Green Options » debate

Editor’s Note: CleanTechnica Offers to Host Meg Whitman / Gavin Newsom Debate

Clayton B. Cornell — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:54:39 +0000

In response to the contention caused by Meg Whitman’s OP-Ed on rescinding AB32 climate-change legislation, and the pointed response by Mayor Gavin Newsom, CleanTechnica.com is formally offering to host a discussion between the two gubernatorial candidates.

Read more of this story »

Billionaires for Wealth Care Proclaim: Let Them Eat Advil!

Rhonda Winter — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:48:50 +0000

Billionaires for Wealth Care have created this rousing anthem to satirically support our nation’s for-profit health care industries. The group was counter-protesting at last week’s teabagger anti-health care reform 9/12 rally in Washington D.C. (which was funded by major health insurance corporations). The Billionaires were dressed in top hats, tuxedos and evening gowns, and carried placards like: “Fight Socialism—End Medicare Now!” and “Let Them Eat Advil!”.

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

According to the Billionaires’ website they are:

A grassroots network of health insurance CEOs, HMO lobbyists, talk-show hosts, and others profiting off of our broken health care system. We are not a political, religious or even particularly well-organized group. We’re simple folk, thrilled profiteers pouring out of our corner offices to dance on the grave of “Change.” We’ll do whatever it takes to ensure another decade where your pain is our gain. After all, when it comes to health care, if we ain’t broke, why fix it?

Read more of this story »

Senate Climate Debate: Six to Watch on the Climb to Sixty

Joe Walsh — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:42:48 +0000

Back in late spring, critics on the left attacked the Waxman-Markey bill for compromising on carbon credits even as the right slapped on the “energy tax” label, and - at least if early September is any indication - that label has stuck.

It is not clear that President Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid (pictured left with New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman - another key climate voice) can win a simple majority for carbon-capping climate change legislation this year, with industrial state Dems already defecting, but the lift for Reid and his whips will be even tougher: they cannot overcome a GOP filibuster without a 60 vote super-majority.

If those Senators in favor of climate legislation get the 60 votes they need to block a filibuster and pass a climate bill, they likely can’t do it without a little help from these six. These are the six Senators that lobbyists will be courting, the White House will be pressing, and you should be watching in the coming days and weeks as the Senate addresses climate change.

Read more of this story »

Bjorn Lomborg on Who the Environmentalists Forgot

Simran Sethi — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:09:29 +0000

When the headlines told us that the global warming debate was over, it seemed like we environmentalists could breathe a collective sigh of relief. The United States elected a cap-and-trade-sympathetic administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency says it is going to exert some of the “P” in its acronym after it formally labeled carbon dioxide a pollutant last month. So now that the debate is over, has the discussion ended?

Much of what I assumed to be climate consensus has been turned on its head since I moved to the Midwest from New York. Meaning, there a lot of people here in the Middle who care about environmental issues but are not convinced climate change is related to human activities and/or is as dire as predicted. I believe it is. . .and I also believe that in order to get buy-in from such diverse constituents, it’s imperative that we engage in dialog with those who hold differing opinions.

Read more of this story »

A Funny, Humanizing Global Warming Quote from Barack Obama

Levi Novey — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:33:00 +0000

Newsweek has released a new, intriguing article in their “Secrets of the 2008 Campaign” series.

Among the juicy tidbits is a pre-debate quote from Barack Obama about the challenge of solving environmental problems.

The package of secret tales includes stories about how both campaigns had their computer systems hacked, how Sarah Palin walked into a briefing in only a towel, and also has some worrisome anecdotes about increased threats of violence against the Obama family.

It would be folly to try to explain the context of the quote about going green from Obama myself, so here is the Newsweek segment verbatim:

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, “I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”

To read Newsweek’s article that is full of great conversation fodder, click here.

Photo Credit: Obama Biden Campaign Website

3 Reasons Why McCain’s Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence is Completely Bogus

Clayton B. Cornell — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:46:35 +0000

Who Is Joe the Plumber?

If you watched last night’s debate, you heard the question: What will you do in your first term to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Did either candidate actually answer the question? Not really. But here’s why McCain’s answer of offshore-drilling-nuclear-power-wind-solar-geothermal-natural-gas is completely bogus:

1. Offshore drilling won’t do anything for 10 years. And then it still won’t do anything.

Even the Department of Energy says oil from those areas won’t arrive anytime soon. It projected last year that with the ban in place until 2012, new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in 2030, and the impact on oil prices would be “insignificant.”

Despite McCain’s adamant endorsement of offshore drilling as a solution, no new oil would be produced from new wells anytime soon. Even if we started drilling tomorrow, it would have zero effect on gas prices for the next 10 years, and then after that still probably wouldn’t affect them.

