Category Home

« Breastfeeding ‘protects mother’
Hopis ready nuke waste suit »

Round #1 Compromise on Climate Bill: Cut Clean Energy Requirements

The Democratic Party is showing just how hollow its commitment to clean energy is. The climate bill that is supposed to put the brakes on global warming will do nothing of the sort. This story is from Reuters

Round #1 Compromise on Climate Bill: Cut Clean Energy Requirements
Wed May 13, 2009 4:08pm EDT
By Josie Garthwaite – Earth2Tech

A “discussion draft” is what Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey called their initial proposal for a climate and energy bill last month. And the discussion has been heating up ever since, fueled in part by multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts. The U.S. oil, gas and coal industry alone has upped its lobbying budget by 50 percent, spending $44.5 million in the first three months of this year in a campaign to green up their image and defeat cap-and-trade, the UK Guardian reports.

Here are some of the key compromises for clean energy:

The original draft proposed to mandate a cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 — more aggressive than President Barack Obama’s call for a 14 percent emissions reduction by 2020. Waxman tells the Washington Post that Democrats have agreed on a new reduction target of 17 percent by 2020 — weaker than the original proposal but much stronger than the 6 percent that had been advocated by some representatives.

A national renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, has so far survived negotiations, but not without taking a big hit. The original draft required electricity suppliers to generate 6 percent of their energy from clean sources by 2012, gradually increasing to 17.5 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025. Now we’re looking at a mandate for just 15 percent by 2020, plus 5 percent in efficiency gains (reducing overall power demand through improved efficiency, rather than focusing solely on adding more clean energy to the supply side). If this compromise version passes, states with limited renewable energy resources will also be able to adopt an RPS as low as 12 percent with 8 percent efficiency gains. The definition of renewable sources that can be used to meet the standard has also been expanded to allow municipal solid waste and more biomass, as Greenwire reports.

Greenwire also notes that the energy efficiency resource standard, or EERS, which would have required electricity and natural gas utilities to slash demand through efficiency programs, has been cut in the compromise version — eliminating what could have been a strong driver for energy conservation and, indirectly, for investment in smart grid technology that can improve efficiency.

Waxman and Markey left the question of how to allocate emission permits in their proposed cap-and-trade system open to debate — an attempt to make the draft more palatable to representatives worried about the economic implications of making companies pay for every ton of greenhouse gas pollution (the Obama administration had called for this “100 percent auction,” but indicated that it would accept a compromise). Even at this late date, Democrats have yet to settle on allocations, but they have agreed to set aside at least 35 percent of permits for utilities so they will only have to pay for about 10 percent of their greenhouse gas emissions.

In other words, the climate bill will have no teeth, at best being a drop in the bucket of what it will take to put a meaningful dent in climate change. It remains to be seen what is meant by renewable sources. If waste and biomass are considered renewable, why not clean coal? The nuclear industry considers breeder reactors renewable energy. The point is to phase out means of producing energy that generate pollution or greenhouse gases. Waste, biomass, and coal all generate carbon dioxide, though clean coal proponents claim carbon dioxide can be safely captured and kept out of the air. Nuclear energy may be the most reckless experiment ever, though the advanced biofuels Obama touts, presumably meaning genetically engineering various plants and trees to make it easier to produce fuel from them, could well prove to have worse unexpected consequences.

The cap and trade system may sound good in theory, but in practice is likely to be riddled with loopholes and ways for industry to game the system. It assumes there is a right to pollute, but puts a price tag on it. There is a saying, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Pollution is a form of assault. It is a direct threat to public health, and the indirect consequences will eventually prove catastrophic far beyond anything most people can imagine. If people think phenomena such as Katrina and horrendous firestorms were bad, they have seen nothing yet. Congress is fiddling while the planet burns. This climate bill is at best a symbolic gesture. It might slow the pace of climate change compared to the policies of George Bush, but not significantly, and especially not if nothing is done to pressure rapidly growing countries like China and India to stop producing energy with obsolete technology. China in particular is still constructing new coal burning power plants like there is no tomorrow. One would hope USA would lead the way, but despite what Obama promised, it looks like Democrats are too timid for that. As usual, money talks louder than concern for the health of the public or the planet.

This entry was posted by Aletha on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Related Stories
  • Forest carbon market already shows cracks 6/4/2009

    • 12 Responses to “Round #1 Compromise on Climate Bill: Cut Clean Energy Requirements”

    1. Aletha Says:
      May 14th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

      Anyone who thinks I exaggerate about Democratic greenwashers pretending they are doing something significant about climate change ought to read the post Michael Mariotte of NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service) put up at Daily Kos this morning, about proposals for a “Clean Energy Bank” to promote such boondoggles as new nuclear power plants and clean coal, all in the name of protecting the enviroment!

      Could A Clean Energy Bank Wreck the Economy? Well, yes……
      by nirsnet
      Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:42:44 AM PDT

      These days, clean energy ranks right up there with Mom, apple pie and ice cream as an All-American attribute. You can barely sit through a TV show, listen to the radio, or even read a blog without coming across an ad from someone extolling the virtues of some “clean” energy form or another.
      Never mind that some of them—from nuclear power to “clean” coal—bear no resemblance to the cleanest solutions like wind, solar and energy efficiency. Some industries have more money to spend on ads than others….

