Read more of this story »

“I tried keeping it a secret because of the industry,” says Kermit. “The last thing viewers wanted was a hippie puppet telling their kids to stick it to the man. The environment was on the bottom of the political to-do list. Vietnam was raging and we needed to save face–it’s not easy to pilot a show with so many political hurdles in your way. We needed to promote consumerism and nationalism so we wouldn’t be cancelled. It was bad enough that we were urging diversity and acceptance.

“I have decided to keep it a secret until now, and I apologize for a life of lies. I am publicly recognizing that it is easy to be green; we have so many green lifestyle options open to us that there is no way I can keep it a secret anymore. Target sells organic sheets for Pete’s sake!

Although this is his first widespread announcement of his beliefs, Kermit has let others in on his true feelings for a while. For instance, he gave the commencement speech at Southampton College in 1996, emphasizing the importance of conservation. However, he feels like he could have started earlier,

“I should have just stuck to my instincts and rejected what society wanted. I could have used by fame back then to make a difference. I hereby resign from my TV persona–“Kermit the Frog”—and introduce you to my true self—“the amphibian formerly known as Kermit the Frog.” I want to be represented by this symbol:

Kermit is scheduled to tour with Bono in 2009, and will even appear on Bill Maher in the upcoming weeks. He is currently working on converting his multi-million dollar Malibu pad from electric to solar energy.

All this leads us to wonder: what is “The Rainbow Connection” really about?

Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced the introduction of “a national energy plan” on Saturday, including a return to nuclear power.

A month after the conservatives and their embattled leader returned to power back in April, the Italian government said it would begin building nuclear power stations to solve the country’s dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies.

“A new national energy plan will be presented in spring, which will be based on three points: diversification of supplies, the start of nuclear energy production and development of renewable and alternative energy,” Berlusconi said at the opening ceremony of a new liquefied natural gas terminal.

>>More on energy policy in Europe at RG&B

The decision to return to nuclear would reverse a 20-year ban on nuclear power stemming from a 1987 referendum passed in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, a year earlier. The country’s four nuclear plants operating at the time were shut down, and have not produced any power since.

Read more of this story »

Sarah Palin’s record is not very favorable for wildlife. She’s put efforts into undoing federal wildlife protections for polar bears and beluga whales in order to protect oil and gas drilling operations, for example. But her position on wolf hunting is perhaps the most controversial.

One of Palin’s first acts in office was to put a $150 bounty on the heads of her state’s wolves, allegedly with the goal of increasing the moose and caribou population. But this was no ordinary hunt - it was meant to incentivize the aerial killing of wolves, in which private hunters take a small plane and chase down wolf packs until they’re exhausted and can’t move any more, when they either shoot them from the air or land and execute them at point blank range. A Defenders of Wildlife ad illustrating this process is available at ClimateProgress.

Read more of this story »

However, now that the dust is (sort of) starting to settle, some more sober analysis of the Vice Presidential candidate’s record on renewable energy is starting to emerge.

For starters, as Alaskan Governor, there are signs that she may have paid more than lip service to her supposed support for alternatives to oil. She promised green campaigners that she would put together a comprehensive plan on renewables, and even appointed someone to head up the mission. Beyond this though, there has been little genuine conviction or leadership in support of the sector. In fact, as the summary below reveals, her record on the issue is decidedly shaky:

Read more of this story »

Richmond, Va. based coal company Massey Energy has announced plans to commence blasting at the site tomorrow (10th September), in an operation that will reduce the height of the mountain by 500 feet and free up ten square miles for coal mining activities.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

There has been a world wide effort to “isolate Iran” due to their being the “leading state-sponsor of terrorism and human rights violations”. The EU and UN have both planned to cut back business ties with Iran. The Austrian government owns 31.5 percent of the OMV company and Stop the Bomb is furious about OMV’s involvment in this Iranian event. As an EU member state and a UN member nation, Austria is undermining the effort of the EU and UN in regards to Iran.

