Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been a member of the US House sporadically since 1976. He served terms of 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to present, always serving different Congressional districts of Texas. Paul is a licensed physician and practiced for a number of years before entering politics. He is married, and he and his wife, Carol Wells, have 5 children. Paul ran for President once before, as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Interestingly, he ran as the Libertarian nominee while registered as a Republican.

Paul has not visited New Hampshire very often. In fact, only Fred Thompson, who entered the presidential race a month ago in September, has visited NH less often than Ron Paul. That may explain why Congressman Paul is mired at 3% in the most recent NH poll.

Paul visited WMUR-TV, Channel 9, and appeared on their popular Conversations with a Candidate program in February. I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Paul if he believed that global warming was a serious problem. His response, "I don’t think that the jury has fully come in on global warming. There is still a lot of debate on that subject."

Given that context, I followed up by asking Paul if he felt that we need to embrace clean energy. Paul’s response: "I am a Free Trader and I think that if Clean Energy were a viable option, it would be more economical in the marketplace."

My final question centered on how Paul felt we should deal with making America energy independent. Paul stated, "We should look at more domestic drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we should look at nuclear power as well as a short-term solution."

Paul’s positions, regrettably, are fairly predictable for this self-avowed free trader. Paul supports and believes as follows:

• He doesn’t believe that climate change is an important issue to voters. He has stated that some global warming may be occurring naturally and may not be caused by human beings.
• In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that "environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people."
• Paul has voted in favor of offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. He has also voted for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Paul would end all subsidies of any kind to all energy companies, including oil companies.
• Paul would suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.
• Paul co-sponsored legislation that would fast track the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.
• Paul voted in 2001 against raising CAFÉ standards to 27.5 mpg for 2005 and 2006 cars and trucks.
• Paul supports expanding the use of domestic coal as a fuel source. "Technology is improving all the time and by using coal this might be something that can help the US become more energy independent."
  
• Paul opposes domestic subsidies for the corn industry to support ethanol.
• Paul opposes offering any federal subsidies to the energy technology sector, much like oil, gas and coal have received for many years. As a free market trader, Paul believes that the market will only support the best product at the best price. All subsidies should be stopped.
• Paul opposes a carbon tax. Paul believes that the carbon tax is like legalizing pollution.
• According to Paul, energy independence does not mean that the US has to produce every single ounce of energy used. Paul believes that independence means having no government-mandated policy. If you need oil or energy, you can simply buy it.
• Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes "…it’s the safest form of energy we have." (Seriously, he actually believes that!)

Paul’s positions are predictable for a free trader and Libertarian at heart, and so will be his finish in the New Hampshire Republican primary. It is highly unlikely that his views will garner double-digit support in the Granite State.

Stay tuned to see if NH voters have the common sense for which I am giving them credit.

Next week: Former Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska

SmartPower — the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy independence

Ron Paul for President Campaign

NH Republican Presidential Poll

Image Credit on Flickr

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People’ Columns

Findings from a new report examining insurance companies’ responses to climate change were released at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors last week. The study found that an increasing number of companies are implementing initiatives to reduce the risk of climate change’s impacts and reduce the emissions that cause the problem.

"From Risk to Opportunity 2007: Insurer Responses to Climate Change" was commissioned by Ceres, a U.S. group of investors and clean energy supporters that also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which manages more than $4 trillion in assets. Mindy S. Lubber, President of Ceres, explained the report’s findings:

Insurers are beginning to respond to global warming – and not just by withdrawing from coastal markets with high financial exposure. We’re seeing a rapid proliferation of products that will reduce climate-related financial losses, as well as the pollution causing global warming. Yet, insurer responses to date are not nearly sufficient given the scale of the challenge. We need more insurers, especially U.S. insurers, to step up.

Indeed, Europe’s largest insurer, Allianz, said that climate change may increase insured losses from extreme events in an average year by 37 percent within a decade. Karolinska medical university in Sweden predicts cardiovascular health problems to rise along with global temperatures.

Some specific initiatives offered by companies around the globe include:

• Green building credits
• Drought protection
• Incentives for investing in renewable energy (London-based Willis Holdings will cover potential underproduction of wind power)
• Clean transportation (The Japanese company Sompo gives premium discounts to policyholders who drive low-emitting cars)

All in all, the report found 422 examples from 190 insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and insurance organizations from 26 nations. That’s more than double the number of products found in a similar report barely over a year ago. I was surprised to learn that forty percent of the initiatives are from U.S. companies, although not surprisingly only a small minority of companies overall are exploring how climate change may affect business or are offering products to mitigate it.

With billions of dollars lost this year from unprecedented flooding and windstorms in Europe and wildfires in the U.S., some are nervous that climate change threatens the entire industry’s long-term viability. While the products from a handful of companies certainly won’t slow the consequences on their own, they must multiply to be part of the global solution that includes private sector involvement, government leadership, and consumer response.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) denied permits to two large, 700-megawatt plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power. The plants would have cost about $3.6 billion and spewed 11 million tons of CO2 into the air each year. That’s almost the same amount of CO2 that the Northeastern states planned to have saved by 2020 with their cap-and-trade program. The attorneys general of those states had petitioned Kansas officials to deny the coal plants that would have effectively negated their efforts.

