Link
Op-Ed Contributor
The Climate for Change
THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.
----------------
In such tumultuous times, it can be argued that the government's duty is to safeguard us from changes in lifestyle that could further diminish jobs or, worse, increase inflation while salaries linger. Given this philosophy, what is the cutoff limitation for an investment project like Gore's that stops short of us sacrificing ways of life. The sheer amount of investment of funds it takes to power our nation is large enough. Can we possibly shelve current energy jobs, create new ones and also reduce the timeline for effective change without the influence of injurious amounts of regulation?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Difficult Choices That We Face, Pt. I
Today, we focus on the idea of making the right choice for not only transitioning utility power across the nation to alternative sources but also ensuring that the process is streamlined to prevent higher costs for the consumer.
The example given in today's article examines a referendum choice for voters in the upcoming elections in California. Proposition 7 enforces a 20% alternative energy generation for utilities in California by 2010. Other quotas include 50% by 2025.
The measure itself is being supported by progressive thinkers but certainly not individuals who are considering corporate costs. This level of intervention, unrewarded or without grant, promises to cost these vital companies an exorbitant amount to reformat the way that they conduct business and provide a valuable resource to the communities that they serve. Dependence on electricity ranks it as an essential commodity; the risks imposed by mandating conversion without proper respect to cost-benefit analyses will leave these corporations vulnerable.
The ideal solution to soften the blow for any energy utility corporation is to provide incentives and grants. The benefits will surely be multifaceted; conversion will come at a faster rate, non-compliance fines might be minimized, and, most importantly, the consumer will be assured that rates will be less for their energy of choice, one that is responsible for the environment and, at the same time, is responsible for business.
----
http://www.dailycal.org/article/103292/ca_to_vote_on_two_different_energy_propositions
CA to Vote on Two Different Energy Propositions
By Kat Murti
Contributing Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:09 am
Category: News > City
Californian voters will see two energy-related measures on next month's ballot that promote alternative energy but propose different methods of addressing environmental issues.
Proposition 7 would set standards to increase usage of alternative energy sources by utility providers, while Proposition 10 would increase incentives for alternative energy-fueled vehicles.
"They're completely separate," said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for Yes on 10. "People have been linking them because they both have the word 'energy,' but they are not in any way related."
Supported by Californians for Clean and Solar Energy, Proposition 7 would require utility providers, including those that are government-owned, to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard to which private electrical corporations are held accountable.
If passed, the requirement set by Proposition 7 would double by 2020 and reach 50 percent of all power by 2025. The proposition would also impose penalties for non-compliance.
Many environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club California are against Proposition 7 because it could shut down smaller alternative energy companies.
Proposition 10 works as a two-pronged measure. First, it provides a total of $3.425 billion in rebate incentives for vehicle owners to upgrade to alternative energy technology. The rebate is given only if vehicles achieve a 45-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency, accomplished using natural gas.
The proposition would also create a $1.25 billion budget for further alternative energy research and incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.
However, critics said the measure's focus on natural gas should not be viewed as a long-term solution.
"(Natural gas) is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, which is good," said Dan Kammen, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group. "Then again, the benefits for driving our vehicles on natural gas-those benefits are not so great."
The proposition would also provide cities and colleges with grants for alternative energy projects and training in renewable technologies.
Those opposing the propositon have made allegations that its largest backer is Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, a natural gas fueling station company owned by T. Boone Pickens, chair of the BP Capital Management hedge fund.
According to detractors, the goals of the two measures line up with standards already set in place by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law was passed to help control greenhouse gases by setting a timetable to bring California into compliance with higher energy accountability standards.
Lee Friedman, UC Berkeley public policy professor, said that since provisions of the 2006 act are not scheduled to be completed until 2012, the propositions would stunt its implementation.
"They're (not necessarily) bad ideas per se, but there's always the question of who should be making decisions," Friedman said.
Thoma said she hopes voters will distinguish between the two measures and their decisions on them.
"I think the voters are sophisticated enough to realize (the measures) are both different and make smart, sophisticated decisions on each measure separately," she said.
Tags: ELECTIONS 2008, STATE ELECTIONS 2008, ENVIRONMENT
See also:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_(2008)
The example given in today's article examines a referendum choice for voters in the upcoming elections in California. Proposition 7 enforces a 20% alternative energy generation for utilities in California by 2010. Other quotas include 50% by 2025.
The measure itself is being supported by progressive thinkers but certainly not individuals who are considering corporate costs. This level of intervention, unrewarded or without grant, promises to cost these vital companies an exorbitant amount to reformat the way that they conduct business and provide a valuable resource to the communities that they serve. Dependence on electricity ranks it as an essential commodity; the risks imposed by mandating conversion without proper respect to cost-benefit analyses will leave these corporations vulnerable.
The ideal solution to soften the blow for any energy utility corporation is to provide incentives and grants. The benefits will surely be multifaceted; conversion will come at a faster rate, non-compliance fines might be minimized, and, most importantly, the consumer will be assured that rates will be less for their energy of choice, one that is responsible for the environment and, at the same time, is responsible for business.
