Increased natural gas supplies would improve feasibility of Pickens Plan
Assuming, as we have recently, that battery technology is not yet developed enough to support an all electric automotive system throughout the country, that leaves us with the question of what to do now. As we know, T. Boone proposes that we use natural gas as a “bridge” fuel to power our cars until battery technology progresses. He reiterated his concerns about battery technology after the debate last week, asserting that electric cars “are still a long ways off.”
If this is true, we have to decide whether we are going to have an ad hoc approach to changing the current fuel situation, or whether we are going to implement a comprehensive, albeit temporary, solution like switching our cars to natural gas. READ MORE
A fundamental problem in Congress’s ability to lead
Without straying too far from our environmental theme, the behavior seen in the House of Representatives today is a perfect example of the pettiness, partisanship, and incompetence currently running throughout our government. Regardless of why our financial system got into the current crisis (read: greed by bank executives and private citizens, as well as a failure of regulation), economic experts all believe that a wide scale government bailout is necessary to prevent a crash of our financial institutions and economy.
So, we have identified a problem, as well as a painful, yet necessary solution.
Enter Congress. Instead of coming together to vote in favor of what is currently the best proposal on the table, (which was developed as a result of marathon negotiations between all the parties involved) Congress failed to pass the legislation, thereby sparking a drop in the Dow of 778 points, or nearly 7%.
Some of the more shining moments seen on the House floor today included: Rep Paul Broun (R), Georgia, in describing the bill as “a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it,” made sure to add that, he is “not going to eat [it].”
And Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R), Michigan, in proudly defending our very way of life, noted, “And it was no mistake that, during the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, the slogan was, ‘Peace, land, and bread.’ Today, you are being asked to choose between bread and freedom.” READ MORE
Carbon emissions not only increase, but do so faster than imagined
Even as the looming risk of climate change becomes a more common topic of discussion in the media and with global leaders, the reality of greenhouse gas emissions continues to worsen. Dot Earth notes that a recent report shows that carbon emissions around the world are actually accelerating, and at a pace that is more rapid than predicted. In fact, emissions have grown so much that they are now on the outer boundary of those scenarios considered by the IPCC last year.
Additionally, the report notes that the natural mechanisms that normally help to remove CO2 from the air, such as oceans and plant life, have failed to keep up with these increases. Between the years of 1959 to 2000, these carbon sinks absorbed approximately 57% of emissions. That percentage has now fallen to 54%.
A trend of special note taken from this report is that now, more than half of all greenhouse gas emissions are from developing countries. The world is already in an unsustainable situation, the thought of emissions getting worse instead of better is pretty worrisome.
The first debate: McCain and Obama touch on the environment but fall short on details
Here are my general observations from the first debate:
While both candidates discussed the importance of energy policy and fighting climate change, these topics took a bit of a back seat to other issues, like the reform of government and foreign policy. With that said, the following are the points of interest that I noticed in each candidate’s respective statements about the environment and energy:
Moderator Jim Lehrer, in the early part of the debate, asked the candidates (a number of times before he got an answer) what specific policies they would be willing to give up as a result of the $700 billion bailout that is currently being proposed by the government. Sen. Obama answered that the shift towards alternative energy could be a place where delay would appropriate in order to pay for the bailout, indicating that “there may be individual components [of our energy policy] that we can’t do.” McCain had a much broader answer, indicating that he could see “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.” Presumably, this across the board spending freeze would include energy policy.
Later in the debate, once the topics crossed over to foreign policy, Obama got into the importance of alternative energy in combating the rise of petro-states. Obama noted that while we do need increased drilling, it is more important to build up alternative sources of energy, repeating the phrase T. Boone has now made famous, that “we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem.” Obama also mentioned that in addition to “solar, wind, and biodiesel” we also need “nuclear energy [and] clean-coal technology.”
Soon after this the candidates got into a snit over whether Obama has opposed reprocessing nuclear materials (which isn’t exactly correct) and whether McCain has opposed alternative energy, which also isn’t technically correct (although McCain has recently come under fire for this issue). However, McCain summed up his in-depth position on it by stating: “No one can be opposed to alternate energy.”
We would note, however, there is a big difference between pushing a policy forward and not being opposed to it. One doesn’t have to oppose a policy to make it fail. A lack of support will have the same result. Hopefully, the next debate will allow for a more in-depth discussion of each candidate’s energy policy, instead of a series of broad statements of support.
[A full transcript of the debate can be found here.]
CA beaches get high marks but Los Angeles is the exception
The end of the summer report on California beach pollution is out and the overall results indicate a relatively clean summer for the state’s beaches. The state has 514 beaches rated in the report, 91% of which received an A or B grade, indicating excellent or very good water quality conditions.