Interestingly, while the KDHE staff recommended that the plants be permitted, state law also allows the KDHE secretary to deny a permit if there is an unregulated emission that threatens public health or the environment. And that’s what happened here: Secretary Roderick L. Bremby disagreed with his staff because of the unregulated CO2 emissions that pose a threat to global warming. He wrote in his news release: "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."

Kansas also has a goal of getting 10 percent of its electricity at peak period from wind power. The electric cooperatives will meet that goal by the end of the year — two years ahead of the deadline.

A Sunflower Electric Power spokesman pointed out that the company could build natural gas plants that emit half the amount of CO2, but they also have a much higher fuel cost than coal. So once again we’re back to the business problem of not having a price on CO2 emissions (such as through a cap-and-trade or carbon tax policy). Without a price on CO2, there is no "common yardstick" for determining whether the additional fuel cost of natural gas is offset by the less CO2 emitted. While the Kansas decision may set a precedent for other regulatory bodies around the country, the federal government also needs to spell out the CO2 rules for businesses and utilities.

Kansas City Star
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
New York Times
Washington Post

In the early 1950s, Detroit owned the automotive world. Cars were big, heavy, and fast! They had huge, monstrously powerful gas-guzzling engines. A visionary auto executive at the nearly bankrupt American Motors Corporation came up with an idea. He created the unthinkable — a compact American car. That visionary executive was George Romney and he coined the phrase "gas guzzling dinosaur." Romney became extremely successful and helped Rambler sell millions of cars. He then entered politics, became the Governor of Michigan and ran for President, unsuccessfully, in 1968

Fast forward about half a century — one of the sons of George Romney becomes governor of Massachusetts. Willard "Mitt" Romney serves one term as governor. But like his father before him, he holds higher aspirations.

In February of this year, Romney formally announced his candidacy for President. Given that he is no longer serving as governor, and that he has homes in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Romney has made more visits to New Hampshire than any other Republican candidate. Does familiarity breed contempt, as the old adage advises? Apparently not! In a recent NH poll, Romney garnered 27% of the Republican vote, to Rudy Giuliani’s 21% and John McCain’s 17%.

In April, Romney visited the border town of Salem, and I had an opportunity to ask him how, as President, he would make America energy independent. Romney stated, "America is too dependent on foreign oil." That statement is unarguable!

Romney continued, "We can use alternative sources of power. I support increasing our use of biodiesel, nuclear power and ethanol." Choosing his words carefully, Romney sandwiched his support for nuclear power between biodiesel and ethanol. I guess he thinks either we didn’t notice that, or that he thinks that by somehow associating nuclear power with biodiesel and ethanol, that makes it more palatable.

Romney concluded with, "We should also drill for more domestic oil in the Continental Shelf and in Alaska. Combine that with improving our energy efficiency and we will no longer be dependent on countries that are potentially hostile to us." Encouraging America to drill in ANWR seems to be part of all of the Republican candidates mantras. Seemingly to offend environmentalists everywhere, Romney also chose to include drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf as well. But his plea for energy efficiency is one that more candidates should embrace.

Digging deeper into Romney’s energy plans, we searched his website. What we found didn’t make us feel all "warm and fuzzy":

• Romney believes that coal is an important element of our future energy mix. He is hoping that "hybrid concepts," such as combining combustion and gasification of coal, will produce even cleaner and more efficient power generation.

• He wants America to invest in research and development of power generation and fuel technology.

• When asked if he supports increased CAFÉ standards, Romney demurred to pressure from his birth state of Michigan and opposed "raising CAFÉ standards on their own." However, he left open the door for support of raising these standards if they are "part of a broader energy plan."

What is missing from Romney’s so-called energy plan is a little thing called substance.

• What are his views on Cap-and-Trade?
• What about Carbon Sequestration?
• Does he believe that global warming is a serious issue?

There are more questions about Romney’s plans for making America energy independent than there are answers. While George Romney was a visionary leader but a failed politician, it appears that his son, Mitt, prefers to be a successful in politics and vision be damned!

Next week: Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut

SmartPower — the award-winning national non-profit marketing organization that promotes clean energy and energy efficiency.

Mitt Romney for President

NH Political Poll

Image Credit: Flickr

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous "Power to the People" Columns

While General Electric announced structural changes to compensate for increased business in its energy-efficient lighting sector, BP is planning to restructure itself to emphasize…more petroleum.

Once self-dubbed "Beyond Petroleum" because of its increased focus on clean energy — and even considered to be one of the friendlier oil companies by clean energy supporters — BP is now folding its gas power and renewables division into its two exploration and refining segments. But despite the de-emphasis on renewables, it will continue to use the "Beyond Petroleum" moniker (still good for business I suppose) and build wind turbines and solar cells.

Why the change? Simple business: The company’s new CEO, Tony Hayward, is frustrated with its performance compared to rivals like ExxonMobil. While Exxon and BP produce nearly the same about of oil each day (4.2 million barrels from Exxon compared to 3.8 million from BP), the stock market "values" BP’s barrels at $59 and Exxon’s at $122. So Hayward wants to realign BP with its core mission to boost profits: find oil and gas and make it into fuel. As James Harding of the The Times (London) put it, "Mr Hayward is setting out to make BP resemble Exxon, not The Body Shop."