The proposal that offshore drilling is somehow a solution to foreign oil dependence is such crap, I’m almost convinced we should start drilling everywhere so we can prove definitively how little difference it’s going to make. Hell, let’s drill in ANWR too while we’re at it and maybe we can drop the price of a barrel of oil a few cents by 2025.

At least then we can prove how stupid even the Department of Energy thinks this entire proposition is:

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Win/Lose?: LOSE

2. Nuclear power will not do anything to solve our dependence on foreign oil.

The first new nuclear power plant would not be finished until well after John McCain’s (God forbid) second term as president. Even if we started building new nukes tomorrow, the only way they could replace the 12,036,000 barrels/day of petroleum we import (NET) would be to turn it into electricity or hydrogen. Even if you think this is a good idea, you’d have to believe in black magic to think this in some way is going to power the millions upon millions of gasoline and diesel-powered trucks already on the road.

Win/Lose?: LOSE

3. Wind, Solar, and Geothermal Power will not do anything in the short term to solve our dependence on foreign oil. Natural Gas won’t either.

I don’t think electricity sources like wind/solar/geothermal not replacing liquid fuels needs no more explanation. I’ve written about natural gas and natural gas vehicles before:

Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing natural gas from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia*

* If you have government/university data that contradicts it, please comment.

Even if natural gas vehicles are a good idea, they still aren’t going to replace all the cars and trucks already on the road.

Win/Lose?: LOSE

To sum this up: McCain’s plan as he stated it in the debates would do absolutely nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or reduce gas prices at the pump. Sorry Joe.

The alternative: How do we really cut petroleum usage?

The only actual mention of options that have the near-term potential to reduce our dependence on any oil source came from Obama. The two things he mentioned beyond pandering to the drill-baby-drill crowd were a) biodiesel and b) rebuilding our auto industry to start building fuel efficient cars.

Let’s look at each of these:

1. Biodiesel

I’ve written extensively about biodiesel before. Optimistically, biodiesel can in fact replace a small percentage of our total petroleum usage. Unfortunately, how it’s grown and produced is key to how beneficial it is. What really needs to be incented are the advanced feedstock technologies that increase productivity and aren’t made from food crops, like biodiesel made from algae and other alternative feedstocks.

Win/Lose: Depends on how it’s implemented.

2. Fuel efficient cars

Boosting production of fuel efficient cars in a way that would create millions of new jobs and pump money into the US economy is a great idea. While this may not be something that has an immediate effect, it could be accomplished faster than any kind of transition to other fuels. Obama wants to provide $7,000 tax credits for advanced fuel and efficient vehicles and put 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.

Win/Lose: WIN

What Both Candidates Missed Completely

If you want to pump money into the short term solutions for reducing our consumption of petroleum, there are only a few ways to do it:

Ultimately, We only have 3 options for reducing our dependence on foreign oil:

1. Reduce consumption.
2. Provide a direct replacement.
3. Develop technology that doesn’t need oil.

If we work hard, we might be able to cut 1/3 of our consumption with each.

Obama has already pledged to work towards these, but I don’t understand why he didn’t take the opportunity to seal the deal in these debates: tell the American people that we have already developed the technology to produce a $2 per gallon gasoline-replacement, we can grow it from sources that don’t affect food prices, and the money created goes back into the American economy.

It’s called cellulosic ethanol - WAIT! - the type not made from corn! The type that has about 15 potential technologies to produce it that are almost ready for primetime. The type that has the potential to replace 30% of our total petroleum usage! The type that could actually sequester carbon, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95%! The type that Obama has already pledged to support:

Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.

2 billion gallons isn’t going to solve our oil addiction, but it’s a hell of a good start, and it’s really the only option for a directly replacing oil that we’ve got. Combined with drastically cutting consumption and rapidly implementing new technologies like plug-in hybrids, it’s our best bet to actually change the game now.

Win/Lose: WIN

>> More on Obama’s Energy Plan: Obama Campaign Seeks to Make Oil Prices Irrelevant

But don’t take it from us:

Another Inconvenient Truth: Are We Too Divided to Close the Ideological Gap?

Adam Williams — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:28:16 +0000

Some days my hope wavers that this polarized American society can get anywhere meaningful. The communication gap is so wide and prickly. That goes for environmental issues, political ones, cultural ones and any other kinds of ones. Sometimes it just seems hopeless to me. Or at least very fatiguing.

Consider my most recent sustainablog post — NASA Maps Global CO2 Patterns; Produces More Science for Nonbelievers to Dispute.

I showed some exasperation in that post, too. I wondered how science, a system based on factual discovery as means of proving (or disproving) a hypothesis, is so controversial as it relates to environmental matters. I wondered — and continue to wonder — how two people can look at facts of science and pick and choose what to believe and then vehemently disagree with each other.