      A thousand mea culpas. This should have been posted and distributed a few weeks ago, before the Senate Energy Committee even started considering Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) proposal to add a Clean Energy Deployment Administration to his energy bill. But we missed it, and so did everyone else, except, perhaps, the Nuclear Energy Institute.

      Let’s face it: it’s pretty tough for environmentalists to oppose something called a Clean Energy Bank, or even a Clean Energy Development Administration, which is starting to sound a little more bureaucratic. Maybe we just wanted to believe.

      But here’s the reality: Sen. Bingaman’s Clean Energy Bank bill would provide more concrete government backing for dirty energy technologies than anything any lobbyist for the nuclear power or coal industries could have dreamed of even a year ago.

      The Bingaman Clean Energy Bank bill, as well as (Rep. Jay) Inslee’s bill (which is nearly identical, with one minor improvement), would authorize this new entity—the Clean Energy Development Administration, which would have an administrator and a nine-member Board of Directors, and virtually no other oversight—to issue as much money in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees as it feels like for any projects that might fall under an exceedingly broad “clean energy” definition.

      Let’s take a look at what might be funded under this definition: New nuclear reactors, for one, as many as the industry might consider building, at whatever cost the industry thinks necessary. That alone has the entire environmental community up in arms, since no matter what industry propaganda may say, the environmental movement remains adamant that nuclear power is an unacceptable solution to the climate crisis. It’s dirty—even without a catastrophic meltdown, it releases radiation into the air and water at every step of the nuclear fuel chain; it’s dangerous, because there is always the risk of catastrophic meltdown even with new reactors; it creates lethal long-lived radioactive waste we don’t have the slightest idea how to handle for millennia of millennia; it undercuts non-proliferation efforts abroad; and, even if none of the above were the case, it is the most costly method of producing electricity available and using it would divert resources from the cleaner, safer, cheaper, and faster means of addressing the climate crisis we need to implement.

      “Clean coal” could also be funded under this definition, including such environmentally dubious (ok, I mean destructive) concepts as coal-to-liquids (a two-in-one pollution punch), as well as unproven carbon sequestration technologies.

      But even if this Bank were only oriented toward renewable energy and energy efficiency, we would still have to oppose it. With all respect and love toward our compadres designing and building new solar PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal and other 21st century technologies, even they don’t deserve unlimited taxpayer backing for their projects.

      The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office both have already projected a 50% or greater failure rate for loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. And there is no denying that the failure rate for renewable energy projects is going to be above zero, possibly above 20%. While it’s fine for taxpayers to take some risk for new energy technologies, it’s not fine to bet hundreds of billions of our dollars on new energy projects or take risks of 50% or more, especially on such capital intensive projects as new nuclear reactors, which are now projected to cost some $10 billion or more each.

      And, for the skeptics out there, let’s face facts: the nuclear power industry is the one most in need of this money. Why? Because there is no private capital available to support construction of new nuclear reactors. It’s that simple—private investors simply won’t take that risk. If Bank of America or Citigroup have been thinking for the past few years that nuclear reactors are too risky but subprime mortgages aren’t, then I have to think a 50% projected failure rate might be too low. Admittedly, these are somewhat hard times for new renewable energy facilities as well, but until last October money was flowing freely to them, and as the recovery begins, private investment will begin flowing to them again. But private money won’t flow to nuclear power under any circumstances without the taxpayers taking the risk.

      The reality is that the nuclear industry has already asked for $122 Billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees (most of which would actually be taxpayer-funded as well, through the Federal Financing Bank). And that would cover only about 20 reactors. Getting to the GOP’s dream of 100 new reactors by mid-century (outlined by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn, in the GOP Saturday radio address a couple weeks ago), would cost at least five times that amount—and that’s before the cost overruns start rolling in. For comparison, a Department of Energy study of 75 existing reactors found an average cost overrun of 207%. If that level holds true for a new generation of reactors, we’d be looking at trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

      Note: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) has offered a different Clean Energy Bank bill, but it explicitly includes nuclear power and “clean” coal as “clean” energy technologies, and thus, while it doesn’t provide for unlimited loan guarantees, is also unacceptable. But you might want to contact Van Hollen and tell him that if he’ll amend his bill to include only genuinely clean energy technologies, it might be a good alternative to the unacceptable bills making their way through Congress now.

      Michael Mariotte
      Nuclear Information and Resource Service

      With friends like these, the environment needs no enemies. Senate Energy Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman is notoriously pro-nuclear, so his perfidy is hardly unexpected, though somehow this plan to sneak through money for new nuclear power plants fooled even NIRS, which has been campaigning tirelessly to defeat loan guarantees Congress keeps floating. One might wonder why, if Democrats claim to be so much better than Republicans on environmental issues, the Senate Energy Committee Chair and the Secretary of Energy are both avid promoters of nuclear power. The fact is, most politicians of both parties think nuclear power has gotten a bad rap. Never mind it deserves every bit of its bad reputation, and then some. Nuclear power is simply one of the worst examples of recklessness posing as high technology ever conceived. There is no valid justification for its use whatsoever. Nuclear power has but one useful purpose, which is to kill; for that purpose it is nearly unrivaled in its efficiency. Biological weapons could be worse, since they could spread unchecked so easily all over the world.