But is this a "brutal reality check" for clean energy supporters, as Harding opines? Or did BP never really leave its oily roots in the first place? Should we be surprised that an oil company — that commits to a hardly-a-drop-in-the-oil-bucket investment of $8 billion in the next 10 years on clean energy — goes back to emphasizing fossil fuels?

I don’t think so. But nor should we discount the fact that they are investing in wind and solar. However, I do wonder whether this restructuring also alters BP’s plan for operating in a carbon-constrained marketplace.

Back in June, Hayward addressed policymakers in Berlin about climate change and how efficient and clean technologies – combined with a price on carbon emissions — will help slow global warming. While BP is talking the talk and making some overtures to clean energy, consumers – backed by a supportive marketplace and policymakers — will still need to be the driving force behind a clean and efficient energy future.

British Petroleum
The Times
Earth2Tech

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to creating this vision of a shining city on a green hill is that government can’t do it alone. While the city has shown willingness to lead by example, it will take the coordinated efforts of the corporate community and private citizens to turn a metropolis with an aging and underfunded mass transit infrastructure, and less-than-stellar record of water management and waste stream recycling, into a model for American cities looking to get serious about getting green.

One of the more intriguing ideas for eco-friendly urban design that Daley’s administration has tried to spread to the private sector is the green roof. Through its Green Roof Grants Program, the city has subsidized more than 60 residential and small commercial projects to the tune of $5,000 each in the last two years. Because the program includes fast-track building permits along with financial incentives, the use of green roofs has spread dramatically. In fact, Chicago now has more square footage of green roofs than any other American city.

The attraction of green roofs is that they offer environmental and economic benefits to both the building owner and the surrounding community. Cities with green roofs are more livable because the increased plant matter helps improve air quality and lowers the ambient air temperature during the hottest weather. Because plants use the energy of the sun to grow and photosynthesize rather than absorbing it as heat, green roofs help reduce the urban heat island effect (which contributes to ozone formation and increased energy consumption in the summer). Green roofs also help absorb and manage storm water runoff, which can be a big problem during heavy downpours in areas with a lot of impermeable surfaces. Owners of buildings with green roofs often see reductions in heating and cooling bills of 20% to 30%, and an additional economic incentive is a greatly increased roof lifespan. Finally, I should mention the aesthetic enhancement that added greenery brings to an urban landscape.

For those residents not willing or able to make the commitment to green roof (which may require building plans for strengthening roof support, added occupant access routes, or irrigation systems), the city recently unveiled a related intiative called the Cool Roof Grants Program. The program will encourage the use of light-colored or reflective materials, some of which use a soy-based coating, on conventional roofs. While lacking the aesthetic and water-management advantages of green roofs, cool roofs do fight the heat island effect, which means less electricity demand and better air quality. The Cool Roofs grant program will be even more well-funded than the Green Roofs program: a total of $185,000 in grants will be awarded in the first year, which breaks down to about 55 projects receiving up to $6,000 each.

Cool roofs may not be as sexy as green roofs, but encouraging their use just might be a better use of scarce municipal funds: an easily-accessible way to encourage Chicago residents to do something tangible to lower the city’s carbon footprint. In essence, this is an intermediate step toward a truly sustainable roof design, with the main goal being to get as many building owners as possible to transition away from the old black tar roofing material that soaks up the solar heat and makes the city a hotter, more smog-prone, and energy-inefficient place to live. In the age of global warming triage (change something, anything, but do it soon!), this idea makes a lot of sense for a town with the moniker "The city that works." This program will work, for the most number of people.

At least I hope that’s the impetus behind this new initiative … and not, say, influence peddling by some group of crooked roofing contractors scheming to corner the market on reflective coating materials in Cook County. After all, shadier things have happened in Chicago, and you don’t have to go back to the days Al Capone to find examples.

Photo credit: U.S. EPA

References and Resources

Mayor Daley’s Green Crusade | Metropolismag.com

History of Green Roofs in Chicago | Inhabitat

Green Roof and Cool Roof Grants Programs | City of Chicago

Chicago Green Roofs Initiative | City of Chicago

Cool Roofs | U.S. EPA

The above reference is just jealousy on my part for not being able to afford a $400 haircut like a certain former Senator can afford.

Former Senator John Edwards is from North Carolina and has, essentially, been running for President since the presidential election of 2004 ended. Edwards has visited New Hampshire more than any other Democrat, having made 24 separate trips, totaling 40 days. Obviously, that is one benefit of not currently holding public office.

Edwards was a one-term US Senator from North Carolina. His term ended in 2004, when he was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and he decided not to run for re-election to the Senate. Edwards is married to his wildly popular (and outspoken!) wife, Elizabeth, and they have three children.

Back in February, Edwards came to my hometown and at a neighbor’s house party made the following statement to me in response to my question about making America energy independent, "Along with the war in Iraq and affordable healthcare, renewable energy and global warming are the three main issues of this campaign. We need to start making some real sacrifices to deal with that problem. We must end our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. We need to greatly expand our use of clean energy."

