Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The contrast between President Obama’s 2009 and 2010 State of the Union (SOTU) addresses is stark when it comes to the intersecting arenas of energy and climate.

In 2009, President Obama made a strong and uncompromising call for investments in “clean, renewable energy” and made a direct statement about the type of climate legislation expected from Congress (“market-based cap on carbon pollution”). He provided a meaningful opening target: “we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years”.

In 2010, President Obama did not even mention the word “renewable”, failed to refer back to the strong statements about renewable energy in the 2009 SOTU and how we on track to achieving (and likely exceeding) them, and sounded like he could have been speaking to the Republican National Convention in the Luntz-ian like redefinition of a “clean energy economy”:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.

While progressive winced and grimaced, it is easy to imagine chants of “Drill, Baby, Drill” and President Obama emphasized “more production” and defined “opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development” as providing “clean energy jobs”. And, the reinforcing of the “clean coal” myth. And, well, emphasizing questionable biofuels and divisive nuclear power over wind, solar, geothermal, improved hydro, ocean (wave), and other sustainable power options rounded out words to be expected from those looking down beneath their legs to 19th century energy options rather than looking above their shoulders (and thinking between their ears) toward the 21st century.

Now, to be clear, the President did make another call for a climate bill:

And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

Now, right before that, the President (re)defined oil and natural gas as “clean” and, well, these are already pretty profitable businesses.

When it came to these arenas, there is a common theme between 2009 and 2010 that is both true and powerful: that America is being left in the dust in the race toward a competitive positive in the 21st century energy market place. Sadly, the President’s words did not drive home in 2010, as they did in 2009, how clean, renewable energy investment (both in R&D and deployment) is the path toward that competitive position.

While a reread might change my mind, when it comes to a prosperous and sustainable clean energy future, the following seems a reasonable summary:

The President stepped up to the Bully Pulpit and chose to serve us bull …

[Read more →]

Seeing this makes me think of Frank Luntz and how he worked so hard to twist words into meaningless.

From the White House blog:

A vision for a clean energy economy “…to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives.” We will build on the historic $80 billion investment made through the Recovery Act.  The President’s vision includes investments in important technologies to diversity our energy sources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, including:  the renewal of our nation’s nuclear energy industry after a 30-year hiatus, cutting edge biofuel and clean coal technologies, and additional offshore oil and gas drilling.  To fully transition to a clean energy economy and create millions of new American jobs, we must pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation to promote energy independence and address climate change.

Since when is “offshore oil and gas drilling” part of a “vision for a clean energy economy”?

Clean coal?

Biofuels?

From a correspondent,

Clean is drilling? Clean is coal? Clean is biofuels?

Was there some limitation on syllables such that “solar” nor “wind” nor “wave energy” nor “geothermal” could make it into “a vision for a clean energy economy”?

From CBD:

“The President is correct that we need energy innovation and clean energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised.

“The president failed tonight, as he failed over the past twelve months, to use his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. Scientists have determined that reducing carbon pollution to 350 parts per million (ppm) is necessary to preserve a livable planet. 350 ppm must be the bottom line for all climate and energy policies. The President already has the tools he needs under the Clean Air Act to begin the required pollution reductions. It is just common sense that new climate legislation must add new tools to get the job done faster, building upon, and not rolling back, our foundation of successful environmental laws like the Clean Air Act.

“Setting binding science-based limits on U.S. carbon pollution through the existing Clean Air Act is the best and quickest way to address the climate crisis and ensure that America does not fall behind in innovation and opportunity.”

The “dial” tracking of speeches can be fascinating to watch, seeing how people react in real time to the words, emotions, and themes of a speech or event.  Presidential debates and speeches, the “dial” tracking is an ever-more frequently part of the experience.

MoveOn chose to provide real-time web access to a membership ‘dial’.

The most negative numbers can when the President confused clean energy and the need for clean energy innovation with a focus on nuclear power and clean-coal.  This seems to be the only time in the speech where there was any real dip in audience approval.