    2. Aletha Says:
      May 28th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

      Other environmental groups are also unimpressed with this Clean Energy bill. Several issued the following joint statement last week.

      STATEMENT ON THE AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT
      MAY 21, 2009
      by Greenpeace USA * Friends of the Earth * Public Citizen * Citizen Power * Center for Biological Diversity * Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana * TURN—The Utility Reform Network * Sustainable Energy & Economy Network * Green Delaware * Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance * Massachusetts Forest Watch * Coal Moratorium Now! * Rainforest Action Network * International Rivers * Energy Justice Network

      In response to passage of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a coalition of environmental, legal, consumer, and community advocacy groups released the following joint statement:

      WASHINGTON— “While a week of debate failed to adequately strengthen protections for consumers, communities, and the climate in this bill, it erased all doubt of who will benefit most from it: Big Business. Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, even as the country stands ready to rebuild our economy and clean up the environment with real clean energy. The resulting bill reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest.

      “Regrettably, we cannot support this legislation unless and until it is substantially strengthened. The lives and livelihoods of 7 billion people worldwide will be affected by America’s response to the climate crisis. The response embodied in today’s bill is not only inadequate, it is counterproductive.

      “As passed through the Energy & Commerce Committee, the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets targets for reducing pollution that are far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. The targets are far less ambitious than what is achievable with already existing technology. They are further undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027. Rather than provide relief and support to consumers, the bill showers polluting industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in free allowances and direct subsidies that will slow renewable energy development and lock in a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. At the same time, the bill would remove the president’s authority to address global warming pollution using laws already on the books.

      “The international community cannot solve global warming without real leadership from the United States. We urge the president to demonstrate that leadership by working with Congressional leaders to craft a real, science-based response to the challenge of global warming and by immediately exercising his substantial authority to regulate global warming emissions under existing laws.”

      At least these environmental groups are trying to hold the feet of Congress and the President to the fire, but this is just par for the course for the Democratic Party. It talks a good game, but its actions speak louder than its words, and those actions generally accommodate the interests of its corporate backers at the expense of the public and the environment. The proposed cap and trade system has been stuffed full of loopholes, making it a joke, as predicted. This bill is counterproductive, but Democrats will tout it as great progress toward combating global warming. This is greenwashing, pure and simple. Drastic change in the way industry does business is required. This bill delivers cosmetic change, nothing substantial and nowhere near what will be necessary to avert drastic climate change. The effects of that, bad as they will be, will seem like a picnic once ecological collapse begins in earnest.

    3. Aletha Says:
      June 26th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

      The House narrowly passed the even more thoroughly watered down bill today. President Obama and the more mainstream environmental groups are touting this as historic. Democratic greenwashing is hardly historic. King Coal may be the big winner, as this bill overrides protections that were in the Clean Air Act. This is from a statement issued yesterday by the Center for Biological Diversity

      ESSENTIAL CLEAN AIR ACT MEASURES ARE REPEALED; CONSTRUCTION OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS WILL CONTINUE

      The Clean Air Act works. For four decades, the Act has protected the air we breathe, saved thousands of lives each year, and otherwise improved public health. The three primary provisions that can be brought to bear on greenhouse emissions are sections dealing with mobile sources, stationary sources, and national air-quality standards. The American Clean Energy and Security Act retains the Clean Air Act’s authority to regulate mobile sources, but exempts greenhouse emissions from most other provisions. This is an extremely dangerous strategy because it removes the Clean Air Act as a backstop and source of scientific standards. Climate legislation should complement the Clean Air Act, not override its essential provisions.

      Whereas the bill establishes emissions reduction standards through political horse-trading, the Clean Air Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to scientifically establish national ambient air quality standards at a level sufficient to protect “public health and welfare.” Given advances in climate science, that standard for carbon dioxide would likely be 350 ppm or less. Emission reduction needs would then be rationally identified based on the scientifically determined atmospheric standard. Rather than substitute politics for science, the bill should work in parallel with the Clean Air Act to ensure decision-making is scientifically grounded.

      Even though coal-fired power plants are the single most destructive greenhouse gas emitters, the bill overrides the Clean Air Act to allow numerous plants to be built with no additional greenhouse emission reduction requirements for more than a decade [8]. In contrast, the Clean Air Act would require any new coal-fired power plants to be built (if at all) with significant emissions reductions effective upon construction. Thus the American Clean Energy and Security Act, due to political compromises, may actually promote the construction of polluting coal-fired power plants.

      Thanks a million, Democrats. This is their idea of strong action against climate change. What a joke.

    4. Aletha Says:
      June 30th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

      Obama touting this bill the day before the House vote:

      Now is the time for us to lead. The energy bill before the House will finally create a set of incentives that will spark a clean energy transformation of our economy. It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy — everything from wind, solar, and geothermal power to safe nuclear energy and cleaner coal.

      Because this legislation is so balanced and sensible, it’s already attracted a remarkable coalition of consumer and environmental groups, labor and business leaders, Democrats and Republicans.

      This is what Obama thinks is so balanced and sensible? Putting safe nuclear energy and cleaner coal in the same league as wind, solar, and geothermal power? The latter are sound, practical, necessary to stave off ecological collapse. The former are a sick joke, but probably the only reason the bill passed, given the pernicious influence of industry over Congress. Of course Obama does not see fit to mention that several environmental groups are appalled by this legislation, for good reasons. Greenwashing rules!