Edwards was the first candidate in this race to have put a comprehensive energy and environmental plan on paper. While on the stump in New Hampshire, his energy mantra has been, "Our generation must be the one that says, we must halt global warming. Our generation must be the one that says "Yes" to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won’t be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."

All of what he has been saying since Day One about energy independence and protecting our environment has been resonating with Democratic voters in the Granite State, who are focusing on these issues. Lets look deeper at what Edwards is proposing:

• Halt global warming by instituting a cap-and -trade system to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
• Create a new energy economy by investing in clean, renewable energy.
• Meet the demand for new electricity during the next decade by increasing energy efficiency methods, instead of producing more power.
• Cap greenhouse gases at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Edwards wants to reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050.
• Create a new Global Climate Change Treaty.
• Expand renewable energy. While it is socially desirable to use clean energy, it is also costly. Wind is already competitive with conventional sources in many markets. Solar could be competitive within three to eight years.
• Power companies should be required to generate 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025.
• Coal is an important source of U.S. and global electricity, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. America needs to invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently.
• We must reduce oil imports by 7.5 million barrels a day by 2025 to get us on the path toward energy independence.
• We must open up the electric grid to innovation, so Edwards proposes a $5,000 tax credit for homes and small businesses that invest in onsite generation of renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal power.
• Electricity use is projected to increase by 1.5 percent a year between 2008 and 2018, on average. He calls for a national goal of meeting this demand by getting more power out of the electricity we use now, instead of producing more electricity.
• He wants to reduce the U.S. government’s use of energy by 20 percent, and expand the government’s use of renewable sources.
• Edwards will create a Green Corps within AmeriCorps to create opportunities for them to help Americans with saving energy.

Edwards has an energy plan that has some good positions but there are some glaring omissions. Edwards’ new coal plants do not have to sequester greenhouse gas emissions, they just have to be compatible with plants that do. This means that the reality is a "new" Edwards’ coal plant could still emit 80% as much CO2 as one of the present coal plants, so where is the benefit?

While at Dartmouth in August, Edwards stated that when he is president, "we will avoid mistakes like liquid coal and nuclear power." But does that mean he would forbid new nuclear plants from being built? Does that mean he would relicense existing plants? What, exactly, does that mean?

The most recent American Research Group (ARG) New Hampshire poll showed Clinton at 41%; Obama is 2nd with 22%; Edwards is a distant 3rd at 10% with Richardson right on his heels at 8%. It seems like his campaign isn’t really gaining traction in New Hampshire.

Perhaps it’s just a bad hair day for John!

Next week…. Former Republican Governor Mitt Romney

SmartPower

Edwards for President

Image Credit: John Edwards in Nashua, NH - Flickr

American Research Group NH Presidential Poll

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous "Power to the People" Columns

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

The week began and ended with major international climate change conferences. The first was a United Nations meeting, prepping world leaders for the December talks in Bali that will be the first step to determining emissions goals after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The meeting that closed out this week was held by President Bush in Washington. Sixteen nations, the UN, and the European Union were invited.

At the start of the two-day “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told delegates that the U.S. while being a major emitter of global warming pollution, the government is very serious about fighting climate change. In a soundbite gobbled up by the media, she said that global warming, like terrorism, needs the nations of the world to work together to fight it.

Like the meeting earlier in the week, the Washington meeting was billed as a starting point for negotiations beyond Kyoto. But while the U.N. meetings discuss measurable emissions cuts and targets, Bush prefers voluntary measures or “intensity targets,” that call for emission reductions per each unit of economic production.

The problem is that intensity targets don’t mean overall emission cuts, and that makes many at home and abroad suspicious of the real motives behind the Bush meeting.

Besides the expected protestors outside the conference, the delegates inside were wary as well. The EU’s Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa explained:

“We have actually found many, many countries voicing our view that (a) voluntary approach may be useful but will not solve the issue. Voluntary goals so far have not got us to the level of ambition that we need.”

In fact, he went on to say that Europe will insist on a clearer picture of Bush’s emissions plan and how it will interlock with the Bali talks before they agree to any further meetings. Although the U.S.’s participation is welcome, they insist, officials want to ensure that the intentions of the Bali conference aren’t stalled.

Agence France-Presse
CNN
National Post

Ok, so I stole the title of this article from a song from that wildly popular Canadian pop group "The Poppy Family." It was a huge hit way, way, way back in 1969. But it truly does apply to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s 2008 presidential campaign. The messages from his energy plan seem to be going in many different directions.

Let’s look at his extremely impressive resume! Richardson is the current Governor of New Mexico, a job that he has held since 2003. But he has also been:

• 7-Term US Congressman from New Mexico
• United Nations Ambassador, appointed by President Clinton
• Secretary of Energy, under President Clinton
• Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association
• Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 Times
• Brokered a cease-fire in Darfur
• Negotiated the release of hostages and political prisoners in Iraq, North Korea and Cuba
• Invented a chewing gum that will never lose its flavor

Ok, I made that last one up! But that resume is incredibly impressive. Richardson was born in California, but spent most of his childhood in Mexico City. As a teenager, he came back to the United States and went to school in the Boston area. He graduated from Tufts University and married his high school sweetheart Barbara Flavin.

