Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Do you love those displays of Christmas (or Hannukah or Kwanza or …) lights? Are you awed by those so impassioned that they string up 1000s of lights in awesome displays worthy of a city center? I once did, pausing on cold winter nights, white clouds issuing from my mouth, enjoying being in the glow of beautiful displays. And, in a way, I was inspired that they would spend $1000s (or $10,000s) on displays and the electricity to power them so that others could enjoy the sight on those cold winter nights.

But … no longer … not for awhile. Far too often nowadays, my winter evenings I can wear short sleeve shirts rather than bulky coats and gloves. And, energy is no longer a question simply of money. I’ve reached the point of feeling like a Scrooge; feeling outrage over the tons of C02 going into the atmosphere via neighbors’ 10,000 light displays rather than feeling ‘joyous’.

But, a compromise does exist; a path to cut sharply those CO2 emissions while still putting out those lights: LED lights. But, far too many are unwilling to spend the money upfront to cut their electricial use, reduce their pollution, and — actually — save quite a lot of money.

[Read more →]

Okay, for any number of reasons, don’t count me among the cheering fans of the Kyoto Accord. With its problems and seemingly troubled history, perhaps even more credit should be given to this indication that Kyoto is working:

The greenhouse gas emissions of 40 industrialized nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol treaty in 1997 have collectively dropped by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, the UN reported on Monday.

Now, that 5% is the target for 2012. What is creating concern is that the fall occurred in the 1990s, mainly due to changes in central and eastern Europe (both cleaning up dirty industry and economic challenges). Between 2000 and 2006, emissions increased by 2.6 percent. While that increase is well below global rates, it is an increase rather than drop.

In his second substantive, issue-focused discussion since the election, President-elect Barack Obama spoke to the bipartisan governors’ meeting on climate change, with an extensive international audience. I recommend reading the speech (after the fold) and watching the video, but there are some key points worth calling out and perhaps just one important issue to raise.

This is a clear statement that Barack Obama’s discussion of energy and global warming issues during the campaign will translate directly into the White House and is core to the Administration.

I promise you this: When I am President, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington.

Obama makes a strong point about science and the view of it from the Oval Office come January 20th: “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” In the new ‘bipartisan’ era, can we hope that denialists need not apply?

Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.

From reports from people in the room, this last-minute addition of a video greeting had a powerful impact, with a standing ovation in the room at its conclusion. Under President Obama, the United States will be a leader on climate change, and not a leader due to mounting CO2 emissions.
[Read more →]

We see this in blogging spaces, in coffee pot conversations, from right-wing talk show hosts to any conversation in the Senate including Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon), the ever increasing frustration of those speaking with science and fact in their efforts to speak with, to engage, to convince those rejecting the science in relation to Global Warming.

For the second time, a climate-skeptic is hosting a “debate” between climate skeptics and those immersed in the science. On 13 January 2008, Iq2US will be sponsoring an “Oxford-style debate” Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money (see the poll there on the question, deniers (yes vote) dominating).

Very simply, if one follows the links from their names, the three “for” voices are major climate skeptics, engaged in a propaganda war to delay action in the face of mounting risks from Global Warming. They are bright, have lots of data on the tip of their tongues, and don’t seem to let the truth get in the way of too often persuasively aguing their assertions.

The three “against” the motion are each of real substance. Dan Kammen is a nobel prize winner participant in the IPCC, top Berkeley professor, and advisor to President-Elect Obama. Oliver Tickell is an environmental activist writer and author of the intriguing Kyoto2. Adam Werbach was president of the Sierra Club at the age of 23 and now head of Saatchi & Saatchi S, a global green marketing firm.

There is a great risk, of course, getting into a debate structure with “skeptics” like these three. Most importantly is a simple weltanschauung issue. Unlike those in the scientific community, these three (and others of their ilk) have little to no interest in the search for truth and are not prepared to (ever) acknowledge errors and shift their views if confronted with evidence that proves their points wrong. To quote from a great modern philosopher, Stephen Colbert, they focus on “truthiness”.