Senator Kerry and others are calling for people to have passion, to go door-to-door to demand action.  Calls for “clean coal” and “biofuels” aren’t a path to stir the blood of those who actually have even an inkling of how serious the energy and climate situation actually is — and how great the opportunities we have before us.

As per a correspondent,

You can’t sell McCain’s energy policy to progressives and expect teabagger-like passion.

NOTE: For a discussion, see Micah Sifry, MoveOn.org Doing Real-Time Mass Dial-Test of Obama SOTU.

From the State of the Union speech, two questions we should ask:

How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

The President is challenging Congress to act how Americans expect, that they act to create a structure for tomorrow.

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Core to this, core to moving forward: clean energy:

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.

And, this is not just with things already in hand but looking toward tomorrow’s solutions:

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

Investing in clean energy is beginning, already, to pay off and this is just the start of an accelerating process of payoffs — if we keep sensible policies in place that enable that acceleration.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.

None of this list thrills environmentalists. A true debate exists when it comes to nuclear power (low GHG vs long-held fears/concerns of risk), but driving offshore oil and natural gas as an arena of emphasis doesn’t help us move forward toward a better future. And, well, saying “clean coal” over and over again doesn’t make it clean.

And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

What is interesting is that “clean energy”, especially energy efficiency, is often the “profitable choice”, even if it isn’t the preferred or easy choice.  Yes to a (stronge) comprehensive bill but we can do much even before (and without) it.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy;

Often deceitful questions, based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.

An understatement … in multiple ways … and far more polite than what came from an Australian prime minister.

But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.

Look to the no-regrets strategy … if nothing else.

And America must be that nation.

[Read more →]

There are few people more beloved by generations of America’s parents and America’s youth than Dr Seuss, the (One indicator: search Dr Seuss and there are only 3.6 million web hits.)

Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr Seuss) had a real passion on the environment. From the bio at Suessville.com,

On a broader spectrum, however, Ted was concerned about the environment as a whole; he wanted manufacturers, business, and individuals to take responsibility for their actions. The Lorax … weaves a familiar tale of a good thing gone wrong. … Ted remained true to the Seussian style, but still managed to shame the current generation and challenge the next generation by demonstrating the pitfalls of progress … “unless”

While far from the only environmental theme amid his writing, theoretically a children’s book, The Lorax remains one of the strongest pieces of literature highlighting the serious necessity to understand the implications of our actions on the complex systems-of-systems in which we live.

With this in mind, it is rather shocking to learn that this iconic statement of environmental values and morality is being associated with a commercial activity that is far from the standards that a 21st century Dr Seuss would apply to judging ‘environmentally friendly’ activity.

LoraxAg is planning to build plants to convert coal to fertilizer. Coal is far from what The Lorax would value yet this linkage is quite direct.

“The Lorax is the protector of the truffula trees,” [company president Mike Farina] said. “We think this is the greenest use of coal.

Coal as clean? Where have we heard that greenwashing mendacity before?

Now, even assuming that this is a zero-pollution activity post mining, there is that issue of mining.

And, well, it is hard to see that The Lorax would strongly endorse industrial farming supported by large-scale fertilizer activities.

Now, with more detail in hand, is it possible that the coal gasification approach to reducing natural gas requirements for agricultural fertilizer demand could, actually, make sense as part of the path toward an Energy Smart future? Perhaps … perhaps.

Even so, does it seem likely that Dr Seuss and The Lorax would endorse this product?

This guest post by the very thoughtful BruceMcF focuses on the public transit / rail version of the need to look beyond stove-pipes to full values for a true cost-benefit analysis. Just like so many fossil fuel costs are externalized (pollution, whether causing cancers or climate change), so too are many transit benefits. Those investing in transit (governments, communities) should be able to look beyond the stove-pipes to fuller cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, especially in tight economic times, too many seem unable to.