Richardson has visited New Hampshire many times as a presidential candidate. He is a strong supporter of New Hampshire remaining as the first primary state. He has attended many events and was the first candidate to be interviewed on the SmartPower blog back in May about his energy plans.

On our blog, we asked Governor Richardson a series of questions about clean energy and the role it would play in a Richardson Administration. The main thrust for Richardson is that he has a huge plan for clean energy: "I want to initiate an Apollo-like program where in 10 years we have shifted 65% of our demand away from fossil fuels and towards renewables." That’s impressive!

We then asked Governor Richardson what he felt we should strive for with respect to reducing greenhouse gases: "We should reduce greenhouse gases by 90% by the year 2050." That is even higher than most experts have demanded — that is very good!

What would a Richardson Administration mandate the federal government to do about using clean energy? "I believe that the federal government should lead by example. I would issue an Executive Order that mandates a percentage of fleet vehicles be powered by natural gas. I believe that all future federal buildings should be ‘green.’ The government should use 20% clean energy to meet its energy needs by the year 2010." — He knows this drill!

Do you support or oppose a Carbon Tax? "I oppose a Carbon Tax. It will simply be passed on to the consumers. It doesn’t do the job. I am against a Carbon Tax." — there are mixed opinions about the validity of that tax, but his position is valid.

Finally, what role would nuclear power play in a Richardson Administration? "Well, I think nuclear has to be allowed to compete. But we do need to be able to resolve the waste issue. Perhaps technology is the answer. But it has to compete with other fuel sources."— Oh, NO! Not you Governor! Say it ain’t so!

Well, no one is perfect.

But Governor Richardson is also promoting:

• A North American Energy Council, with Canada and Mexico, that would encourage oil from those friendly sources as opposed to nations that oppose us.
• Detroit should get a 100 mpg car into the marketplace
• A National Renewable Portfolio Standard of 30% by 2020
• Support for "clean coal," but the Governor is not a fan of liquefied coal.

Overall, Richardsons energy plans are mostly positive. He shows true leadership in setting aggressive reduction targets and in promoting renewable energy sources. But his support for both clean coal and for nuclear power are troubling.

No matter "which way Billy is going," there is no dobt in my mind that many green voters will be going too!

Next week ….. Republican Senator John McCain

SmartPower - the national non profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy.

SmartPower Blog on Bill Richardson

Richardson for President

Image of Bill Richardson and the author holding a Clean Energy Lets Make More Magnet - Author.

Photo courtesy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program office.

I’m a Minnesota Public Radio member, and so I choose to receive a magazine called Minnesota Monthly as my thank you gift (I know I could save them $15 more a year but it’s a really good magazine). This month, I was at first pleased to find an article on global warming, then disturbed to learn about the rapid changes going on in Lake Superior because of the steadily increasing temperatures.

For starters, the lake’s rapidly warming water temperature has baffled scientists. Although they knew it has been slowly heating up, "it went bananas" beginning 30 years ago: about 75 percent of the 6-degree increase in water temperature has happened since 1980.

Scientists at the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, MN thought they had made a mistake: How could the lake be warming up twice as fast as the climate around it?

Much like the effect scientists are seeing in the Arctic, the lack of ice coverage has caused the lake to warm up faster than expected. The ice normally reflects sunlight back into space and keeps the water cooler underneath. But as warmer temperatures creep in and the average annual ice cover shrinks, the darker open water absorbs the heat and cranks up the lake temperature even faster. The vicious cycle continues, as warmer water temperatures mean less ice, which means more open water…

The spring turnover is also happening much earlier than normal. The turnover happens when the icy surface water warms up and mixes with the rest of the lake, creating a layer of warm water on top. This has been happening 10-14 days earlier than it was 25 years ago.

Last summer, Lake Superior’s temperature broke a record when it was measured at 75 degrees. Typically, it barely got above 60.

So what does this mean for the rest of us? In the states surrounding Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes, rapidly increasing temperatures mean more invasive plant and animal species from the warmer climes. Lake Michigan has already seen sea lampreys almost wipe out its lake trout. Changes to wildlife would also hurt tourism, causing a major economic blow.

It also means big disruptions to the region’s commerce. Lake Superior is at its lowest water level in 81 years, and while scientists say global warming may not be the sole cause of that decline, it is a factor. Cargo ships — some that carry wind turbine parts over from Europe, ironically — must haul lighter loads so they don’t get stranded in port. That means less efficient shipping and transportation of goods around the world.

While landscapes and habitat have changed over the centuries, the swiftness of this latest change has unsettled scientists. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to prepare to adapt to the inevitable changes have begun and take meaningful action to ensure that it doesn’t get worse.

Minnesota Monthly

A group of state officials, state pension fund managers, investors, and other organizations think so. They are asking the SEC to make all public companies formally address the financial risks their company could face as a result of climate change.