However, this news should not be seen as too much of an accomplishment. The main source for the decreasing pollution levels is the statewide drought that entered its second year. Since runoff is the biggest source of ocean pollution, the lack of rain prevented inland waste from being driven to ocean. Presumably when the drought ends, ocean pollution will pick back up.
More bad news was that Los Angeles County received the lowest grades in the state. Of the 25 beaches monitored in the county, half of them received a grade of C or below. According to the city, the Los Angeles River is the main source of fecal bacteria in the local beaches. Gross.
However, San Diego County, whose southern beaches are traditionally closed intermittently due to sewage spills in the Tijuana River, actually received 100% A or B marks this summer.
Ballot Measure R would fund widespread transportation improvements in Los Angeles
Another transit oriented measure will now be on the ballot this November in Los Angeles County. Yesterday Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill that will allow Measure R to go forward on the ballot. Measure R, if passed by two-thirds of voters, will increase sales tax by half-a-cent. The revenue generated, estimated to be around $40 billion over the 30 year lifespan of the tax, will be directed towards improving transportation in the County. Specific projects that could be funded include the Expo Line extension from Culver City to Santa Monica, extending the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley, building the “Subway to the Sea” as far as Westwood, as well as road improvements.
Although Los Angeles’ sales tax is already a whopping 8.25%, anyone who lives here knows the complete failure of our transportation system. While much of the tax revenue derived from our sales taxes is wasted, this is one chunk that would be put to good use.
Bold recommendation to halt coal fired plants in England until carbon capture is available
It is well established that coal fired plants account for a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Abundant coal supplies in America and China have led to a prevalence of these dirty power plants and consequently, an urgency to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques. CCS, once implemented, will mitigate the carbon released into the atmosphere from coal fired plants.
It was reported this week that the Environmental Agency in the United Kingdom has recommended that no new coal fired plants be permitted until CCS technology is included in every new plant. This recommendation, if accepted by the prime minister’s office, could halt the construction of a large coal plant in Kent, to be built by German energy giant E.ON.
The Agency justified its opposition by stating “Building a new generation of coal-fired stations without capturing the carbon emissions would lock the UK into using high-carbon technology for decades to come.” However, proponents of the E.ON plant argue that Britain will face an energy shortage by 2015 if new plants are not brought online.
What better way to motivate the rapid development of CCS than an impending energy shortage? America should take note-as we continue to face increasingly limited energy supplies, will we opt for the quick and easy short-term solution (like increased drilling), or will we make a commitment to alternatives that can provide a meaningful long-term solution? If the country that sparked the Industrial Revolution can do it, so can we.
The opposite of greenwashing?
Gore calls for ‘civil disobedience’
Al Gore, in speaking at the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting in New York yesterday, said, “If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”
Currently, there are 28 coal plants under construction in the United States, and another 20 have been approved. None of these new plants have carbon capture and storage (CCS) capabilities, as the technology is not yet available on a commercial scale. However, once implemented, CCS should mitigate carbon emissions by liquefying them and then storing them underground.
Unfortunately for the health of the planet, the World Coal Institute estimates there is enough coal left in the ground to last at least 150 years.
Gore also noted that, “Clean coal is like healthy cigarettes – it does not exist.”
Battery technology must progress substantially before fully powering cars
It seems that the state of battery technology is still a ways away from being able to allow for widespread adoption of purely electric vehicles. This is one of the key points in the debate about the Pickens Plan. That is, whether we should convert all of our cars to natural gas, or go straight to electric? The answer depends on whether the technology is or is not there yet.
The next generation of car batteries are going to be litium-ion, which will replace nickel metal-hydride batteries. However, in order to move to the next generation of vehicle batteries, big improvements must be made to extend the life, lower the cost, and increase the safety of these new batteries. This is according to Tien Duong, a high ranking official at the U.S. Department of Energy, who answered questions at a lithium battery conference last week.
According to Duong, we are still some ways away from developing a lithium battery that can power a car for 40 miles on electricity alone by 2016, a goal of the Dept. of Energy. On the one hand, this sounds surprising given the recent excitement over proposed electric cars like the Chevy Volt and Toyota Prius plug-in. But on the other, as I sit here with an overheating notebook computer on my lap and a cell phone whose battery can’t last for more than one day, both of which use lithium-ion batteries, I can’t say that I’m shocked. If that is in fact the case, we better not put all our eggs in the electric car basket quite yet… at least for the near future.
[Note: in the Reuters article, Duong does say that there is a lot of discussion in Washington of funding a Department of Defense $1 billion battery project. This marshalling of resources, to me, would seem to be one of the best shots at making rapid progress with this technology.]