----
http://www.dailycal.org/article/103292/ca_to_vote_on_two_different_energy_propositions
CA to Vote on Two Different Energy Propositions
By Kat Murti
Contributing Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:09 am
Category: News > City
Californian voters will see two energy-related measures on next month's ballot that promote alternative energy but propose different methods of addressing environmental issues.
Proposition 7 would set standards to increase usage of alternative energy sources by utility providers, while Proposition 10 would increase incentives for alternative energy-fueled vehicles.
"They're completely separate," said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for Yes on 10. "People have been linking them because they both have the word 'energy,' but they are not in any way related."
Supported by Californians for Clean and Solar Energy, Proposition 7 would require utility providers, including those that are government-owned, to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard to which private electrical corporations are held accountable.
If passed, the requirement set by Proposition 7 would double by 2020 and reach 50 percent of all power by 2025. The proposition would also impose penalties for non-compliance.
Many environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club California are against Proposition 7 because it could shut down smaller alternative energy companies.
Proposition 10 works as a two-pronged measure. First, it provides a total of $3.425 billion in rebate incentives for vehicle owners to upgrade to alternative energy technology. The rebate is given only if vehicles achieve a 45-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency, accomplished using natural gas.
The proposition would also create a $1.25 billion budget for further alternative energy research and incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.
However, critics said the measure's focus on natural gas should not be viewed as a long-term solution.
"(Natural gas) is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, which is good," said Dan Kammen, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group. "Then again, the benefits for driving our vehicles on natural gas-those benefits are not so great."
The proposition would also provide cities and colleges with grants for alternative energy projects and training in renewable technologies.
Those opposing the propositon have made allegations that its largest backer is Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, a natural gas fueling station company owned by T. Boone Pickens, chair of the BP Capital Management hedge fund.
According to detractors, the goals of the two measures line up with standards already set in place by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law was passed to help control greenhouse gases by setting a timetable to bring California into compliance with higher energy accountability standards.
Lee Friedman, UC Berkeley public policy professor, said that since provisions of the 2006 act are not scheduled to be completed until 2012, the propositions would stunt its implementation.
"They're (not necessarily) bad ideas per se, but there's always the question of who should be making decisions," Friedman said.
Thoma said she hopes voters will distinguish between the two measures and their decisions on them.
"I think the voters are sophisticated enough to realize (the measures) are both different and make smart, sophisticated decisions on each measure separately," she said.
Tags: ELECTIONS 2008, STATE ELECTIONS 2008, ENVIRONMENT
See also:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_(2008)
Monday, October 27, 2008
California Mandates Reduce Incurred Costs -- i.e. How Going Green Pays for Itself
Commentary to follow this afternoon...
http://greenbiz.com/news/2008/10/23/calif-efficiency-laws-saved-state-big-bucks?mode=one
OAKLAND, Calif. -- A report from the University of California, Berkeley, reaffirmed research recently released by the state Air Resources Board: Strong energy policies will become a key driver for improving job creation, household incomes and the Gross State Product.
Energy efficiency measures have already helped the state cut energy independence and boost productivity compared to 30 years ago, according to "Energy Efficiency, Innovation and Job Creation in California." Nonprofit Next 10 funded the research authored by Professor Roland-Holst.
"At this pivotal moment in history, as global markets teeter on the financial edge, our study reveals the economic power of energy innovation and efficiency, and the promise for California if the state redoubles its efforts as proposed in the Draft Scoping Plan to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)," Roland-Holst said in a statement this week.
AB 32 calls for the state reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. By going forward with AB 32, the state will gain more than 400,000 new jobs, much higher than the forecast of 100,000 additional positions predicted by the state Air Resources Board. California also will grow its gross state product by roughly $76 billion and increase household incomes by as much as $48 billion.
Both studies used identical modeling, although the state's analysis assumed a flat rate of energy efficiency and static technology characteristics. The U.C. Berkeley-Next 10 study includes the potential for innovation to reduce energy intensity.
To understand the impact of the aggressive legislation, the report turns to policies from the last 35 years. The state would have a harder time weathering the current economic crisis if hadn't put the efficiency rules in place decades ago, the report found.
It also found the state reduced per capita energy needs to 40 percent below the national average. Efficiency measures created 1.5 million jobs and saved households $56 billion between 1972 and 2006. Energy-related supply chains slowed but 50 new jobs were created elsewhere in the economy for every one lost in the energy sector.
By going forward with AB 32, the state will gain more than 400,000 new jobs, much higher than the forecast of 100,000 more positions predicted by the state Air Resources Board. California also will grow its gross state product by roughly $76 billion and increase household incomes by as much as $48 billion.
Virginia Beach Green Team
This is slightly dated but sheds some light on minor recognition in place in Virginia for green achievements; it also shows a glimpse of organized green reform.
086644435
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6078
Offered July 9, 2008 Commending the Virginia Beach Green Team.