Supporters — led by organizations like Ceres (a network of investors and organizations working on sustainability issues) and the Calvert Group (an assets management firm) — have asked for this disclosure before, and the SEC ignored them. This time, they’re hoping for action by filing a formal petition stating public companies should reveal their total global warming emissions, provide a strategic analysis of the risks and opportunities present by global warming, assess the physical risks to their operations, and analyze any regulatory risks (such as limiting carbon dioxide emissions).

So far, the SEC hasn’t said much except that the requirement for triggering disclosure is that the impact or potential impact has to be material to a company, and therefore material to investors.

The petition argues that the threat and impacts of global warming are financial risks and are material. It’s the SEC’s job to ensure investors have the information they need to make smart decisions, and because climate change will have major impacts on business, those risks need to be disclosed.

While some companies are reporting on global warming already, others find it difficult to do so. Differences in potential regulation — such as a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade policy — means different outcomes for certain industries and difficulty in assessing the risks. One attorney who advises utilities and energy firms told the Washington Post: "For some of our electric power clients, depending on how allowances are distributed, they lose or gain hundreds of millions of dollars. Some are winners under some schemes and vast losers under other schemes."

Green Wombat
Washington Post

There have been some major wake-up calls in the fight against global warming, starting with the United Nations scolding the U.S. for not doing enough to mitigate its contributions to the problem.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press that it’s "very clear" the U.S. is not on the right track, despite the Bush administration’s recent openness to even discussing the problem and the series of meetings President Bush has scheduled with world leaders.

More U.N. meetings begin today to prepare for the Bali talks in December that will include negotiations of how to proceed after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Thursday, President Bush convenes his own two-day meeting with 15 big-emitter nations. Some worry that his smaller, more limited round of negotiations will undercut the Bali discussions.

Our friends across the pond didn’t hear any good news on the climate change front, either. A representative of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the BBC that it’s unlikely the European Union will achieve their goal of keeping global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Martin Parry is the co-chair of the IPCC, the group that has brought us three reports so far this year on the science, impacts, and solutions of climate change. He told the BBC that the chances of humans keeping the average global temperature increase less than 2 degrees C is "quite little."

He went on to explain that the increase of more than 2 degrees will result in major consequences. Water shortages around the globe may occur (especially in areas with melting glaciers that depend on the freeze and thaw for water), heat waves may increase, and crops may be threatened.

Parry believes it is still possible to contain the rise in temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius, although, as always, our actions have to be swift. In the meantime, world leaders must discuss "very seriously" plans for significant adaptation measures.

Associated Press, via Kansas City Star
BBC
Terra Daily

The Canadian navy has traditionally had a good relationship with the garbage on board its ships: the cold Arctic temperatures have kept the mess frozen, allowing refuse and olfactory senses to live harmoniously.

Then came global warming. The increased temperatures have caused quite the stink on Canadian naval ships, so much so that the navy is relaxing regulations and allowing ships to dump the garbage and even raw sewage at sea. A portion of an internal navy memo was reprinted by The Canadian Press:

The changes ‘help alleviate our COs (commanding officers’) concerns (with regard to) accumulated food remnants stored in garbage bags on decks during ever-increasing global warming summers…These food remnants may decay or putrefy and generate an occupational health and safety issue on board ships (that) our COs can ill afford while striving to enforce Canadian sovereignty in our internal Arctic waters."

The orders – part of the more relaxed provisions in the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act – allow for dumping if there are "operational" or safety reasons, or if capacity is exceeded.

These provisions, and the increased number of ships being sent north on sovereignty patrols, have many people arguing that taking the smelly garbage to a port for unloading is the worth the inconvenience, especially when the alternative is dumping it at sea.

However, navy officials say dumping would be worst-case-scenario, and that navy ships are still much more restrictive in their environmental stewardship than the law requires them to be.

The Canadian Press

Let me give you a little background on Brownback. He is a Republican United States Senator from the Sunflower State. He is currently completing his second term, which expires in 2008. An attorney by profession, Brownback served one term as a Congressman from 1994 to 1996. In 1996, he ran for the open US Senate seat that was being vacated by Bob Dole, who left, coincidentally, in order to run for President. Brownback won that race and was reelected in 2002. He is married to Mary Stauffer, and they have five children.

As so many other candidates have done, Brownback has made several treks to the state of New Hampshire. A right of passage for these candidates occurs when they visit New Hampshire’s WMUR-TV and appear on the Conversation with a Candidate television program. In March, Brownback went before WMUR’s cameras, and when questioned by this writer about clean energy, he stated the following points:

• "I am from Kansas, a corn-growing state." (OK, I get that)
• "Wouldn’t you rather be dependent on the Midwest rather than the Middle East for your energy?" (Wow! What a great sound-bite line! Can’t you hear that on the nightly news being replayed over and over again? Masterful!)
• "I support using renewable energy in the US." (Hmmm … maybe this guy ‘gets’ it!)
• "But I also want to use our reserves of oil, and to drill in a very limited area in ANWR in Alaska, not more than 15 square miles." (Uh oh! He doesn’t get it!)
• "We also need to at least consider nuclear power." (Well, he didn’t surprise me after all. Unfortunately!)