    5. Aletha Says:
      July 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

      More nonsensical greenwashing from President Obama at the G8 summit. This is from the Guardian

      G8 summit: Barack Obama says world can close the carbon emissions gap
      Patrick Wintour and Larry Elliott
      Thursday 9 July 2009 22.27 BST

      Barack Obama said today there was still time to overcome cynicism and close the gap with developing powers on climate change, after slow progress towards an agreement on how to cut carbon emissions across the planet.

      “Developed countries like mine have a historic responsibility to take the lead with our much larger carbon footprint per capita. I know that in the past the US has sometimes failed to meet its responsibilities so let me make it clear those days are over.”

      Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, said: “Now we have the 2C goal, that can act as a yardstick to drive up ambition, which is what we need to do over the next six months.”

      But Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, criticised all sides for not being more ambitious. The world had to agree a long-term target, a cut of at least 50% by 2050, he said. “But more importantly, the leaders of industrialised countries should agree on a mid-term target.”

      On Wednesday the G8 industrialised nations committed to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050, the first time the US, Canada and Russia had agreed to such an ambitious target. But the G8 balked at setting interim targets for 2020, partly because of Obama’s belief that he would undermine support in the US Congress for his climate change bill if he went for tough short term targets.

      Obama hit another obstacle yesterday when Democratic leaders in the Senate, under criticism from Republicans for trying to rush through sweeping reforms, abandoned plans to produce a first draft of the bill before the summer recess in August.

      The days of USA failing to meet its responsibilities are over? How can the President say that with a straight face? USA is perhaps the most irresponsible nation on earth; if not, it is close. Does Obama expect people to believe his rhetoric? Is his claim to fame his ability to convince people his wishful thinking is based on reality? Obama is fond of decrying cynicism, but hope and masterful oratory are no substitute for reality. Empty rhetoric feeds cynicism for good reason. Actions speak louder than words.

    6. Aletha Says:
      October 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm

      President Obama just does not get it. This is from his speech at MIT, quoted in the Los Angeles Times

      And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he’s doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake — (applause) — everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that’s far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America — making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable — sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

      The priorities and delusions of this President are clear. Note he mentions the real solutions last. He still believes in safe nuclear power and sustainably grown biofuels, which actually means to him plants engineered to produce biofuels more efficiently, since using natural varieties releases more carbon dioxide than the plants remove from the atmosphere while growing. It may be possible to develop plants that come closer to breaking even, but burning any kind of carbon-based fuel is not a viable solution. Earlier in the speech he touted viruses engineered to grow batteries! I doubt people should trust scientists to keep engineered microorganisms under control. The record of scientific indifference to the problem of engineered plants spreading pollen far and wide demonstrates the possible consequences of their bad judgment. The world cannot afford to keep using fossil fuels for several more decades, regardless of how cleanly and efficiently they are burned. Research into these pipedreams is worse than a total waste of time and money; it will stall development and deployment of viable, sustainable, nonpolluting forms of energy. He might be right that a consensus is growing to pass the kind of energy bill he wants to sign, but that will solve nothing. No matter; his priority is not to save the planet, but to do what it takes to grow the economy! With that emphasis, he may well be able to persuade some Republicans to go along for the ride!

    7. Aletha Says:
      November 6th, 2009 at 12:18 am

      The Copenhagen summit is in trouble. European officials are already scaling back what they hope to accomplish, angling for a nonbinding agreement instead of a new treaty. This AP story is from Yahoo News

      Negotiators scale back UN climate pact ambitions
      By KATY DAIGLE and ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writers
      Thu Nov 5, 5:33 pm ET

      BARCELONA, Spain – With the U.S. Congress still struggling to agree on sharp cuts in greenhouse gases or how to fund them, European officials said Thursday they were now striving for a political agreement instead of a new treaty to allow the U.S. and other rich nations to make commitments that are not legally binding.

      The revised thinking was an implicit admission of defeat: the two-year timetable for crafting a landmark treaty will miss its deadline, and that failure threatens to deepen the distrust between rich countries and poor nations reeling from drought and failing crops caused by persistently warmer weather.

      The treaty had been due to be completed in December at a 192-nation conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

      European and U.N. officials are now suggesting a political deal, rather than a legal accord, that would rely on commitments from both wealthy and developing countries. Industrial countries would commit to firm targets for reducing emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and allocating funds for poor countries, while developing countries would specify their plans for low-carbon growth.

      Such a deal would not be legally binding, but would carry the authority of world leaders who would come to Copenhagen to sign off on it. Nations would agree to stick to their promises while they continue negotiating the details of a treaty, taking as long as another year.

      The delay is significant. The only instrument for controlling carbon emissions, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, expires in 2012. Unless a new treaty is in place by then, no regulations will exist, threatening chaos among industries relying on predictable rules for their business development.

      “People are more and more talking about a framework … that you clarify further in the following months,” said Artur Runge-Metzger, chief delegate from the European Union Commission.

      Despite the troubled passage of U.S. legislation, delegates at the U.N. talks in Spain had not given up hope the Obama administration will bring specific pledges to the final round of negotiations in Copenhagen.

      Success at Copenhagen “depends very much on President Obama himself, on … whether he can put numbers on the table or not,” Runge-Metzger said.

