater participation in what needs to be a global effort to clean up our environment.

Mirroring the talking points of Public Citizen, Mr. Obama has taken the first sensible step toward a real remedy for this problem. We are happy to see someone is finally thinking in the Whitehouse. How refreshing…

You can read the president’s full remarks here.

Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/ to see the Obama/Biden Energy and Environmental Plan.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »