From Around the Web
- Dot Earth takes a quick look at the “renewable energy must equal more transmission lines” issue.
- The Daily Green notes that arctic ice melt this summer is the second most on record, only surpassed by last year. They also critique the fact that $300 billion was spent by governments around the world last year on subsidizing fossil fuels, an issue we’ve also been interested in lately.
- Environmental Capital re-visits the surprising fact that oil prices have not been affected by recent petro-sensitive world events, such as the Russian invasion of Georgia, and the impending landfall of Gustav. EC notes that experts are attributing this to the fact that oil demand has softened substantially due to U.S. drivers cutting back due to high fuel prices. (Again illustrating our point that we need to take advantage of these high prices to make fundamental changes in our energy policy.)
- Mexico is building a $4 billion shipping port in Baja in order to meet much of the overflow business from the ports of LA and Long Beach, which have been constrained by population growth and environmental concerns.
NBC refuses to air Pickens ad about Iran
By now, it is no secret that we like the Pickens Plan. The combination of vision and pragmatism, coupled with a concrete roadmap and resources to back it up are very appealing to us. As subscribers to the Pickens Plan mailing list, we received the following message to his enthusiastically termed “army” yesterday:
Army:
NBC is refusing to run one of our strongest ads, and I need your help in showing NBC they can’t control what we can or cannot say.
The 15-second ad talks about how the government of Iran is making a MAJOR effort to use natural gas in their vehicles so they can free up $120 a barrel oil to sell to us while we are doing nothing.
I need you to click on the link, watch the ad, then send it to five of your friends. Please ask each of those five people to send it on to five of THEIR friends.
This is important. Let me know what you think.
According to his website:
In the ad Boone talks about how the Iranians are moving quickly to vehicles powered by natural gas so they can free up their $120 a barrel oil to sell to us. Boone says: “Get this one. Iran is changing its cars to run on natural gas and we’re not doing a thing here…”
The problem? NBC wants us to PROVE that “we’re not doing a thing here.”
Who knows if this was NBC’s exact objection? But regardless, we don’t see much for them to object to in this ad.
[Update: NBC has decided to allow this ad to be aired on its networks.]
Aging electricity transmission lines pose a major roadblock to increased renewable energy production
As wind and solar energy development slowly pick up speed, it is quickly becoming apparent that our country’s aging electricity transmission infrastructure is embarrassingly insufficient to handle this shift. This is because our transmission system was designed 100 years ago and “resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.” At the time of its development, our power generation and transmission was quite localized and there was minimal need to carry electricity over long distances. Consequently, as renewable power generation becomes possible in more remote locations (i.e., wind in the Central countryside and solar in the desert Southwest) the existing grid cannot support the increased regional load and long transmission distances. In fact, New Mexico governor and former U.S. energy secretary Bill Richardson has declared that “We still have a third-world grid.”
However, instead of taking this problem as a challenge to be solved, many leaders on the local and federal level continue to ignore the problem, while some NIMBYs and environmentalists actively oppose new lines. Currently in Southern California, a battle is raging over the proposed Sunrise Powerlink project, where a major transmission line would be built, linking the City of San Diego with existing and proposed geothermal, wind and solar energy plants on the other side of the Anza-Borrego State Park. This opposition has prompted the California Governator to declare them hypocrites, stating, “It’s a kind of schizophrenic behavior. They [environmentalists] say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.”
While we don’t claim to be experts on the Sunrise Powerlink project, and understand the handling of the project has been controversial, there is no denying that we need to take meaningful action to develop the means of transporting newly burgeoning renewable energy sources to population centers. It is hard enough to get our government to do the right thing, and to overcome the always present NIMBY factor, so when environmentalists join the chorus of groups standing in the way of solutions to our failing energy policy, things are really grim. Whether it is allowing trees planted for roadside landscaping to determine the route of a tenuous public transit line in Santa Monica, having to turn off windmills in Altamont to protect nearby birds, or, as is the case here, opposing new electricity transmission lines, some environmentalists can add themselves to the list of people and groups responsible for our inability to solve some of our most pressing environmental problems.