I didn’t get to ask a follow-up question to Brownback at WMUR, but my question did allow for a great piece of ‘theatre’ for him. When I asked him my question about clean energy, he reached into the pocket of his suit jacket. Before answering, he pulled a piece of brown cloth out and handed it to me. He asked me if I knew what the soft and stretchy material was. I wasn’t 100% certain, but I had an idea where this was going. Ethanol? Yes! It was made from a by-product of the ethanol-making process. It seemed soft and pliable, yet stretchy and strong. He smiled after seeing the look of amazement from some of the folks in the studio audience. He was definitely ‘playing to the camera’ on this one. But he didn’t respond, however, to a later question about corn subsidies and how they affect the price of ethanol.

While I will not comment on Brownback’s positions on a variety of other issues, let’s discuss the important issues for those of us concerned about energy and environmental issues:

• Republicans for Environmental Protection criticized Brownback for his support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. They criticized his support for drilling in the eastern waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, they also criticized him for his opposition to a bill that promoted energy-efficiency and renewable energy.
• Brownback says that we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as long as it "doesn’t kill the economy."
• Regarding a cap-and-trade system, Brownback says, "I’m not at the point yet where I’ve been able to say the cap-and-trade system would be effective without substantially harming the economy, and that it would create a substantial reduction of CO2.
• His campaign website devotes a grand total of seven whole sentences to the topic of Energy, as follows:

Due to years of neglect and short-sighted domestic policies, America is on the verge of an energy crisis. Our supply of energy has not kept pace with our demand. Today our nation produces 39% less oil than we did in 1970. This leaves us dependent on foreign suppliers, who often do not have America’s best interests at heart. This Congress, I co-sponsored the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act. This bill aims to reduce our oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day in ten years by taking an innovative, market-based approach that relies on advanced technology and an expansion of renewable fuels. I will continue to fight for energy independence."

Brownback is as he bills himself: Principled, Conservative, Republican. But his energy and environmental plans seem, to me at least, to be thin, predictable, and small in scope and stature.

We may not be in Kansas anymore, but an energy plan from Oz wont solve our nation’s energy needs either.

Next week…… Democratic Governor Bill Richardson!

Sources:

SmartPower - a national, non-profit marketing organization leading the creation of a vibrant market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Brownback for President - Official Campaign Website

Image Source: Official Senate Website

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are the two most-cited proposals for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Supporters argue over which plan would be the most efficient method of cutting emissions while allowing for flexibility in the economy.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on CO2 emissions. Those who favor a carbon tax say it will drive innovations and technologies that allow for the same amount of work to be done with less pollution, and decrease the demand for products that are dirtier and thus more expensive. Critics point out that a tax would have a harsher impact on the poor, while others argue that carbon tax revenues could be used to lower other taxes, like income taxes or payroll taxes.

A carbon tax also makes many elected officials nervous: New taxes, fees, or whatever you want to call them, are rarely popular with voters. One notable supporter of carbon taxes — although he’s not running for office anymore — is Al Gore. He has promoted a carbon tax in addition to implementing a cap-and-trade program.

A cap-and-trade system requires an overall cut in emissions. Companies that cut emissions further than required are issued permits that they can then sell to companies that can’t or won’t cut emissions far enough.

Promoters of cap-and-trade say that the system provides an incentive — rather than a heavy-handed tax approach — to cut emissions because companies can sell the excess permits. It also requires a definitive limit on emissions, while some are afraid that a carbon tax would simply drive companies to pay the fines, pass the increase along to consumers, and keep on polluting. Companies like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, and Toyota back a cap-and-trade policy, as do many environmental groups and labor unions. Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama also prefer it.

This fall, Congress could see a slew of measures to cut CO2. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are planning to propose a cap-and-trade bill. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is expected to introduce a carbon tax proposal — not in the hopes of actually passing it, but rather just to show how unpopular such a tax would be.

San Francisco Chronicle
Wall Street Journal, via Environmental Economics

Furthermore, the widespread state action on auto emissions could persuade the government to enact nationwide fuel efficiency laws, rather than leave a patchwork of state regulations for automakers to work around.

The Christian Science Monitor took a look at what’s happening across the U.S., and predicted some ramifications of the Vermont case:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be prompted to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act. This would allow California, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing emission requirements for cars sold in their states.

• Six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – may proceed with their own emissions requirements. All together, the 18 states that have vehicle emission laws or that are exploring them make up about half the U.S. auto market.

• Congress may have to reconsider new fuel-efficiency standards it’s currently weighing (which are not as demanding as Vermont’s). Or they could mandate a tougher federal requirement (more of a long-shot, I’d say).

• Federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry in California and Rhode Island could dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant.

Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense were party to the Vermont lawsuit, and are optimistic that the judge’s ruling will spur other states to action. The auto industry promised to stricter regulations.

The 12 states with emissions laws already on the books could cut up to 100 million tons each year. Overall U.S. emissions from cars and light trucks total about 1.5 billion tons per year.

Christian Science Monitor
Cybercast News Service

Dennis Kucinich is the candidate who is, ostensibly, to the left, of all the other 18 candidates officially in the race to be the next President of the United States.

