Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Michelle Obama has brought urban gardening to, perhaps, its highest symbolic peak with the White House organic vegetable and fruit garden.

Building up urban gardening, whether as individuals or collective efforts, whether on private or public land, is a win-win-win path when done correctly, which will foster a stronger community, improve health (both through time outdoors and better food), and help address a multitude of other challenges (energy, environmental, etc…).

The Garden is an award-winning documentary (nominated for the Best Documentary Oscar) that looks to the battle over the largest urban garden in America. In Los Angeles, “the garden” emerged from the flames of the Los Angeles Riots, as the “South Central Farmers” tranformed 41st and Alameda in South Central Los Angeles in a “14-acre oasis”. This plot, however, moved from urban nirvana to a battleground, as a major developer purchased the property (“at less than fair-market value”) and seeks to transform this lowly vegetable plot into something better.

The Garden traces this battle over the future of a 14-acre plot, a battle over the soul of a community, and a battle that highlights issues at the core of considerations for how we can help develop the nation toward an Energy Smart, prosperous, climate-friendly future.

The Garden opens this weekend in Washington, DC, and New York City. A recommended outing to the theater.

For more, see:

NEW YORK TIMES – May 8, 2009 – Jeannette Catsoulis’s review of The Garden

ASSOCIATED PRESS/NEWSDAY – May 8, 2009 – Christie Lemire’s 3 Star Review of The Garden

VILLAGE VOICE – May 8, 2009 – Ernest Hardy’s Positive review of The Garden

NEW YORK MAGAZINE – May 8, 2009 – The Garden listed as a “Critics Pick” for this weekend

RELATED:  See LA Times, Guerrilla garderner movement takes root in LA area, May 2008.   And, from there, Guerrilla Gardening and Homegrown Evolution.

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-01), Hawaii Co-Chairman for Barack Obama, has taken a prominent position undercutting one of President Obama’s core agenda items and undercutting the potential for achieving sensible energy policies in the United States.

In 2008, amid the Republican calls for “Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! (About a penny less per gallon 23 years from now!), Congressman Abercrombie took a leadership role in introducing an ‘all of the above’ form of legislation, with a major opening of offshore oil exploration, undercutting efforts to develop sensible energy concepts and approaches in 2008, amid the Presidential election cycle.

This Tuesday, Neil returned to the table in a leadership role for a bipartisan proposal that is designed to undercut the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) Act. Abercrombie’s American Independence and Clean Energy Act of 2009 is a reprise of the mistaken agenda from 2008, with a heavy emphasis on drilling off the coasts, emphasizing fossil-foolish elements above the

Abercrombie called Cap & Trade “stalled”, seeking to undermine the clean energy, energy efficiency, and climate change combination of the Waxman-Markey ACES. When it comes to an item that President-elect called a top priority, Abercrombie commented that cap-and-trade is “virtually unexplainable, and when it does get explained, nobody wants to do it. Can you explain it? Can you explain it to your mom?”

What absurdity. Totally, unambiguously absurd and insulting. First of all, I “explain[ed] it to [my] mom”, who understood it without a problem.

What an explanation? How about taking one minute out of your life?

Okay, Neil, if that didn’t do it for you there is a 10 minute version after the fold and lots of other short pieces here.

Wow, Neil, there is a Mayor who had it explained to him who, clearly, supports a CAP. “Nobody wants to do it”, Neil?

Abercrombie and his erstwhile climate action delayer allies seem to ignore the tremendous benefits that moving forward with Climate legislation might well bring to the American economy.

Perhaps even more importantly, like those anti-science syndrome sufferers screaming against any action to deal with Global Warming, Abercrombie’s (and his allies’) efforts seem totally oblivious to a key factor: the cost of inaction, ignoring the very serious implications of putting off to the future taking climate change seriously.