Biden: ‘If I could wave a wand, and the Lord said I could solve one problem, I would solve the energy crisis’
While some politicians don’t seem to be rising to the occasion with respect to our failing energy policy, one who has been prominently in the news this week may actually be part of the solution. Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s pick for his running mate, has taken a strong and thoughtful position on climate change and energy policy.
Environmental Capital has a good overview of Biden’s positions with respect to these issues (via a Salon.com article written during the early part of the Democratic primary race). The following are some of the highlights of Biden’s positions on the environment and energy policy:
- Climate change as a security issue: If the predictions of the scientists are correct, you could see ocean levels rise three feet. If that occurs, you’re going to displace over 35 million people just in South Asia, and they’re going to physically be looking for a new place to land. Just that, all by itself, is going to initiate major new conflicts relating to war. You’re going to have nations fighting over arable land, more border disputes and, as a consequence, a great deal of instability.
- What the U.S. should do about global warming: To deal with global warming, you have to change the attitude of the world, particularly China and India, the two largest developing nations. But in order to do that, to have any credibility, you have to begin here in the United States…
- The deployment of “clean coal”: I don’t think there’s much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there’s a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change. Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives. But I would invest a considerable amount of money in research and development of clean-coal and carbon-sequestration technologies for export. China is building one new coal-fired plant per week. That’s not going to change unless there’s a fundamental change in technology, because they have about 300 years of dirty coal, and they’re going to use it.
- Nuclear power: I see a role for nuclear, but first you’ve got to deal with the security as well as the safety concerns. I’d be spending a whole hell of a lot of money trying to figure out how to reconfigure the spent fuel into reusable fuel. I would not invest in [growing our nuclear power capacity in its current form], but I would invest in sorting out the storage and waste problems.
[Another good source for Biden's positions on the environment can be found at Grist.org.]
A closer look at Pelosi’s position on energy, offshore drilling, and ability to lead
In our post yesterday, we wondered whether Pelosi’s position on offshore drilling was born out of an attempt to craft a comprehensive solution, or was mere political gamesmanship. Looking more closely at her interview on Meet the Press, and specifically her response to Tom Brokaw’s questioning about the Al Gore Ten Year Plan, the more it seems that she is not going to provide the legislative leadership necessary to affect real change in our energy policy.
At one point, Brokaw asked Pelosi about Gore’s proposal to get all of America’s electricity generation off of fossil fuels within ten years, and whether she supported it and thought it could be accomplished. Pelosi gave a rambling response that went from mentioning a House bill that would move 15% of electricity to renewable sources by 2020, to blaming the “Senate obstruction of the Republicans in the Senate” to the Democratic platform of getting 20% renewable energy by 2025 to some weird story about a Republican “war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies on the floor of the House a couple of weeks ago.”
Now, in order to actually accomplish something as transformative and revolutionary as Gore’s proposal to revamp the entire means of electricity generation in our country, we need serious and inspirational leadership. This feat is akin to sending a man to the moon or building the interstate highway system. Yet, instead of providing confidence and proactive leadership, Pelosi can barely articulate a plan and then simply blames the Republicans for our current situation. A real leader wouldn’t make excuses, a real leader would present solutions.
Pelosi discusses offshore drilling on Meet the Press
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw on Sunday. On the program, Pelosi discussed her position towards our current energy situation. Recently, we have been critical of Pelosi and many Democrats’ decision to consider increased offshore drilling, arguing that it is a missed opportunity for fundamental change in our energy policy.
However, Pelosi did try to make the more sophisticated point that we must transition off of oil, but that if increased drilling was the only way to reach a comprehensive deal, then she would be willing to leave it on the table. However, Brokaw continued to emphasize the bullet point, stating, “But the bottom line is, as speaker, you’re prepared to preside over legislation that would reactivate offshore oil drilling.”