The statement is abbreviated for the title. The full statement is,

A common carrier (like a train, bus, or plane) running a profit based on passenger revenue while paying its full operating and capital cost is charging too much for its tickets.

The radical abbreviation of the title is in part because of the radical abbreviation of the lie that is commonly used as a frame. The lie is that a common carrier like a train, bus or plane that is paying for its full operating and capital costs out of passenger revenue ought to run a profit, commonly expressed as a charge of, “SERVICE_XYZ is losing money, it needs to be reformed!“, which assumes that Service_XYZ is supposed to be making a profit.

And, of course, in the sense described above, if its a common carrier transport service, of course it shouldn’t be making a profit. And further, if under the above conditions, if its making a profit, you’re doing it wrong. In the sense given above, PROFIT=FAIL.

[Read more →]

This guest post comes from Wade Norris, who looks to insurance industry shifts re coverage that seem to relate to climate change.

No matter who wins the election in today’s Senate race, there are clear lessons for both Democratic Party and Republican Party operatives.  The question is whether these operatives will read the tea leaves correctly or incorrectly and, therefore, what measures they will take walking away from the situation.

Briefly, for the Republican Party, the message is clear: essentially every single seat is up for grabs in this fall’s elections if (a) they have a photogenic candidate, (b) maintain message discipline with truthiness-laden attacks on all policies, (c) avoid mentioning “Bush” (and invoke “Reagan”), and (d) if the Democratic Party “establishment” fails to heed the lessons of Massachusetts.

Now, as in New Jersey and Virginia, much of the knashing of teeth will resolve around Martha Coakley’s failures as a candidate (from failure to take the election seriously to, in the debate, stating that this was “Ted Kennedy’s seat).  There is truth to these complaints, but this is not the core of what is going on in Massachusetts (although, a more robust / stronger campaign and a Brown surge wouldn’t have seriously threatened Coakley).

From this election (no matter who wins), many will propagate a message that “Obama is too left” and that “voters think he’s trying to do too much”.  This, however, simply flies in the face of both polling and on-the-ground reality.

Whether the issue is health care reform, financial sector reform, clean energy investments, or a myriad of other issues, almost certainly the real challenge is that (for good, bad, and indifferent reasons) the Democratic Party control of Congress and the White House is not creating “change” as voters expecting when surging to the polls in November 2008.

• “Bailouts” are seen to favor Wall Street over Main Street. While ‘bankers’ (financial speculators) are seeing $billions in bonuses enabled by taxpayer money, the official unemployment rate is above 10% with far too many areas of the country double that figure (and the true un/underemployment rate far worse).  Even the correct message ‘it would have been far worse without the stimulus’ is a difficult message to ‘sell’ to someone seeing foreclosed signs on their neighbors’ homes (let alone their own).
• The American public overwhelming supports a public option as part of creating a true national health care system. Health Care Reform (HCR) has been walked away from even a fig leaf of a “public option”(let alone setting the stage for the most cost effective and health care effective option: single payer) to a path that will boost health insurance profits while doing far too little to improve the actual health care system.   The complex horsetrading to gain votes has undermined support even further, with Massachusetts (and other) voters wondering why Nebraskans should be permanently subsidized at their expense.
• Climate Change legislation has stalled into a complex morass, heavily subsidizing polluting industries while falling short of what scientific analysis says is the minimum required action and failing to create enough clean energy investment to keep the United States competitive with the PRC and other nations seizing commanding positions in the clean energy revolution.

And, well, so on.

Rather than being “liberal” or somehow “leftwing”, the perception (and reality?) is that pursuit of the legislative agenda often has results that are far more Corporatist rather than Populist.

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds ran a campaign that, increasingly, ran away from the Democratic Party’s base, embracing ‘tea bagger’-friendly messaging, and the Commonwealth’s Democratic voters showed their apathy last November.   Better options existed.