Abercrombie, evidently, has tired of the long flights to the mainland and has his sights on the Governorship come 2010. Hawaii, under a Republican Governor, has the most serious renewable energy targets in the nation: 20 percent by 2020, 70 percent by 2030. Solar panels on all new homes come 2010. Hmmm … based on the oil-exploration friendly legislation that Neil keeps bringing to the table, it is hard to see how switching from a R to a D Neil in the Hawaii Governor’s mansion would be an improvement on creating a path for a prosperous and climate-friendly Hawaii.

In any event, it is hard to understand why “the only Congressman to meet Barack Obama as a child” and co-chair of his Hawaii campaign would be so interested in pushing legislation that undercuts the potential for achieving legislation in line with President-Elect and President Obama’s emphasis on clean energy and on tackling climate change.

Listen to President-Elect Obama’s list of Governors who took leadership positions on climate change. And, at the 1 minute 20 second mark, President-Elect Obama states “That will start with a Federal Cap and Trade system.” Got that, Neil, you are taking a position directly in opposition to President Obama. Considering Neil’s approach to energy legislation, it is hard to imagine that he would make the list of Governors leading on climate action if elected in 2010.

Neil:

Take the right step.

Take your name off this legislation.

And, send a note of apology to President Barack Obama, stating your support for his clean energy jobs agenda.

Let the citizens of Hawaii know that you will lead, rather than retard, progress toward a prosperous, climate-friendly future.

[Read more →]

The Minority Staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has distributed a “dear colleague” letter from anti-science syndrome suffering Joe Barton arguing, based on this MasterResource analysis, that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act would only reduced Global Warming by .09 degree Fahrenheit by 2050. Let us assume, graciously, that the analysis is 100 percent correct, that the modeling and full analysis is accurately done and would stand up to the sort of analytical scrutiny that I (for one) am unable to give it today. What is impressive about the Dear Colleague letter is the sentences from that blog post that were not included in the letter:

No matter what you try, altering only U.S. emissions will produce unsatisfying results if you seek to save the world by altering its climate.

Why does it matter? See that “only”? In other words, US action independent of world activity and movement by other nations will not be enough to stem global warming. It is, after all, Global Warming, not United States of America Warming.

Again, graciously, let us grant this blog analysis 100 percent accuracy. The United States, however, is only part of the world community. If the rest of the world continues a reckless endangerment BAU (Business As Usual) path, than there is only a .09 F reduction of global warming.

What happens if the United States isn’t a lone actor, if America takes a leadership role in world events.

The same blogger did take this next step. Rather than .09 F, what did they find in their analysis of global efforts?

If the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and former Soviet countries all limited their emissions of greenhouse gases … avoid only a bit more than one-half of a °C of projected global warming (out of 4.5°C—or only about 10%)

Note the shift from F to C. That “only a bit more than one-half of a °C” translates into more than .9 degress F, or over 10 times the impact of the United States being the sole actor to pursue a clean energy future.

With all of the economic, security, and other benefits of pursuing a clean and efficient energy path, it does not seem likely that the US will be only nation to head down this path … even without considering the pesky little problem of climate change.

And, that is considering just the already developed world, without taking into account the developing world, where the majority of BAU growth in GHG (and other) pollution is expected to occur.

To make any significant in-roads to lowering the rate (and thus final magnitude) of projected global temperature rise, the bulk of the emissions reduction needs to come from other parts of the world, primarily Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Actually, to be clear, it is not the bulk in emissions reductions from current levels, but reductions from projected levels. Thus, there is agreement: we (writ large We) must have an understanding that the United States is not a lone wolf, that this is Global Warming, and that the United Staets cannot act alone — but must work as part of, and lead, the world community toward a prosperous, climate-friendly energy system.

Now, “Master Resource” is a “free-market energy blog”, filled with climate skeptics and doubters. They are not, it seems, interested in taking action to mute climate change. Even with that perspective, they show that US action, combined with US leadership, can have tangible results at reducing Global Warming through this century, muting (reducing) the peak impacts and creating a path for rolling back Global Warming’s rising tides.