Both OMV and Shell have corporate human rights pledges (OMV, Shell). Neither company will comment when asked if supporting Iran through this event violates their prospective human rights pledges. Haaretz reports the OMV deal was signed in April 2007, and was met with criticism from Austria.

But Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, asked by the Austrian daily Die Presse how the deal squares with his Social Democratic Party’s tradition of “human rights before business,” responded: “The tradition never held true.”

The Iranian company that is holding the event is state owned making this event and participation in it direct support of the the state of Iran, not merely an economic or energy event.

A Far News Agency report states that China, Italy, France and Spain are all involved with Iran and the exploration for oil and gas. Shell and OMV are currently in the spotlight however there are many other countries and companies making plans to work with Iran regarding oil and gas exploration. How far will this go? Empowering Iran for the purposes of obtaining oil.

As we prepare to elect a new president here in the U.S., an important issue is our own dependence on foreign oil and our pursuit for energy independence. As we watch countries and companies defy their own agreements regarding human rights and pursue relationship with Iran, we can turn our thoughts to our own situation. Will we remain at a stand still arguing over oil or will we embrace a balanced approach to pursue our own resources in combination with alternative energy options? I believe we have the ingenuity and competence as a country to responsibly pursue energy independence.

Related Posts:

• Alternative Energy, the Solution to Terrorism-Peres
• A U.S. Blockade of Iran Would Cause and Energy Crisis
• Oil’s Use in Electrical Power in the US Largely Replaced by Nuclear

Photo Credit: Hamed Saber via Flickr Creative Commons License

The idea of edifying the EPA into a department that has a seat in the President’s cabinet may not sit well with some of her Republican colleagues who fear that such a move would only increase the size of the government. However, the EPA has hardly been the model of efficiency and effectiveness since its inception in the early 1970s. A restructuring of the EPA that created a cabinet seat might offer the type of coordinating capacity that our federal government currently lacks, in terms of creating coherent environmental policy set in the context of climate change.

Read more of this story »

>>More convention coverage at RG&B>>

Read more of this story »

But a new report from the UN Environment Program (UNEP) has turned that idea on its head, and for good measure. Because once you get right down to it, would you rather the government put their moneys in to helping out sustainable and renewable energies, or propping up the old ones?

Subsequently, the UNEP has recommended that fossil fuel subsidies should be scrapped, and that in doing so could not only decrease the amount of greenhouse gases, but also give a “not insignificant boost to the global economy.”

Read more of this story »

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman has announced his support for a plan to increase oil drilling as a means of paying for increased investment in alternative energy. Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Coleman announced his intention to join the “gang of 16,” a group of bipartisan senators seeking a compromise energy bill that would approve $20 billion over ten years towards the plan. The New Energy Reform Act of 2008 focuses on three overarching principles:

• Increased domestic production of energy resources, including oil and nuclear. This would include a go-ahead to open new areas for oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off America’s Atlantic and Pacific Coasts;
• Transitioning vehicles to non-petroleum based fuels;
• A robust federal commitment to conservation and energy efficiency.

Speaking about the plan on Monday, Coleman said, “Nothing is more urgent, or of greater significance to the American people, than solving our energy crisis. The good news is this bipartisan group truly understands that folks around this country are suffering under high gas prices and are bringing forth real, common-sense solutions.”

Read more of this story »

On August 22, 2008, the company announced that it had signed a contract for engineering, procurement, project and construction management (EPCM) services to build a 165 MWe commercial scale, emission free, demonstration plant near Cape Town, South Africa. The approximate value of the contract is a quarter of a billion US dollars.

Read more of this story »

McCain told The Pueblo Chieftan last week that he wants to renegotiate the 1922 Colorado River compact to re-appropriate water from the upper basin states, like Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, where the river originates and give it to lower basin states like California, and his home state of Arizona. McCain said:

“I don’t think there’s any doubt the major, major issue is water and can be as important as oil. So the compact that is in effect, obviously, needs to be renegotiated over time amongst the interested parties. I think that there’s a movement amongst the governors to try, if not, quote, renegotiate, certainly adjust to the new realities of high growth, of greater demands on a scarcer resource.”