The money behind the ‘drill here, drill now’ movement
Conspiracy theorists believe that our nation’s oil policy is being run by secret corporate bogeymen who are behind the scenes, pulling the strings that control government. What these paranoid people don’t realize is that much of the big money and influence that is actually involved in shaping our political policy is already out in the open.
The Center for Public Integrity had a nice piece looking at the vast amounts of money that has been raised by Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future, a political organization behind much of the “drill here, drill now” movement. This entity is a “527 group,” which means that it does not have the strict fundraising restrictions that other political action committees are limited by.
Apparently, American Solutions has raised over $16 million in donations this election season, some of which has gone to influence government policy on oil drilling. As the Center for Public Integrity reports, although “American Solutions bills itself as a ‘new, innovative, and nonpartisan’ organization… Gingrich says he’s personally working to help McCain.
With so much money and influence so readily out in the open, who needs conspiracy theorists?
Democrats to allow ban on offshore drilling to expire
Caving in to popular opinion and the threat of a presidential veto, House Democrats have decided to allow the offshore drilling ban to expire next week. Apparently the pressure put on them during this election year by Republicans and the short-sighted passion behind the “drill, baby, drill” mantra proved too much for Democrats to resist.
However, it wasn’t just the pro-drilling movement that the Democrats couldn’t resist. It was also the risk of missing an opportunity to grant domestic automakers $25 billion in sweet, low interest corporate welfare loans as a part of the greater bill. If the Democrats had continued to resist lifting the offshore ban in the proposed bill, this giant subsidy for automakers would have been put at risk. Good thing for petro-states, oil companies, and poorly managed domestic car companies, Congress had more foresight than to allow that to happen.
[Note: the $25 billion load is intended to go, in part, to encouraging the automakers to pursue cleaner vehicles. The utter irony of this is overwhelming since the domestic automakers have gotten themselves into this mess by resisting all governmental efficiency legislation and have manipulated loopholes, such as that for “flex-fuel” cars (even though drivers can’t find biofuel to even put in those “green” cars).]
Green Inc.: a new blog on business and the environment
NYTimes recently launched a new environmentally related blog called Green Inc.: Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line, that focuses on “that often contentious place where business, politics and the environment meet.” So far it looks like Green Inc. will be in a similar vein as WSJ’s Environmental Capital, another one of our regular reads that also looks at the nexus of business and the environment. If the quality of Green Inc. is anything like NYT’s other green blog, Dot Earth, we will be expecting great things.
Some of their recent posts that caught our attention include:
- A look at Bill Clinton’s insight on the potential for a cap-and-trade system, noting that Clinton believes this potential legislation will face a “make or break” in the Senate.
- A rundown of some of the most common critiques of tar sand oil extraction, including that it requires huge amounts of energy, releases exponentially more greenhouse gases than traditional drilling, and can cause damage to local ecosystems.
- And an interesting post wondering whether geo-engineering (one example: shooting thousands of mirrors into space to reflect the sun’s heat) is something that we should pursue in case we fail to develop renewable energy sources in time to halt global warming.
Senate passes extension of wind and solar credits but measure still requires House approval
After eight failed attempts, the Senate finally approved a bill to extend tax credits for renewable energy generation from sources like wind, solar and geothermal. Additionally, the proposed bill provides incentives to decrease energy consumption by both businesses and private residences, through credits for things such as installing solar panels.
The tax credits will cost the government around $18 billion, which is slated to be made up by an increase in taxes on the oil industry. But don’t feel too bad for the oil producers, as they’ve also been given a carrot in this proposal, which would allow them to write off costs incurred from the production of oil from shale and tar sands. Additionally, the bill gives a tax credit, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500, to private citizens who purchase electric vehicles. The measure must now pass the House, and be signed by the president, who has indicated his support.
Iceland looks to be free of fossil fuels by 2050
Having visited this spectacular country, it comes as no surprise to me that they are leading the world with up to 72% of their electricity being generated from renewable sources. Iceland, which is extremely geologically active (the word “geiser” was coined there), produces the majority of its electricity from geothermal and hydroelectric plants.
However, the country still uses petroleum to power much of its transportation needs, and has been unsuccessful to this point in shifting to hydrogen burning vehicles, as planned for the past ten years. So instead, the country is now looking to shift to electric vehicles. Iceland, a small country, with its population centered predominately around the capital of Reykjavik, could potentially accomplish this goal with a series of strategically placed charging stations, similar to that proposed in Israel. However, those living on the outskirts of the country, or those planning long excursions, may need to fall back on gasoline. Iceland aims to accomplish this admirable goal by the year 2050.