UPDATED: For another, more detailed perspective, see the Union of Concerned Scientists UCS Climate Bill Opponents Continue to Peddle Misinformation

Rep. Barton conveniently failed to cite the second part of the analysis, which indicates that global action would significantly reduce global warming, and that global temperatures would stabilize at approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit above today’s average global temperature. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, keeping the average global temperature increase at 2 degrees F or less likely would avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

… The scenario cited by Rep. Barton unrealistically assumes that no other countries would take action to address climate change and that clean technology deployed in the United States would have no impact on the rest of the world. In reality, many nations would benefit from U.S. innovation and would leapfrog toward cleaner technology, according to UCS. Additionally, if the United States acts, other countries are much more likely to make their own emissions reductions and are more likely to sign on to the next round of an international climate treaty.

Now, to provide perspective on the source of the material:

Rep. Barton’s misinformation comes from MasterResource.org, a Web site run by Roger Donway, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Energy Research (IER). IER is the research wing of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), which has taken out ads spreading false information about the cost of climate and energy legislation.

The AEA ads misstate the findings of an MIT study that estimates the amount of money the government could raise from polluters by auctioning emissions allowances under a cap-and-trade system. Congressional opponents and AEA deliberately mischaracterize the revenues raised as a “tax on households.” John Reilly, a co-author of the MIT study, sent a letter to members of Congress asking them to stop misuing his analysis. Instead, opponents are now citing a discredited Weekly Standard article to continue to mischaracterize the MIT analysis.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress, Rep. Barton and other science deniers say the only way to stop a global pandemic is if everyone does nothing

Global warming deniers like Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) have long opposed U.S. participation in collective international action on global warming. And yet they have the chutzpah to now offer this absurd argument for why this country should do nothing to prevent catastrophic global warming: If we act by ourselves, it won’t solve the problem!

Romm continues with a brilliant analogy to handling of pandemic disease outbreaks.

[Read more →]

The Washington Post opinion page editor, Fred Hiatt, has made strong statements about the strength and quality of fact-checking for the columnists within his pages.

told by editorial page editor Fred Hiatt — that multiple editors had checked Will’s sources,

we don’t have lax standards for accuracy … in general, we do careful fact checking.

Despite these statements, when it comes to energy and climate discussions, fossil-foolish commentators seem able to perpetuate truthiness and deception with abandon. These deceptions and falsehoods, have led to criticisms and corrections from across the web and even traditional media outlets, Washington Post staff, and the numerous Balancing letters (including today)  and OPEDs responding to the the Faux pieces. (E.g, running a Faux and Balanced opinion page). The most egregious examples, this year, have come from George Will, who seems incapable of publishing a column without deceptiveness and, almost without exception, factual errors and falsehoods. Today’s Will yet again peddles truthiness, truthiness with issues open to fact-checking and challenge.

In Sunbeams from Cucumbers, Will writes:

Its chief executive  says: “If the Japanese can design [an] affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same.” Yes they can — if the American manufacturer can do what Toyota does with the Prius: Sell its hybrid without significant, if any, profit

The latest information from the Japanese business news (information available in English as early as 28 April) is that Toyota will make a profit in the range of ten percent on the sale of every Prius (down from about 15 percent due to competition from Honda’s Insight).  In 2008,

Toyota appears to have earned gross profits of around Yen100 billion (US $1 billion) on its sales of second-generation Prius hybrids last year. Toyota’s margin on the sales fo the next-generation 2010 Prius are projected to be in the single digits in the first year.

What do those diligent Washington Post fact-checkers do with their time when it comes to George Will opinion pieces, play checkers? After all, they can’t seem to figure out when Will makes the simplest of mistakes.

Hmmm … perhaps the issue is “significant”.  $2000 or so in profit from each car sold (and a $billion or so  in profits per year)  is, evidently, not a “significant … profit”.   If that is the case, really would like to know how the “fact checkers” define “significant”.