Martha Coakley certainly hasn’t run away from the Democratic Party (in fact, has perhaps run too much to it), has strongly stated sensible policy options (such as on energy), but she is saddled with an increasing frustration with impressions (often fostered due to shallow and distorting traditional media reporting) and the realities as to the inadequacies of policy action and the implications of actual/potential legislation.

The Democratic Party’s base and all those other Americans who surged to the polls in November 2008 supporting change see what is going on (and not) with health care reform, see the news of bankers’ bonuses and stagnating unemployment, and get confused about what is happening in terms of climate/clean energy legislation.  They see all this and are frustrated, frustrated that “change” isn’t occurring as they see possible, promised, and necessary.

Many in the Democratic Party will take the wrong message from Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts: that voters are angry over “librul” policy action and concepts. In fact, despite the highly visible nature of ‘tea bagger revolt’ (enabled by Faux and Balanced network policy), a stronger reality is frustration over perception and reality of inadequate action, of failures to heed the need for massive change to both confront our challenges (fiscal, energy, environmental, societal) and seize the opportunities for positive action to change Americans’ lives and America for the better.

The tea bagger movement derives from many things but, at least in part, from a real populist frustration over what is seen as inadequate measures to address things like financial fraud and inadequate measures to defend Main Street (from Wall Street and other challenges). The lesson from Massachusetts should not be “kill off sensible and necessary change” but the reverse.

The message for the Democratic Party, no matter who is declared the victor, should be:

Seize the mandate for change and drive change for the better through Congress and onto Main Street.

If Democratic candidates wish to win in November, then they should drive for (for example) serious clean energy jobs legislation and funding which can put (literally) millions of Americans back to work in the coming months (before the election).

For Republican prospects in November, they should hope that the Democratic Party (and its operatives) take a lesson to strive to appeal to the ‘tea bagger’ groundswell via even weaker legislative action.  After all, if facing a choice between someone pretending to be a Republican and a Republican, voters will choose a Republican.*

[Read more →]

Just over two years ago, the French government adopted a FeeBate system for new cars.  The  “Bonus-Malus” system provides for a rebate the more efficient (and lower polluting) a car, with a fee (a penalty) for the lower efficiency (higher pollution) options.  Roughly, less than 35 miles per gallon and a buyer pays a premium for the fuel efficiency (from 200 Euros (roughly $US280) to as much as 2500 Euros (or $US 3500) . Better than 44 mpg and rebates begin (up to 5000 Euros (over $US7000) for an electric car). The system didn’t legislate away inefficient transportation options, but it does create a pretty explicit upfront statement and incentive to prospective car buyers to value higher efficiency choices.  Walk into an auto dealership in France and cars qualifying for a “Bonus” have rather prominent signs on the windshield.

This program, as well, sends a strong signal to the auto industry: there is real, sustained market advantage for driving greater fuel efficiency. The results of this are playing out in new automotive options.  Renault, for example, has now updated the Clio.

The new version of Clio dCi 85 Renault eco² produces 98 grams CO₂ per kilometer, corresponding to combined cycle fuel consumption of 3.7 liters/100km (63.6 mpg US) and a theoretical range of 1,486 km (923 miles).

A series of changes to the engine and the rest of the vehicle resulted in a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions of 17 g/km (an improvement of 15%) without any impact on the punch of the vehicle.

What is critical about this and the connection to Bonus-Malus?  The new diesel Clio now falls below 100 grams of CO₂ per kilometer, which places it in the second highest bonus class of the program.  The previous CLio, with 115 grams CO₂/km, qualified for a 700 Euro (roughly $US1000) rebate.  The new version now qualifies for a 1000 Euro rebate, an over $400 increase over the previous rebate. And, well, an additional “digit”.  Just like 0.99 looks cheaper, moving from three numbers (700) to four (1000) is a shift that has a psychological impact on shoppers.