      Legislation working its way through Congress would reduce U.S. emissions by about 4 percent below 1990 levels. The Europeans and developing countries have complained, however, about the Washington’s “low ambitions.”

      The downsizing of ambitions for the treaty after two years of difficult global negotiations left developing countries and lobby groups despondent.

      “We are completely dismayed by the shuffling of feet and sliding backward of the developed countries,” said Raman Mehta, program manager in India for global anti-poverty agency ActionAid.

      But U.S. delays appear to have already jeopardized global commitment toward concluding a legally binding treaty next month.

      Yvo De Boer, the U.N. official who is shepherding the talks, has urged negotiators to consider a transition agreement that would be adopted by consensus among the 192 countries. The proposal would delay the politically explosive question of the format the final agreement will take. Developing countries insist an amended Kyoto Protocol be the central document of a new treaty. The United States wants nothing to do with the protocol.

      In private consultations, de Boer has proposed drafting an overarching statement of long-term objectives, and a series of supplemental decisions on technology transfers, rewards for halting deforestation and building infrastructure in poor countries to adapt to global warming, delegates said.

      These agreements would be appended with annexes listing the emission reduction targets of all industrial countries; details of actions developing countries will take to lower the growth of emissions; a list of financial pledges by wealthy countries; and an outline of a new body for dispersing the funds, over which developing countries have control.

      Though lacking grounding in international law, any decision accepted by all countries at Copenhagen would be “morally binding,” de Boer said.

      There was no sign that developing nations were backing away from their demands for next month’s meeting — including that industrial nations pledge to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent of their 1990 levels by 2020. Scientists say at least a 25-40 percent reduction from those levels is required to avert climate catastrophe.

      USA fiddles while the planet burns. Even if the climate bill Obama touted as such a historic breakthrough passes, it is a drop in the bucket. The developing nations will take the brunt of the calamities climate change will bring, though no nation will escape unscathed. The richer nations are just a bit better situated to deal with disasters. Since they are largely responsible for the problem, their footdragging is even more reprehensible than it would be if all nations were equally at fault. USA and China are the biggest polluters in the world, but China is becoming so alarmed at its choking pollution and growing deserts that it is starting to take significant actions. It may soon become the largest producer of solar and wind power in the world.

      China is still a developing nation, fast becoming an economic powerhouse, but its emissions per capita still lag far behind USA, which has no excuse for its recalcitrance. Regardless of skepticism of the source, magnitude, and time scale of the impending disasters, flooding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases is just plain stupid. This is yet another example of Obama making big promises, then compromising to a point that makes his promise a meaningless sham. As usual, Democrats talk a good game about environmental protection, but money from polluting businesses governs the actions of politicians of both parties. Meanwhile, developing nations face starvation and worse, while the best USA can propose is that they must modernize their agricultural methods. The first green revolution has already wreaked great havoc through poisoning and depleting soil; the second promises greater havoc through what is euphemistically called genetic engineering, which destroys biodiversity and poisons all creatures who eat these crops. Obama has no idea how to deal with climate change, and the bill his party hopes to pass proves it. It may be one of his high priorities, but the actions he and his party have proposed do not inspire confidence. No wonder developing nations are despondent. Despite all of the fine rhetoric Obama spouts, they know the earth is headed straight for disaster, while US politicians in particular might as well be indifferent, since the tepid actions proposed will not make any notable difference. The disaster that finally wakes up these fools may be delayed a little while, but not for long, and by that time, it will take decades to reverse the damage, if that is possible at all.

    8. Aletha Says:
      February 3rd, 2010 at 12:03 am

      Three members of Congress from the Midwest, two of them high-ranking Democrats, are proposing legislation to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. This story is from the Pulaski County Daily

      Skelton, Emerson try to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions
      By: Press Office of U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton
      Posted: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 12:24 pm

      WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 2, 2010) — Today, Congressman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Congressman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn. and Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee), and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) will introduce legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the authority of the Clean Air Act and to change federal law to strengthen America’s renewable fuels industry.

      Congressman Skelton unveiled his legislation at the Missouri Rural Electric Cooperative State Legislative Conference in Jefferson City. While discussing the bill, Congressman Skelton stated:

      “Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at EPA. America’s energy and environmental policies should be set by Congress.

      “It appears the clean energy bill moving through Congress is stalled. Let us set that bill aside and pass this scaled-back energy legislation. This bill, which represents a responsible way to move forward on energy legislation, gets the EPA under control, provides good things for American farmers, and builds upon bipartisan objectives that will help curb climate change and make our nation more energy independent.”

      Although not present, U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, also cited the aggressive nature of EPA as the primary reason for supporting this bill:

      “I have no confidence that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act without severe harm to all taxpayers. Americans know we’re way too dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in this country — and I’ve worked hard to develop real solutions to that problem—but elected officials should be making these types of decisions, not unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. I’m proud to help sponsor this bill because if Congress doesn’t do something soon, the EPA is going to cram these regulations through all on their own.”

      The Skelton-Peterson-Emerson bill would amend the Clean Air Act to make clear it does not allow for regulation of greenhouse gases as it relates to global climate change, would amend the 2007 Energy Bill to stop EPA from calculating land use changes in foreign countries in determining American renewable fuels policy, and would broaden the definition of renewable biomass to strengthen the American biofuels industry.