The past record of such “debates” is not favorable to those focused on truth and honesty. The debates turn to the trivia as skeptics throw out some outlandish claim driving those seeking truth to can get caught up in minutia seeking to “prove” some seemingly arcane point, often enabling those selling snake oil answers to the challenges we face to set the discussion terms and, by doing so, in essence “win” the debate before the first verbal shots are fired.

Debates like these trivialize important issues …

And, yet people engage …
[Read more →]

Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board basically ordered that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) must be part of air pollution permits for all new coal plants. Impact? Roughly put, all new domestic coal-fired electricity plants just got stopped hard in their tracks. And, the market noticed. Friday, major coal companies and coal-burning utilities dropped … Peabody down eight percent and Arch Coal was down over 12 percent. Hmmm, might we hope that those who have profiteered for too long off polluting energy choices see more losses on the market?

[Read more →]

This is a speech that I wrote for a good friend and publish with permission, with just a few words removed or changed … Sadly, many of us could give speeches like this in terms of challenges. And, hopefully, many of us can speak to affecting change as well.

Hello.

My name is X and I am a Petro-Holic, a Carbo-Holic. My last fillup was 9 gallons three days ago. My last plane flight was 24 hours ago for 2500 miles. And, my last light switch turning on was 2 hours ago. My name is X and I am a Petro-Holic.

[Read more →]

To be clear, “clean coal” is an oxymoronic statement, at least for the next few decades. From mining through the emitted pollutants in the burning process to the resulting ash, there are many “dirty” aspects to coal. Thanks to the dedicated efforts of a Sierra Club legal team led by Joanne Spalding, the future prospects for “dirty coal” just got a little more dismal. In short, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board just issued a ruling in the Bonanza case that has the implication that will require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as part of the air pollution permits for all new coal plants. What does this mean? Unclear exactly, but likely this stops all new coal plants in their tracks as owners and operators consider their options. This also, in the face of likely green stimulus focus, could help turn attention to the high economic payoff from pursuing alternatives. And, no, alternatives do not just mean “alternative energy”, alternatives also mean “negawatts” (energy efficiency) and lookign toward new ways for power management that will control demand for power into the future rather than simply adopt a developmental approach that incorrectly assumes that economic development requires more megawatts of electrical capacity with each passing day.

In addition to opening the door for greater attention to alternative power and alternative approaches to power management/efficiency, this ruling opens the door to looking seriously at paths for eliminating coal from our electricity grid. In short, this rulling is a backhanded way of stating that we need to be considering the very significant external costs from coal-electricity air pollution: particulates driving up respiratory disease rates, mercury and other poisons entering the food cycle, and CO2 driving global warming. The simple reality: we cannot afford business as usual, it has too many real costs — including economic costs. Moving away from coal will have many benefits, near-term and long-term. This ruling is a real step into that better future.

Thus: some thanks, from myself and speaking for my descendents, to the Sierra Club for their hard work and to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board for being open to the arguments and evidence put before them.

[Read more →]

Oil prices are down, in no small part because oil demand has dropped.

Yeah! Oops, maybe not.

Let us be clear, recession and depression do not represent good energy policy.

And, recession and depression do not — unless we act sensibly and seriously — set a path toward long-term change toward good energy policy.

Clearly, there are reasons to be looking foward with hope. Barack Obama’s energy and environmental advisors range from very good to incredibly high quality. Polling, even with energy price fall backs, shows Americans ready to support changed energy policies and desiring clean energy. The political environment, amid $trillions (it seems) being dumped into bailouts, seems to be embracing green stimulus. Okay, maybe a bit of a Yeah!