There is a similar move in the gasoline version, which will see a shift from 137 grams CO₂/km to 129.  The old version didn’t qualify for a rebate while the new one squeaks into the bonus program, as the 121-130 grams CO₂/km qualifies for a 200 Euro (roughly $US300) rebate.

Without question, Renault had the FeeBate program clearly in mind while working to increase the Clio’s fuel efficiency.  And, so do other auto-makers.

Here is a government policy that is working to accelerate consumer demand for more efficient products through creation of technology-neutral standards that is not just boosting, directly, sales of the greater numbers of fuel-efficient automobiles, but it is sparking (as desired / intended) an increasing number of fuel-efficient automobile options for those consumers to choose from when purchasing a new car.

Note: Material on Feebates

• Briefing to California Air Resources Board (CARB), Feb 09 (pdf)
• European Commission, Feebate and scrappage policy instruments (109 pages, pdf)

Dear Senator Webb,

I have been extremely disappointed in your stances on energy and environmental issues, especially when it comes to climate change.

Let me provide background for a moment. I have long respected you, your thoughtfulness, and your career achievements. I was involved with the Draft Webb movement. During the general election race, I created a backgrounder as to your biography (entirely independent of your campaign or any party/organizational activity), printed it out 10,000 copies (on my own computer, own cost), and (often with my children helping — their choice) distributed this. At Dulles airport, more than once, I put a copy on windshields of 100s of cars in the parking lot. While I never expected to agree 100% with you, I worked hard to help get you elected due to my respect for your intellect, thoughtfulness, and dedication to quality/ethical public service. I have no doubt that it was the dedication and hard efforts of 100s (1000s) of Virginians like myself that helped put you over the hump to get elected.

And, again, I am incredibly disappointed at your words and actions in the clean energy and climate arenas.

The science is clear. Climate Change is a very serious risk that, quite literally, is growing more serious every day. There are quite clear national security implications (from increased instability due to climate chaos to refugees to …), there are serious economic implications, etc …

And, there is good news: acting seriously to mitigate climate change is not just an insurance policy, but will provide quite serious benefits across all domains. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps understands clearly, Energy efficient military forces are more operationally effective and less expensive while reducing pollution. The same is true for energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Clean energy creates more employment per dollar invested and kilowatt produced than polluting options, there is a reason why there is great value to Clean Energy Jobs.

Reducing fossil fuel use will not just reduce climate change’s impacts but also will have direct benefits to Americans’ health, with strong resulting economic benefits from cutting these health impacts.

Etc …

And, your (no, our) Commonwealth of Virginia is seriously threatened due to climate change. Do you really want to see beach areas like Sandbridge disappear in the our or our children’s lifetimes due to rising seas? Do you believe that mountain top removal and more coal burning offers a better future than investing in our future with energy efficiency (“negawatts” and “negagallons”), renewable energy (like offshore wind and biomass), and exploiting/building on Virginia’s low-carbon energy infrastructure?

I have no question that you have the intellectual capacity to understand these system-of-system impacts and benefits. Yet, I do not see that you are applying that intellect to understanding what might be the greatest threat to American (and Americans’ and Virginians’) security, prosperity, and future prospects.

In the face of this, the “rumor” is that you have agreed to co-sponsor an amendment, written and driven by fossil-fuel industry lobbyists, that Senator Murkowski has introduced to strip Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The CAA has been not just one of the greatest pieces of legislation, effective at reducing pollution, but it also has been far less expensive in direct implementation costs than predicted by industry when being legislated with far greater benefits (reduced health care costs, improved economic productivity (healthier workers, cleaner water, etc …) than predicted by even its strongest supporters. Perhaps this is time to take a lesson from this experience?

I implore you not to side with those who are actively working to prevent serious action to mitigate climate change.

Climate change is a serious threat. Addressing it, while necessary to reduce the threat, also offers tremendous opportunity. I implore you to fight to seize that opportunity rather than siding with those who are fighting mightily to leave the threat unaddressed.

[Read more →]