      Nobody should have any confidence that Congress will do a damn thing that will make a difference about climate change. This amazing effrontery from leading Democrats should remove all doubt about that. The last thing the world needs is a strengthened biofuels industry, but these Representatives are from farm states, so their position is hardly surprising. Unfortunately, they have a strong ally in the President, as well as many of their colleagues in Congress, who want to make sure combating climate change does not inconvenience big business. The record of EPA in protecting the environment is nothing to get excited about, but the prospect of EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions certainly has these members of Congress up in arms! Heaven forbid EPA should pass some regulation that might make a difference! The economy cannot afford it, these buffoons claim. Never mind that there will be no economy to preserve once climate change starts drowning coastal cities, which is inevitable unless USA, and other laggard nations, get serious about cutting down greenhouse gas emissions in a hurry.

    9. Aletha Says:
      February 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 pm

      Perhaps these legislators are more worried about EPA than is merited. Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson are on board with the idea of producing more ethanol. This AP story is from the Washington Post

      Obama pushes energy plan that GOP may support
      By PHILIP ELLIOTT and MATTHEW DALY
      The Associated Press
      Wednesday, February 3, 2010; 7:19 PM

      WASHINGTON — Looking for a political and policy victory, President Barack Obama on Wednesday pushed energy proposals designed to attract allies and opponents alike, calling for increased ethanol production and new technology to limit pollution from the use of coal.

      Facing a Senate with a newly energized Republican minority, Obama has begun tailoring his energy policy to GOP-supported ideas, starting in his State of the Union address last week with calls for offshore oil drilling opposed by environmentalists and a bigger role for nuclear power.

      He spoke as the White House released presidential task force recommendations calling on both Washington and the private sector to spend more money on biofuels like ethanol. The group said the nation likely will fall short of goals Congress has set for creating more environmentally friendly energy.

      At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule requiring U.S. companies to produce at least 13 billion gallons of renewable fuels this year, up from about 11.1 billion gallons in 2009. Thirteen billion gallons is about 9 percent of overall U.S. fuel consumption. Congress has set a goal of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.

      EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the new rules would reduce oil dependence by million of barrels a year and “help bring new economic opportunity to millions of Americans, particularly in rural America.”

      In his meeting with the governors, Obama also announced a new task force to study ways to increase the use of coal in meeting the nation’s energy needs without increasing the pollution that contributes to global warming.

      “It’s been said that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and that’s because … it’s one of our most abundant energy resources,” Obama said. “If we can develop the technology to capture the carbon pollution released by coal, it can create jobs and provide energy well into the future.”

      Renewable fuels, that is a clever oxymoron, about as meaningless as clean coal. Biofuels may be renewable, and they may reduce dependence on foreign oil, but they are not any kind of solution to the real problem, which is generation of too much greenhouse gases. It may be possible to capture carbon dioxide, but that will require energy and a place to store it indefinitely. Therefore, any potential “clean coal” technology will be both inefficient and risk sudden release of that stored carbon dioxide, which could undo in a flash any progress toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

      It is so telling that Obama will gladly antagonize environmentalists in a bid to garner some Republican support. Is this the change I am supposed to believe in? Sorry, Democrats, your greenwashing is getting more glaring every day. This policy will generate lots of jobs in the future, cleaning up the gargantuan mess that will inevitably result! Is this planet not already polluted enough, Democrats must work with Republicans to ensure it becomes ever more hostile to intelligent life? This planet should be a paradise, but that would require radical change in the ways people live and do business. Honoring the precautionary principle would be a good start, but that is so far removed from the direction Obama is heading, he might as well be a Republican.

    10. Aletha Says:
      February 17th, 2010 at 12:09 am

      President Obama has thrown down the gauntlet to environmentalists who remain skeptical of nuclear energy, announcing a down payment of eight billion in loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plant since the disaster at Three Mile Island cast its pall over the industry. This AP story is from Yahoo News

      Obama’s latest bipartisan outreach: nuclear energy
      By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
      Tue Feb 16, 9:13 pm ET

      WASHINGTON – Prodding Republicans, President Barack Obama on Tuesday championed nuclear energy expansion as the latest way that feuding parties can move beyond the “broken politics” of Washington that have imperiled his agenda and soured voters.

      “The fact is, changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew. It requires us to act anew,” Obama said during a stop a job training center outside Washington. “And it demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides, to act in good faith, and to move beyond the broken politics of the past. That’s what we must do.”

      He made his pitch for nuclear energy by saying nothing less than the economy, the security of the United States and the planet’s future were at stake.

      “We can’t continue to be mired in the same old stale debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs,” the president said.

      Uh huh. Never let it be said Republicans have a lock on reckless environmental policy. Yes, the economy, security, and the future of this planet are at stake, but this is no solution. Nuclear energy could be a greater threat to the future of this planet than climate change, especially if there are more “accidents,” which is a given. The technology may be marginally safer, but to tout nuclear energy as safe, clean, or any kind of solution to environmental problems is disingenuous in the extreme. If Obama knows anything about science, he should know better. His Energy Secretary Steven Chu certainly knows better, but he is in the pocket of those who stand to profit from this horrendous abuse of science. Obama had the gall to say the two reactors planned for Georgia would reduce carbon emissions by sixteen millions tons a year, compared with a similar coal-fired power plant! He picked the worst offending means of energy generation, coal, for comparison! What was the purpose of such a misleading comparison? Greenwashers everywhere, rejoice, the President is firmly on your side!