“Over my cold, dead, political carcass,” said Bob Schaffer, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. “The compact is the only protection Colorado has from several more politically powerful downstream states. Opening it for renegotiation would be the equivalent of a lamb discussing with a pack of wolves what should be on the dinner menu.”

Read more of this story »

That old wilderness magic was in the air in Seattle a few nights ago.

Republicans and Democrats, business leaders and environmentalists, hunters and vegetarians gathered at an outdoor retailer to celebrate the Wild Sky Wilderness in the north Cascades. Earlier this year, legislation designating the 106,000-acre Wild Sky was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president.

Just as the authors of the Wilderness Act intended, protecting the Wild Sky Wilderness was a great American cause beyond the dividing lines that crisscross American society.

Read more of this story »

“Go on and write me up for 125
Post my face, wanted dead or alive
Take my license and all that jive
I can’t drive … 55!”
-From “I Can’t Drive 55,” Sammy Hagar, 1984

From its birth during the grim days of mood rings and the OPEC oil embargo, the 55-mph national speed limit experienced an unhappy existence - reviled by drivers and ignored more often than obeyed.

Fighting 55 was an easy sell for state politicians, especially Western governors presiding over rural states where long drives through empty country are part of everyday life. In 1987, when Congress allowed states to raise the limit on rural interstate highways to 65 mph, several did. In front of motorists egging him on, Nevada’s then-Governor Richard Bryan personally switched out the hated double nickel on an I-80 speed limit sign outside Reno. Bryan, a Democrat, topped off the photo op with imprecations against what he called East Coast speed limits. And a good time was had by all.

Eight years later, the national speed limit was euthanized by the 104th Congress and 55 vanished from the nation’s consciousness. Twenty somethings who hear Hagar’s song on the radio today may be excused for wondering what the old rocker was screaming about.

But maybe not anymore. With high gasoline prices, the old idea has been dusted off.

Read more of this story »

Energy companies have become flush with cash following high margins from record oil prices and a government sponsored carbon permit give-away used to justify a consumer price hike.

• >>More on Energy from Red Green and Blue

Despite campaigners and Labour politicians describing recent profits as “grotesque” and “indecent”, and calling for additional taxes on recent gains to subsidize increasing household energy costs, there are several reasons why energy windfall taxes are fundamentally wrong, with the potential to worsen, and not improve the current energy crisis:

Read more of this story »

I used quotes and capital letters to emphasize a point - I recognize that there are individual people concerned about the environment who have a more open mind and are willing to accept the notion that nuclear power has a place at the table in any discussion about our reduced carbon energy future. The officially recognized groups and spokesmen for The Movement seem unimpressed and continue to firmly oppose nuclear development. The remaining arguments end up being cost, waste and nuclear weapons.

Cost is an issue for another day, but the arguments against nuclear power on the matter of waste and relationship to nuclear weapons rest on shaky ground that is beginning to give way. More and more people, including some in responsible leadership positions, are beginning to realize that the tired arguments originated in the 1970s no longer apply. They actually never did.

There are about 55,000 tons of used nuclear fuel resting quietly in cooling pools and dry storage containers on the sites where the fuel was initially used. That may sound like a large amount, but compared to the fact that a single 1000 MWe coal fired power plant can release 45,000 tons of waste to the atmosphere every single day, 55,000 tons of used material after 50 years of nuclear plant operation seems vanishingly small.

You may have noticed that I have carefully avoided calling that slightly used material “waste”. Unlike the gases, ash and soot released to our common atmosphere from coal, oil, gas and biomass fired power plants, the materials left over from nuclear fission reactors are sealed in corrosion resistant cladding and look a lot like they did when they first entered the reactor. Inside those tubes, the material is still mostly solid uranium dioxide - only about 4-5% of the initial material has been converted into other elements.