See:

• Treehugger, Honda & Toyota Making About $3,100 in Profits Per Hybrid
• Alex Pasternack, Huffington Post, George Will Disses the Prius, Obama and the Facts
• Steve Benen, Washington Monthly

As well, note the rarity of Post (and other newspapers) running corrections of George Will’s errors. Perhaps they are concerned that running corrections would take more print space than the columns themselves?

Fred Hiatt has amassed a collection of global warming denying and fossil-foolish columnists for the Washington Post. George F. Will; Charles Krauthammer; Robert J. Samuelson can be counted on to enter the fray with deceit and truthiness to clouden our understanding of energy and climate issues, seeking to undermine the building of consensus toward policies that will enable moving forward to a prosperous and secure climate-friendly America.

The distortions are mounting to such an extent that, with increased frequency, Hiatt is publishing letters and opinion pieces calling his ‘stable’ of authors to task, Washington Post staff are speaking out with concerns or dissents from opinions within Post pages, critical blog posts and articles are appearing across the globe, and Nobel Prize winners are stepping into the fray with devastating critiques of material published on the OPED pages.

Today, in another “faux and balanced” moment, the Washington Post balanced a false and deceptive Robert J Samuelson OPED with The Cost of Climate Inaction. In this piece, economist Kristen Sheeran and investor advisor Mindy Lubber, emphasize how discussions like Samuelson leave out a critical issue: the costs of catastrophic climate change. Any assessment of costs and benefits of action that do not address or account for costs of inaction, they state clearly, distorts the situation grossly.  They begin:

Robert J. Samuelson’s April 27 op-ed, “Selling the Green Economy,” was way off the mark on the economics of tackling climate change. It was a call to bury our collective heads in the sand simply because the future involves uncertainty — exactly the opposite of what we need to do.

Burying out heads in the sand in the face of climate action is a quite apt description of how Hiatt’s stable wants us (the US) to behave.  And, The Washington Post‘s political cartoonist, Tom Toles, who is perhaps the top major political cartoonist on climate issues, has done cartoons that expressly show this sort of heads-in-the-sand in the face of climate threat.

As for those ignored costs.

The real cost of carbon emissions is far from zero.

Each new scientific report brings proof of a changing climate that promises to disrupt agricultural patterns, set off a scramble for dwindling resources, raise sea levels, propel population shifts and require massive emergency spending as we try to react to the growing crises.

 These are the costs of inaction.

There are real costs. And, if anything, Sheeran and Lubber are understating those costs — but they only have hundreds of words, rather than hundreds of pages, to make their point.

This is an OPED worth reading, an OPED worth publishing. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the Krauthammer piece to which it responds.

[Read more →]

Writ large, old cars are less fuel efficient and more polluting. Getting “clunkers” off the road can lead to many improvements. These improvements can be environmental, economic, energy, and even safety. “Cash for Clunker” programs are, in essence, subsidized scrappage programs that provide government incentives to, hopefully, achieve all of these objectives. Germany’s $3200 per clunker exchanged as part of a new car has received credit for a boost in auto sales, with some 134,000 applicants for the cash in the program’s first five weeks. Notably, as part of the deal, the ‘clunker’ must be at least nine years old and the new car must meet Germany’s strict emissions standards.

If done right, cash for clunker deals can help make real improvements across a wide range of fronts, as mentioned, speeding modernization of auto fleets and introduction of greater efficiency (and other desired auto characteristics, like better safety features and handling) into the buying structure.

Amid the economic crisis, many nations have been looking to similar programs. And “deal” on cash for clunkers has just been announced for the United States. [Read more →]

Kathleen Sebelius’ swearing in as Secretary for Health and Human Services represented a bitter sweet moment. She has been a strong public servant. A dedicated, principled, thoughtful, and courageous leader who won respect and admiration from Kansans. The nation — and the tough challenges of American health care — merits having someone of her qualities in that seat.