It seems that sometimes the media misses the opportunity to do more in-depth analysis by focusing instead on the one sentence headline. Instead of delving into some of the nuance of Pelosi’s position, Brokaw wanted to boil it down to just a black or white point. However, with that said, we still think Pelosi is missing a tremendous opportunity for change stemming from high gas prices, and while she may have nuance in her position, the cause for it is probably more political positioning than political leading, and the result will be a huge missed opportunity to do the right thing for the country.
From around the web…
- U.S. and China, the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters, share a common, yet complicated, interest in addressing this issue.
- Google.org announces a $10 million investment for geothermal energy development.
- Anti-windmill NIMBYs in Texas lose in court. We wonder: what will happen when these cases are brought in more liberal regions?
- A look at gas price trends and where they may be headed.
California consumes 3rd most oil in world, yet has only lukewarm support for increased drilling
The debate over whether to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling has been heating up lately. Looking at this issue, an LA Times columnist noted this week that California is guilty of hypocrisy and NIMBYism over its relatively tepid support for lifting the ban. This is because California, as an entity, is the third biggest consumer of petroleum in the world, behind only the United States and China.
While California is one of the biggest petroleum producers in the U.S. (behind Texas and Alaska), the state still produces only 39% of the oil that it consumes. Apparently, a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, indicates that only 51% of California voters support increased offshore drilling.
It seems to us that the major disconnect between many of Californians’ opposition to offshore drilling and their embrace of a car-centric lifestyle stems from the lack of a real alternative to petro-fueled cars. While, there are some extreme examples of NIMBYs wanting their green cake and eating it too, many Californians are leading the push to get off oil. For example, California has the highest percentage of hybrid owners in the country, and the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley are leading the push to implement clean technology in transportation.
However, with that said, the reality of the world today is that gas is still the overwhelmingly primary means by which cars are powered. The status quo of widespread reliance on petro-fueled cars and no increased drilling is not maintainable. Yet, it is this very fact, and the financial pain that it is causing right now, that we should use as inspiration to make a dramatic shift off of oil, instead of acquiescing to the current political winds.
FDA claims BPA is safe for humans
Following up on earlier posts we had about the potential dangers of Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical commonly found in plastic products, the FDA just released a draft report indicating their belief that the chemical is not dangerous to human health at typical exposure levels. The report states: “Safe or safety means that there is reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use,” but “complete certainty of absolute harmlessness is scientifically impossible to establish”
This opinion is in line with that issued by the European Food Safety Authority last month, but is still in conflict with the Canadian government’s view of the chemical. Regardless of the EPA’s stance, some companies, such as Walmart and Nalgene, have responded to the public’s concern and have removed certain products containing BPA from their stores and product lines.
Major shift seen in mountain ecosystem from climate change
The speed with which the effects of climate change can be seen is impressive. Researchers from UC Irvine recently conducted a study of the ecosystem in the Santa Rosa Mountains in Southern California. This study revealed that over the past 30 years, 9 out of the 10 plant species analyzed migrated an average of 213 feet up the mountain.
Basically, all mountainous plants have a range with which the harsh mountain environment will permit them to grow. The study found that warmer and drier environmental conditions at the lower elevations became too inhospitable for the species to survive, thereby causing them to migrate upwards to cooler air. The study also looked at fire suppression and air particulate pollution as possible influences, and ruled them out.
This evidence of a rapid shift in ecosystems relating to our changing climate is another warning sign. The earth’s climate has shifted in cycles for millions of years, but it is the rapid speed with which this current shift is occurring that should be raising the red flags. It is one thing for a plant species to migrate so dramatically over a long-term period of hundreds or thousands of years, or even for it to do so rapidly as a result of a discrete event like a volcanic eruption. But it is entirely different for it to move so dramatically over such a shot period of time, when there is no acute event. The warning signs of a major shift in our climate continue to pile up. We can either act now, or the climate can act upon us. It is one thing for thousands of pine trees to have to migrate up a mountain, it is quite another when the migration is for millions of people.