    11. Aletha Says:
      February 17th, 2010 at 9:44 pm

      The President is pretty cozy with certain lobbyists, despite his pretenses that they will have no clout in his Administration. It turns out the sister-in-law of the head of his transition team, John Podesta, is a lobbyist for Southern Company, to which Obama just awarded those loan guarantees. This story is from Associated Press

      Southern Co.’s lobbying draws complaints
      By SHANNON McCAFFREY (AP) – 8 hours ago

      ATLANTA — President Barack Obama’s award of billions of dollars in federal nuclear loan guarantees to Southern Co. has angered environmentalists who say the president is embracing the energy powerhouse that worked aggressively to defeat a key climate change bill championed by his administration.

      The Atlanta-based company had nearly twice as many climate lobbyists as any other company or organization during last year’s debate over cap and trade legislation, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The company hired 16 outside firms to supplement their stable of in-house lobbyists and spent $16.5 million on Capitol Hill lobbying in 2009. The company maintains the report overstates their lobbying role.

      Some environmentalists — while not surprised that Obama is moving forward on nuclear power — are upset that Southern Co. is the recipient of such federal largesse.

      “It’s shameful,” Georgia-based Sierra Club lobbyist Neill Herring said. “They gave a big wet kiss to their very worst opponent.”

      On Tuesday, Obama announced that Southern Co. will be eligible for $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to build and operate two new nuclear reactors at its plant in Burke County, Ga. The first of the two reactors is scheduled to go online in 2016 and the second the following year.

      But Obama’s announcement favoring Southern Co., whose strong opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act helped stall the bill in the U.S. Senate, has some environmentalists feeling betrayed.

      “This says to me that Obama is desperate to appear bipartisan,” said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Knoxville, Tenn.-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “To give these guys of all guys a bonus, the irony is just gut-wrenching.”

      As the nation’s largest generator of electric power, Southern Co. has a lot to lose in the climate bill. A majority of its plants are fired by burning fossil fuels, like coal and oil — which are the leading sources of greenhouse gases.

      In 2009, Southern had 63 lobbyists on its payroll, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. Eight of them were in-house lobbyists and the rest came from 16 outside lobbying firms. One of the lobbyists, brought on at the end of 2008 — soon after Obama won the White House — was Heather Podesta, the sister-in-law of John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and the leader of Obama’s transition team.

      This writer is off the mark saying the award to Southern makes some environmentalists feel betrayed. Any environmentalist worthy of the name knows Obama has betrayed the cause in almost every way imaginable, and will continue to do so, just as Bill Clinton did. Picking this company is an especially egregious slap in the face, but I see nothing ironic about it; it just goes to show once again that Obama has no respect for his base. Like the master triangulator Bill Clinton, Obama takes his base for granted, seeing no downside to that strategy, since where else could they go? They certainly are not going to join the Republicans, right? This is another example showing why this two-party system, so lousy with money, is not about to solve any of the real problems facing the country, or the world. Political calculations make actual solutions seem impractical, since those would make powerful corporations such as Southern Company very displeased.

    12. Aletha Says:
      April 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm

      The Senate version of the climate bill was finally released today, and it is certainly no improvement over the House bill. If anything, it is worse. The Free Soil Party was among 200 organizations signing on to a press release protesting the bill, coordinated by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

      GRASSROOTS CLEAN ENERGY/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS:
      KERRY-LIEBERMAN DIRTY ENERGY BILL IS NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CRISIS

      200 environmental, peace, consumer, religious organizations and small businesses today joined together to blast the Kerry-Lieberman “climate” proposal as a taxpayer bailout of the nuclear power industry and other dirty energy interests that would be ineffective at addressing the climate crisis.

      The groups pledged to oppose the Kerry- Lieberman bill unless substantial changes are made, including removing all support for nuclear power.

      “This bill is just business-as-usual: taxpayer giveaways to giant nuclear and other energy corporations wrapped in the guise of doing something about our climate crisis. To call this a climate bill is greenwashing in the extreme. We need to direct our resources to the fastest, cheapest, cleanest and safest means of reducing carbon emissions—this bill does just the opposite,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a national organization based in Takoma Park, MD, which coordinated this statement.

      “The climate crisis won’t be solved by increasing reliance on the dirty energy technologies of the past.” said Michael Keegan of the Michigan-based Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, “What we need is an all-out effort to implement the clean technologies that already exist and are improving daily: solar and wind power, distributed energy systems, smart grids, increased energy efficiency—these are the energy technologies of the 21st century.”

      Among other provisions, the bill is expected to:
      *provide $54 billion in taxpayer “loan guarantees” for construction of new nuclear reactors. These “loan guarantees” would actually be direct taxpayer loans from the government’s Federal Financing Bank. It would also provide a 10% tax break to wealthy utilities for nuclear construction costs.

      *create a “Clean Energy Deployment Administration” (CEDA) with the authority to provide unlimited taxpayer loans for new reactor construction without Congressional oversight.

      *support dirty and dangerous reprocessing technologies, authorize billions of dollars in nuclear research and development, and legislatively attempt to speed the nuclear reactor licensing process despite a recent report from the Bipartisan Policy Center that found the industry is primarily to blame for the slow pace of licensing.