On the other hand, there were two aspects of this appointment that were troubling. As with Janet Napolitano, appointing Sebelius to the Cabinet moved from an almost assured (if she chose to run) Democratic Party pick-up in the 2010 Senate to, at best, a long shot that a Democratic candidate can win the seat. (And, as well, lowered by two the number of women likely to be part of the Senate come January 2011.) And, secondly, there was the question of how her state would be governed in her absence. With Arizona, Napolitano handed the keys over to the then Republican Secretary of State. In Kansas, Sebelius handed keys over to the then Lieutenant Governor Mark Parkinson, a “Democrat” (not that long ago Republican) who had promised, reportedly, to govern in much the way Sebelius governed. From a major interview, last Friday,

The Eagle: Can you give us a specific way that your administration will differ from your predecessors?

Parkinson: Even though the governor and I agree on virtually every issue, the difference that you will see will be in emphasis. Gov. Sebelius is a policy matter expert on health issues and so her focus for her 23 years of public service has been health issues. I have learned a lot about energy issues, so my emphasis is going to be a lot on energy.

And, when he said “energy”, what did he mean?

I don’t really care to have a legacy. But here is what I hope to do for the state, and if I could just pick one thing, what I would hope to do is to put us on a path so we are the renewable energy leader in this country. Because I view it as not only something good for the entire country, but I view it as a form of economic reinvestment for Western Kansas. I just view it as a continuation of everything we have done as a state. …

The second thing I hope to bring to the table… I really believe that I have a track record of being able to bring people together that have disputes and getting them resolved. Some of that could be in a very public setting such as trying to get the budget issues resolved. Some of it can be very private, for example going to the utility companies who had never built wind power before and getting them to build 1,000 megawatts.

The chair behind the Governor’s desk was still warm when Parkinson gave the lie to those promises and indications.

Governor Sebelius won the admiration of many for her tough fight against Sunflower Electric’s fossil-foolish plans for building two new coal-fired electricity plants (totaling 1400 megawatts of capacity). In addition to the basic questions as to whether the new plants were even required and how building such polluting plants would be against concepts of helping build a sustainable energy future, an investment firm analysis concluded that moving forward with Sunflower’s plans would place “Sunflower Electric’s ratepayers … at significant [finanicial] risk.” The concept was a lose-lose-lose situation, except for Sunflower Electric (who would be guarantee a profit) and the coal companies guaranteed decades of seeing their product go up in smoke. Sebelius measured the situation and fought tenaciously against global warming denier (anti-science syndrome suffering) Republican Kansas legislature efforts to drive through these plants. And, right behind her (sometimes almost in front of her) in this fight was Lt Gov Parkinson, who bluntly stated that there would be legal action even if the legislature overrode Sebelius’ vetoes:

“We’re certainly going to evaluate all of our options,” Parkinson said. “I assure you, there are multiple options, and if Sunflower’s out there telling people that all they need to do is get this veto overridden and the plants will be built, and if they believe that, they’re sadly mistaken.”

[…]

Later, Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran was more conciliatory than Parkinson. She said the governor hopes her vetoes will be sustained and is still working toward a compromise.

“But we recognize that there are numerous other barriers to the plant projects,” she said. “Litigation is likely, and there is real financing uncertainty with the increased costs of the new coal plants.”

Sebelius resigned a week ago. With the chair still warm, Parkinson began his negotiating to enable Sunflower to build coal-fired electricity.

Parkinson yesterday promised Sunflower CEO Earl Watkins that he would no longer block construction if the company agreed to build one coal-fired unit producing close to 900 megawatts of power – and 6.7 million tons of CO2 a year – rather than the proposed two, which would have produced 1,400 megawatts of electricity. Sunflower also agreed to close two oil-burning power plants and eventually establish 179 MW of wind power and 126 MW of biomass energy.

This move “is a stunner, sure to rock Topeka in the closing days of the legislative session.”

Is this better than the original Sunflower Electric proposal? Yes. Did Governor Parkinson achieve anything close to what a Governor Sebelius would have fought for and achieved? Absolutely not!