But, what is achievable? What is meaningful? If we’re at 20 million barrels per day of oil use, how fast can we cut into this and how?
[Read more →]

For the politically aware, on a Veteran’s Day it is hard not to consider Saxby Chambliss’ shameful attacks on Max Cleland six year’s ago. Cleland. Winner of the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, Cleland served with great distinction in Vietnam and in our United States Senate. When running for re-election in 2002, Republican Saxby Chambliss attacked Senator Cleland with ads using the picture of Osama Bin Laden to attack the patriotism of a war hero who left three limbs on the battle field. Even John McCain found this to be too much:

“I’d never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield — it’s worse than disgraceful. It’s reprehensible.”

— Sen. John McCain, quoted by CNN, on the campaign ads used by Saxby Chambliss (R) against Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) in the 2002 U.S. Senate race.

Note that ever-so noble John is planning to campaign for Saxby in the coming weeks even as Saxby has been just as disgraceful this time around. Again, draft-dodging Saxby is facing a Vietnam veteran in an election. And, this Veterans’ Day, you have the opportunity do it for Max and send Saxby back to Georgia for good.

While we should remember this disgraceful attack, we should not ignore the implications of that shameful campaign on national policy over the past six years with six years of blind and whole-hearted support for the Bush-Cheney Administration. While no one would claim Max as the nation’s greatest environmentalist, Saxby Chambliss has consistently turned to the Energy Dumb side of the equation over the past six years, whether we look to environmental votes or embracing of the shameful truthiness of “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay [maybe a Penny] Less [about 20 years from now]”.

One measure of Saxby when it comes to Energy and the Environment: the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) rates him a zero. Perhaps that is just the hippy radicals and we should look to his fellow Republicans for perspective: Chambliss’ rating from the Republicans for Environmental Protection (an oxymoronic name, isn’t it?). For 2007, a score of 14 out of 100. At least that was an improvement, as his 2005-2007 average: a 6 of 100. Hmmmm ….

And, Georgia voters face an opportunity to redress the wrongs that Chambliss made against Cleland and has done against them and the nation. On December 6th, there will be a runoff between Chambliss and Jim Martin. When it comes to sensible energy policies, Jim Martin is unlikely to rate a 0 or, with grading on a curve, a 6. He sees how moving toward a sensible energy policy is connected to improving our environmental situation and our economic situation.
[Read more →]

Amid all the hoopla about Barack Obama’s election and its meaning for moves toward a clean-energy future, not many across the nation have paid attention to the set-back that Californians gave T. Boone Pickens. T. Boone had invested nearly $20 million in seeking to con Californians into a roughly $10 billion boondoogle of converting trucking fleets to natural gas. As with the broader Pickens’ Plan, Proposition 10 seems to make some sense on a superficial level but didn’t stand up to any serious scrutiny. While Californian voters sent Proposition 10 to the cleaners, The Pickens’ Plan remains on the national agenda.

One element of The Pickens’ Plan is a sophisticated effort to engage with and influence key national leaders, including those in Congress. When considering that effort, perhaps it is worthwhile to look at potential linkages between those national leaders’ investment portfolios and the implications of The Pickens’ Plan.

One key national leader is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and, well, she has chosen to invest with Pickens to the value of at least $100-250k (note1: as of last financial disclosure but the stock value is perhaps about 40% of that now; and note2: out of a family net worth of roughly $50+ million). This has been public awhile and Nancy responded as follows:

“I’m investing in something I believe in,” Pelosi told Meet the Press host Tom Brokaw. “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuel.”

Something to note, perhaps Nancy Pelosi does see some issues here. After all, she did not make public comments re Proposition 10 (as of August) even though its passage would financially benefit her family. On the other hand, perhaps not having the investment might have led her to join the legions of organizations and individuals who worked to get Californians to Just Say No to Proposition 10.

Pelosi’s investment isn’t exactly breaking news. After all, the Wall Street Journal covered it back in August.

Without question, T. Boone Pickens is seeking to sell the United States on a bankrupt solution to our core national challenges. Following his plan would divert resources from truly solving problems, moving us (the US) from one fossil-fuel dependency to another. That it will make him $billions and Nancy Pelosi $100,000s (or $millions) is beside the point … perhaps.

[Read more →]