      *continue to support offshore oil drilling near much of the U.S. coastline despite the calamitous BP oil spill.

      *provide $10 billion for wasteful and impossible “clean coal” development.

      *target a reduction in carbon emissions of only 17% from 2005 levels by 2020—far lower than most scientists believe is necessary.

      Groups in New England were particularly upset at their Senators’ actions. “Senator John Kerry’s blatant support of the nuclear industry has left thousands of his Massachusetts constituents questioning his judgment,” said Sandra Gavutis, executive director of C-10, a grassroots group in eastern Massachusetts.

      “Senator Joe Lieberman is the nuclear power industries’ best friend in the U.S. Senate. His support for a major federal loan guarantee for the nuclear power industry comes as no surprise. However, he does not represent the interests of the people of Connecticut, who demand investment instead in safe, clean, renewable energy,” added Nancy Burton of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone.

      In an affront to environmentalists across the world, Senators Kerry and Lieberman originally chose April 26—the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe—to unveil their “climate bill” that would provide vast new government support for construction of new nuclear reactors and make future Chernobyl-like disasters even more likely. Only the sudden withdrawal of support for the bill by South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham changed the bill’s release date.

      “Everyone needs to face the tragic truth about the very real consequences of nuclear catastrophe,” says Glenn Carroll, coordinator of Nuclear Watch South. “The Chernobyl accident is still happening as wildlife intrudes the ruined reactor and spreads radiation around the countryside. The massive concrete sarcophagus is 24 years old and threatens to collapse, initiating another deadly plume of radiation to the environment. Sun and wind promise us complete freedom from the untenable threat of irreversible nuclear contamination and our leaders must be pressed upon to heed Chernobyl’s warning against investing in more nuclear reactors.”

      Nuclear Watch South is based in Georgia where the giant Southern Company is slated to receive the first government nuclear payouts for two new reactors at the Vogtle site near Augusta. “In the past month we’ve commemorated Chernobyl–the worst man-made disaster in history–and seen two new disasters: a massive oil spill on our Gulf Coast and a coal mine explosion,” said Mariotte. “Nuclear power, oil and coal are not solutions to climate change, they are enormous environmental problems. These Senators should know better. The widespread opposition to this bill indicated by these 200 organizations indicates the American public want real solutions to the climate crisis, not more expensive bailouts for dirty energy interests.”

      This story is from the New York Times


      Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows

      By JOHN M. BRODER
      Published: May 12, 2010

      WASHINGTON — The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled on Wednesday to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects.

      After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs.

      The sponsors rewrote the section on offshore oil drilling in recent days to reflect mounting concern over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, raising new hurdles for any future drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts while allowing it to proceed off Louisiana, Texas and Alaska.

      Mr. Kerry said the United States was crippled by a broken energy policy and falling behind in the global race for leadership in clean-energy technology.

      “We’re threatened by the impacts of a changing climate,” he said in a packed Senate hearing room. “And right now, as one of the worst oil spills in our nation’s history washes onto our shores, no one can doubt how urgently we need a new energy policy in this country. Now is the time to take action.”

      It may be difficult, however, for him to persuade the Senate to act. The country is nervously watching efforts to halt the gulf spill, the Senate is torn by deep partisan hostility and the public is uncertain whether the benefits of combating global warming are worth the costs.

      “Americans know what’s at stake by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday. “But the challenges we face — underscored by the immense tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico — are reason to redouble our efforts to reform our nation’s energy policies. For too long, Washington has kicked this challenge to the next generation. This time, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Americans.”

      The Kerry-Lieberman proposal would treat each major sector of the economy differently, while providing something for every major energy interest: loan guarantees for nuclear plant operators, incentives for use of natural gas in transportation, exemptions from emissions caps for heavy industry, generous pollution permits for utilities for years, modest carbon dioxide limits for oil refiners and substantial refunds for consumers.

      The bill’s overall goal is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent (compared with 2005 levels) by 2020, and by 83 percent by 2050. The targets match those in a House bill passed last year and in the Obama administration’s announced policy goal.

      It cannot yet be known whether the concessions and compromises embodied in the bill will let it attract the 60 votes needed to thwart a filibuster.

      Some environmental advocates were involved in drafting the bill and were highly supportive. But other environmentalists said the bill did not go far enough and offered too many concessions to win industry support.

      The United States Chamber of Commerce, whose support was avidly courted, refused to endorse the measure, calling it a “work in progress” that may prove too costly to business.

      What is the point of compromising to win industry support? Industry has caused this problem, and is loath to do anything about it. As if there is some sacrosanct right to pollute that must be respected, especially if it may prove too costly to business? There is no right to pollute; that is a form of assault, regardless of what it might cost to change the ways energy is produced.

      President Obama, if the status quo is no longer acceptable, why is it a bill that tinkers around the edges of the status quo is acceptable? Is this the best Democrats can do? It is nowhere near what will be required, and everyone with half a brain knows it! The public is uncertain whether the costs are worth it? No, big business is certain the costs are not worth it! Since corporations are focused on the short-term bottom line, of course the costs are not worth it to them! Yes, we need a new energy policy, but this is a joke!

    Leave a Reply

    (Visited 442 times)