----------
Patrons-- Bouchard and Mathieson
----------
WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Green Team is recognized in 2008 as the first recipient of the Virginia Green Destination award; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Green is a partnership program of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Tourism Corporation, and the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association to promote green practices in all aspects of the tourism and hospitality industries in Virginia; and
WHEREAS, to earn the distinction as a Virginia Green Destination, the Virginia Beach Green Team and participating local businesses and civic organizations made a commitment to decrease their impact on the environment and to provide environmentally friendly alternatives for visitors; and
WHEREAS, meeting and surpassing the goals set by the Virginia Green Program, the Virginia Beach Green Team worked diligently to aid the Virginia Beach Convention Center, 22 restaurants, 15 hotels, four attractions, and five area events to achieve Virginia Green certification; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Green Team’s growing list of partners includes the Virginia Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau, Virginia Beach Hotel-Motel Association, Virginia Beach Restaurant Association, Eco Services LLC, Sandbridge Realty, BCF Boom Your Brand, SYSCO Hampton Roads, and Tidewater Fibre Company Recycling; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Green Team and its enthusiastic supporters have been instrumental in making the area tourism and hospitality industries more successful and profitable through the employment of green practices, as well as helping establish Virginia Beach as a leader and model for other localities across the Commonwealth to improve environmental practices; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly commend and congratulate the Virginia Beach Green Team as the recipient of the first Virginia Green Destination award in 2008; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to the Virginia Beach Green Team as an expression of the General Assembly’s appreciation for the organization's environmental stewardship and commitment to the tourism and hospitality industries in the Commonwealth.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Green Structures, Pt. I
Extreme Home Makeover is setting the benchmark for actively pursuing green building solutions in the residential arena. Thinking forward, EHM employs green gardening that cuts water needs by installing drought-resistant plants; uses recycled wood for house structures whenever applicable; salvages wood scraps from projects that require destruction of the structure; and works with Energy-Star rated appliances for greater efficiency. The following link details the steps taken to reduce wasteful construction practices of the past.
http://www.greenextremehomemakeover.com/green.html
Alternately, a business office can go completely green if it purchases internal items that come from recycled or renewable products, such as desks, plastic and metal supplies. The following website gives an idea of a few ways to micromanage your green push for your office.
http://www.thegreenoffice.com/index.php
In order for local construction companies to follow suit, green products need to be in good supply in order to meet a shift in demand. How can the shift in demand be attained? Incentive programs, sponsored by the government, are a good start.
Take the Virginia Code, for example. Legislation has been updated, with special thanks to Senator Harry Blevins (R-14), to allow local, county, city and state levels to give real estate tax preference in relation to green buildings -- which ultimately may lead to green zoning. A green structure may be given a lower property tax assessment per fiscal at the discretion of the locality if it meets certain standards. Ideally, a green building that exceeds 30 percent more than the standards outlined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code is eligible. The legislation stops here. Expediting green growth could come in the form of devising an optional model of a tax schedule of rates for higher levels of standards beyond the 30 percent mark. While the taxes are locality-specific and at the discretion of local government bodies, the idea of increasing tax benefits for commercial implementation of green standards at increasing levels of compliance (30%, 40%, 45%, etc.) allows for localities to adhere to a visible incentive program; ultimately, pending on the success of green efforts, greater investment in green practices and structures will be more likely if an incentive schedule can be identified. One of the sacrifices of fixing an actual, inflexible tax incentive bill is that it assumes a certain level of available revenues to make up for decreases in corporate tax responsibilities. I would be interested to see Senator Blevins and other like-minded individuals work to implement a plan to address shortcomings in tax-based revenue.
[http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-3221.2]
http://www.greenextremehomemakeover.com/green.html
Alternately, a business office can go completely green if it purchases internal items that come from recycled or renewable products, such as desks, plastic and metal supplies. The following website gives an idea of a few ways to micromanage your green push for your office.
http://www.thegreenoffice.com/index.php
In order for local construction companies to follow suit, green products need to be in good supply in order to meet a shift in demand. How can the shift in demand be attained? Incentive programs, sponsored by the government, are a good start.
Take the Virginia Code, for example. Legislation has been updated, with special thanks to Senator Harry Blevins (R-14), to allow local, county, city and state levels to give real estate tax preference in relation to green buildings -- which ultimately may lead to green zoning. A green structure may be given a lower property tax assessment per fiscal at the discretion of the locality if it meets certain standards. Ideally, a green building that exceeds 30 percent more than the standards outlined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code is eligible. The legislation stops here. Expediting green growth could come in the form of devising an optional model of a tax schedule of rates for higher levels of standards beyond the 30 percent mark. While the taxes are locality-specific and at the discretion of local government bodies, the idea of increasing tax benefits for commercial implementation of green standards at increasing levels of compliance (30%, 40%, 45%, etc.) allows for localities to adhere to a visible incentive program; ultimately, pending on the success of green efforts, greater investment in green practices and structures will be more likely if an incentive schedule can be identified. One of the sacrifices of fixing an actual, inflexible tax incentive bill is that it assumes a certain level of available revenues to make up for decreases in corporate tax responsibilities. I would be interested to see Senator Blevins and other like-minded individuals work to implement a plan to address shortcomings in tax-based revenue.
[http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-3221.2]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