Given that context, I wondered:

• How will his environmental beliefs resonate with mainstream America?
• What are his views about renewable energy?
• Does he have a realistic plan for energy independence for America?

Let’s explore the answers to those questions.

First, a short bio. Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic Congressman representing Ohio’s 10th Congressional District (a/k/a Cleveland). He is in his 6th term, having been elected in 1996. He previously served as Mayor of Cleveland and was the youngest mayor of a major American city when he was elected at age 31. Kucinich is married to a British citizen, Elizabeth Harper, and he has a daughter from a previous marriage. Kucinich first ran for President in 2004. While he did not win any primary contests, he did win 40 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Fast forward to December 11, 2006. Kucinich announced his intention to run for the Democratic Nomination in 2008.

So like all candidates running for President, Kucinich visited New Hampshire to meet with voters and to share his views and plans for America. In April of this year, Kucinich came to New Hampshire and was interviewed by ‘uncommitted New Hampshire voters’ at the WMUR-TV ‘Conversation with a Candidate’ television program. Questioned by this writer about clean energy, Kucinich stated, “I am a true environmentalist. In 2003, I put forth a national plan for the United States to use 20% Clean Energy by the year 2010. I strongly support any and all genuine and truly renewable non-polluting forms of energy.” Ok, so far, so good!

While the format at WMUR-TV did not actually allow for in-depth follow up questions, I did get the opportunity to interview the Congressman, in August, at his campaign headquarters in Dover, NH. There, in the presence of his wife, he gave me a lengthy and detailed audio interview for the SmartPower blog.

While Kucinich appears to be a mild-mannered man, his passion for the environment is evident and very strong. When I asked him the role that clean energy would play in his administration his answer was direct – “Clean energy will play the central role in my energy plan! How will that happen? I plan to create a Works Green Administration, which will bring clean energy to America. We will have millions of wind and solar technologies that will be retrofitted onto American homes so that everyone can produce clean energy! We will create millions of new jobs not only building these wind and solar technology applications but also installing them."

Kucinich also wants NASA to have a role in developing the clean energy technologies of the future. He favors wind and solar over all other types of renewables. And he is looking towards fuel cells to power our cars in the future. Kucinich believes that all the talk by his Democratic opponents about ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘cap and trade systems’ is just tinkering around the edges. Kucinich wants real sustainability by using real clean energy.

With respect to nuclear energy, Kucinich is adamant that it must be phased out. He has followed the nuclear movement since its infancy. The Cleveland area in the 1960’s and 1970’s was heavily involved in the forefront of the marketing of nuclear energy as a viable energy source for our future. But massive cost overruns to build these plants, their safety concerns, and the inevitable issue of nuclear waste all have to be addressed. Nuclear was sold to the American people as “energy to cheap to meter – but the reality has been it’s energy that’s too expensive to use.”

Kucinich favors a ‘Global Green Deal’ which is a plan that would have the United States lead the world in the creation and production of renewable energy and we would partner with developing countries to promote renewable energy within their borders as well.

Kucinich opposes further exploration for oil or other fossil fuels and feels that renewable energy forms can meet all of our future energy needs, but that conservation will play a major role in getting us energy independent.

His energy and environmental plans seem viable, well thought out, and, dare I say it, revolutionary! Kucinich is a very interesting candidate. He is worth a look!

Next week…… Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas!

SmartPower

SmartPower Blog on Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich for President

In fact, the U.S.’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expecting 12 new applications to build nuclear power reactors at seven different sites, plus another 15 are in the pipeline for next year. These are the first full applications to build new nuclear plants in 30 years…what gives?

Oil located in unstable regions of the world and climate change concerns are some oft-sited reasons for the increased interest in nukes. Why try to work with unstable, corrupt governments that have oil when you can mine uranium in places where you’d vacation, like Australia and Canada? Why deal with CO2-spewing coal plants when you can take a deep breath next to a nuclear plant? Except for that huge hairy problem of the dangerous waste hanging around for thousands of years…

Additionally, the NRC has implemented some new processes to apparently make the approval process easier:

• Rather than require utilities to get two different licenses – one to build the plant and the other to start it up – utilities can apply for one license that covers both areas.
• Firms can get nuclear reactor designs cleared in advance. So if a reactor gets the green light, only the modifications unique to the site have to be reviewed.
• A utility can ask the NRC to approve a location before it even applies for a combined license.
• The NRC is hiring about 200 new staff every year and has set up a field office in George to deal with the particularly high number of southern utilities interested in nuclear plants.

Despite these changes, the NRC says it will still take over three years to review an application and conduct hearings.

The problem of what to do with nuclear waste is and should continue to be a serious and significant barrier, and Americans are still divided in their opinion of nuclear energy; in a March poll, about half of respondents favored expanding it. But a September 6th story in the Economist points out that nuclear may start to look more appealing as coal plants face a “regulatory risk” due to assumed future carbon regulation. Just as some energy watchers talk about a “coal rush” (the rush to build coal plants before carbon regulation takes effect), could we see a “nuclear rush” after federal carbon regulation is implemented?

The Economist
Wikipedia