Pelosi indicates willingness to lift ban on offshore drilling
Following in the footsteps of Senator Obama, House Speaker Pelosi indicated recently that she would consider legislation allowing new offshore drilling as part of an overall compromise on a new energy bill. This comes in response to indications that the Republican support for lifting the federal ban is gaining broad support from the public, which is concerned with high gas prices.
While we are not in favor of increased offshore drilling, per se, that is not what is so frustrating about this situation. Instead, it is the failure of our leaders to take the opportunity presented by high fuel prices to make a truly fundamental shift in our energy policy. Yes, high gas prices are a large burden on the public (albeit a smaller one than in many countries). However, this short-term pain presents us with an opportunity to make material changes that will benefit us in the long-term.
It is exactly situations like this where good leaders would explain to the public that high prices are an opportunity for a fundamental change, not quick fixes. But instead, our current “leaders” use this issue as a political game without regards to the consequences of missing this chance for action. Ironically, the only politicians who are being genuine here are the ones that don’t believe the science behind climate change. The rest are just playing short-term political games that will affect the long-term health and security of our country and the world.
From around the web…
- UC Berkeley professor asserts “There’s no question that we are in a mass extinction spasm right now”
- Brazilian government says pace of deforestation in the Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest, may stabilize this year on tighter logging rules.
- Energy giant Shell was rebuked by Canada’s Advertising Standards Authority for greenwashing its controversial tar sands project and plan to build the second largest refinery in N. America for calling the projects “sustainable” and implying they would fight climate change.
- Water conservation policies in Long Beach, CA are working, as water use drops 13% from this time last year.
McCain and Obama miss Senate vote on extending solar and wind tax credits
The Mustache (as Grist.org has taken to calling Tom Friedman) had a column in the NY Times this week about Senator McCain’s failure to show up for all 8 of the votes in the Senate for a bill to renew the tax credits for wind and solar power. Due to strong Republican opposition to the bill, it has stalled, and we are now facing a situation where these tax credits will expire at the end of the year. If this happens, it will be a major setback for attempts to build a meaningful renewable energy industry in our country.
McCain, who has faced significant criticism this year for his voting record (or lack thereof) on the environment, continues to emphasize his green credentials, even showing majestic images of windmills in his campaign commercials running this week during the Olympics. However, as Friedman points out, not only did McCain not vote all eight times on this issue, but for one of them, “he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.”
With that said, Senator Obama has proved only slightly more genuine on this matter, having missed the most recent vote on July 30, but making the previous three. However, given how the candidates have been wasting their time bickering over tire pressure and off-shore drilling lately, it is funny (and sad) to see that not only are they not voting to support their positions, but their campaigns are using almost identical windmill footage to promote those “policies.”
The Mustache really puts it best by stating:
Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive - and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency - we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid - so bloody stupid - that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power - when you didn’t.
Cost of gas in America still relatively low compared to world
As the national average price of gas continues to hover around $4 per gallon, and our politicians continue their petty tire gauge politics over who can come up with a better proposal to lower those prices, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at how our cost of gas compares to other countries around the world. This NY Times chart, from a little over a month ago shows that we still pay substantially less per gallon than most other countries in the world. The source of the higher costs in other countries can generally be attributed to higher gas taxes in those nations. Many of the countries with cheaper gas, including China and Indonesia, substantially subsidize the cost of fuel.
Clicking on the above graphic will enlarge it.
California high speed rail plan to prioritize San Francisco to Los Angeles route
The California State Senate passed a bill late last week to amend the bond measure for the high speed rail system that is going before state voters in the November election. If passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor, the new language of the measure will ensure that the Los Angeles to San Francisco route (the “backbone” of the system) will get priority in the construction process. Before this change, the high speed rail system could have been built piecemeal, with different local links being built in any particular order. While this is smart policy, there are still many obstacles to be overcome before construction on this transit system can begin. (The least of which, being voter approval of the ballot measure in November.)
-
Private Leaders