The Governor’s Press Release is disconcertingly entitled Kansas to take a significant step forward on renewable energy policy. This announcement, not surprisingly, doesn’t truly address the climate or carbon dioxide. There is a claim that this agreement will “allow Sunflower to construct one 895 megawatt coal plant with an unprecedented level of carbon mitigation.” Unprecedented level? This one requires far more explanation than a pat-on-the-back press release.

The majority of the press release, in fact, is handed over to quotes from Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer for Sunflower who fosters a false sense of a ‘balancing’ of economy and environment.

“This effort will move the project forward bringing much needed economic activity and jobs to Kansas,” said Watkins.

“This agreement meets the goals of our project, but will also address concerns of our coalition partners that the regulatory process is clear and follows the federal clean air act. The legislative proposal will move Kansas toward a comprehensive energy policy that utilizes all forms of generation, encourages the wise use of energy and balances concerns for cost and the environment.”

Sigh. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. One Step Forward. Governor Mark Parkinson. Two steps back?

Okay, let’s start with full disclosure: it has been too many years since I biked to work. In the ever distant past, I lived within a few blocks and then a few miles of my job. Years on end, the majority of commutes were on two feet or two wheels. Not so close anymore, some bad roads, and other demands mean that commuting is a mix of public transit, carpooling, and that solo drive (total driving under 7000 miles/year …). (Okay, bike doesn’t get me to work even though it handles a decent share of that ‘oops, no milk for cereal, bike to the store …). Thus, a bit cheeky of me to remind that 15 May is “Bike to Work Day” … that May is Bike to Work Month.

“Get on your bike and try it a little …”

Now, for DC-area residents, if 15 May is “Bike to Work Day”, 13 May is “Bike to Swiss Embassy Eve” as the Swiss Embassy is holding a Bike-to-Work forum & reception featuring some top-notch speakers from Switzerland and the United States.

It isn’t just the Danes who are bike-friendly. The Swiss have made some real strides forward in fostering a more bike-friendly environment [pdf], including integrating bicycle infrastructure into other transport options. After building an underground, 1600 spot bike lot beneath the train station, Basel, Switzerland, has seen a 60 percent increase in biking to the train station. In Switzerland, about 9 percent of commuting is by bike compared to .4% in the United States. (The US has 88 percent of people commuting by car as compared to 58 percent in Switzerland.) Biking is part of the national culture, now. Biking skills education for fourth and fifth graders is part of the compulsory educational program nationwide. Zurich, for example, has a 319-mile network of bike paths scheduled for completion this year, trains immigrants about bikes, provides bikes for government employees for work use, and has begun Züri Rollt, a version of free bicycle availability for use within the city.

Bike-to-Work Day (even biking every day) isn’t a Silver Bullet solution to the world’s problems, but reality is that biking is the most efficient — in terms of energy use — transport option that we have.

Especially is with “Idaho Stop” laws …

[Read more →]

The National Park Service is out, hat-in-hand, seeking resources to Help Save America’s Front Yard (The National Mall). On an extremely late (perhaps 40 or so years) (even if better than later) act, the National Park Service looks to be en route (finally) to start a recycling program for the three-to-four tons of trash generated each day on the Mall in Washington, DC.

And, how has this (FINALLY!!!!) come about? With a $1.1 million gift from the Coca-Cola Corporation.

Sigh … will the 25 million who visit the Mall each annum be greeted with “Clean, Green National Mall courtesy of the Coca-Cola Corporation”?

[Read more →]

Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.

There are many ways to see America’s energy excesses, looking outside in nearly any urban area at night is one of those. The concept of “night” and “darkness” seems to have disappeared in many areas, with streetlights seemingly making it possible to read on the street all night long. (Not even accounting for all the people who leave lights outside their homes, in their offices, parking lots lit 24/7, etc …) These street and highway lights really add up: reportedly accounting for some two percent of total US electricity demand.

But it doesn’t have to …

[Read more →]