Essentially all of the remainders from nuclear plant operation could be recovered and reused; some of it would best be used as feedstock for future reactors, other parts should be segregated and used in other material applications for long life batteries, catalysts, and irradiation source materials.

Both of the remaining US presidential candidates seem to be open to the idea that used fuel should be recycled and reused. That is a welcome position since it looks like there will be a number of new reactors under construction soon and they will provide a ready market for the recycled fuel. There will need to be a bipartisan effort to establish rules that do not change with political winds, however, before private industry will invest in the system.

ALL of the used fuel has been carefully stored away in a form that is easy to control and easy to keep segregated. It does not take up much space, does not cost much to watch (compared to the heat value that it provided), and it has never hurt anyone because the people that watch it understand the simple concepts of time, distance and shielding.

As a life time procrastinator, I am actually encouraged by the fact that while we continue to debate and pontificate about the pros and cons of long term disposal, the natural process of radioactive decay continues to make the fuel easier and easier to handle. That process can reduce the cost of recycling, when we finally get around to it.

Perhaps those of us who are advocates of the increased use of nuclear energy as a clean, emissions free source of reliable, low cost power should thank the people who have prevented the used fuel from being too hastily moved or recycled.

Not only do we have a growing volume of seasoned raw materials, but when we finally do get around to building facilities, we can do so using up to date methods and the lessons learned from the first generation facilities in other countries. The democratic process really does favor the patient.

Related posts

US Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy
Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change
75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030
What Do You Do About the Waste? Recycle and Reuse.

With the government taking most of the blame (38% of those polled placed the blame on Whitehall), it seems that few people acknowledge the fact that increasing consumption of a finite resource sold on a volatile world market is the real reason for high prices at the pump.

Of course, taxation makes up a significant percentage of the retail price of fuel, which is something that governments do have influence over. To this effect, Conservative party leader David Cameron has proposed a sliding scale for value added fuel tax which decreases as crude oil prices increase, shielding the consumer from global oil market shocks.

However, taxation is ultimately irrelevant to the long term future of oil prices, as prices will inevitably rise as demand in an increasingly affluent world continues to outstrip increase in supply. It is in this respect that Western governments need to face up to the necessity of implementing long term policies to reduce and eventually eliminate the world economy’s dependence on oil.

Solutions for the future?

Reducing, or indeed increasing fuel taxes won’t achieve this, and neither will drilling for more oil or encouraging people to dive fewer miles in more efficient cars.

The only real solution is the development of technology that can offer similar practicality to fossil fuels and provide this to billions of consumers at a low price (in many places a pint of oil still costs less than a pint of beer), and this technology will only be developed and become viable as oil prices increase, letting the market do its work by reducing the comparable cost and risk of new investments.

Perhaps, therefore, the best thing that governments can do in this case is to leave the issue alone – governments have a poor track record in successful market intervention, with many current drilling and tax reduction proposals likely to only prolong the pain and increase damage to the environment.

The British are right to blame their government, although maybe we should blame them for doing too much, rather than too little?

Other posts about oil prices:

• “McCain Credits Bush for Drop in Crude Oil Prices, White House Basically Replies: ‘Wasn’t us.’
• “Bush Administration Proposes ‘Fire Sale’ of Rocky Mtns. For Oil Shale Development”
• “New McCain TV Ad Blames Obama for High Gas Prices”

Photo Credit: j-cournelius via flickr Under a Creative Commons License

With the postponement of the 2 pence per liter fuel duty rise, fuel duty in the UK today is 17% lower in real terms than it was under the previous conservative government, who made a series of above inflation increases as part of a policy to reduce congestion, pollution and green house gas emissions. Recent crude oil prices have offset the need for tax rises to achieve these goals.

Read more of this story »