Read more of this story »

Grading the Campaign: With Four Weeks To Go, Where Does the Presidential Race Stand?

Amiel Blajchman — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:56:02 +0000

With only four weeks to go until Election Day (November 4th if you’ve been living under a rock), now seems like an excellent time to check in and see how the candidates are faring. They’ve each had two debates, myriad media interviews, and their vice-presidential candidates have squared off. The American public has gotten a chance to get to know Obama and McCain throughout their nomination campaign, and this fall’s presidential race.

After the break, we’ll review the debates, their performances, and take a look to see how the candidates are faring.

Read more of this story »

Obama Must Be Listening To Van Jones, McCain Not So Much

Taylor Shelton — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:10:17 +0000

Although the cringing from last night’s uninspiring debate is over for the time being, today provides an excellent opportunity to look back at what was the first head-on collision between the two major party presidential candidates and the dual threat posed by global warming and our current economic crisis. This collision was the making of Ingrid Jackson, a student and social services worker from Nashville. In Tuesday’s town hall debate, Jackson asked:

“Sen. McCain…we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do in the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues like climate change and green jobs.”
Read more of this story »

Presidential Debate: John McCain vs. Barack Obama - Who Won? [Poll]

Jerry James Stone — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:27:47 +0000

[Editor's Note: On the heels of our first RG&B debate poll conducted to gauge public opinion on the first and only vice-presidential debate, we've decided to follow up with a poll for the top of the ticket.]

John McCain and Barack Obama squared off in the second of three Presidential Debates this election season. Tell us who won and why?

Click Here to Answer the RG&B Poll Question: Who Won Tuesday Night’s Presidential Debate?

Clean Words = Clean Policies? Politicians Seem to Think So

Amanda Peterka — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:40:48 +0000

Let’s say you’re a politician, and you have a policy you want to push to the public. How do you get the backing?

You turn to semantics.

Do you call it a bailout or a rescue plan? Invasion of privacy or the Patriot Act? A War on Terror or an invasion of a country that doesn’t possess WMD? Do you say we’re looking for oil independence or to drill in ANWR? Do you call it global warming, admitting that the earth is indeed warming, or do you call it climate change?

Read more of this story »

Happy Sarah Palin Debate Day!!! (VIDEO)

Jerry James Stone — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:51:20 +0000

Thank you Talking Points Memo! Ben Craw handed us this piece of Sarah Palin perfection. Enjoy!

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

Video source: Ben Craw at TPM

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Election Debate, or American Vice-Presidential Debate?

Amiel Blajchman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:13:42 +0000

Canadian political junkies are all busy programming their VCRs, Tivos, or getting all set up to Bittorrent tonight. Thanks to the vagaries of the Parliamentary process, there is a Canadian election called for October 14th. And, similar to the Presidential debates that have been, and will be happening, the leaders of Canada’s five major parties:

are participating in back to back French and English language debates (you can read coverage of the debates here). For those readers who are wondering, Canada is officially bilingual, and therefore the major party leaders have a debate in each official language prior to the election.

Read more of this story »

Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden - Who Won? [poll]

Jerry James Stone — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:35:42 +0000

Sen. Joe Biden from Delaware and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska square off in the Vice Presidential Debate, 9:00 p.m. Eastern. Join us after the debate to tell us who won and why?

Click Here to Answer the RG&B Poll Question: Who Won Thursday’s Vice-Presidential Debate?

Image source: Biden and Palin via Wikipedia

Energy Might Be the Explosive Topic of the Biden-Palin Debate

Levi Novey — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:18:41 +0000

With the economy tanking, several wars being fought abroad, climate change producing devastating hurricanes, and strengthened calls for a sustainable economy, energy has become one of the strong links that binds all of these issues. In anticipation of tomorrow night’s vice-presidential debate, it’s probably a safe bet to put your money on energy as one of the topics that’s likely to fire up the discussion.

Here’s why:

Read more of this story »

America’s Environmental Policy: Tactic or Strategy?

Maggie Milstein — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:45:16 +0000

McCain mentioned last night that Obama “didn’t know the difference between a ‘tactic’ and a ‘strategy.’” I felt a little stupid because I didn’t know myself—McCain seemed to be in a wordplay league of his own. So I looked them up and tried to find the common—yet mysterious—denominator between the definitions.

A tactic is “a device for accomplishing and end” while a strategy is “a careful plan or method to accomplish an end.” So how do they differ? I would say that strategy is syntax, meaning that it’s a network of tactics that build on each other to reach a goal.

Quite simply: A tactic goes from point A to point B while a strategy runs the alphabetical gamut. A tactic is more direct, while a strategy takes extenuating circumstances into account and maneuvers around them. So, when it comes to environment policy, which candidate uses “tactics” and which uses “strategy?”

McCain wants to use an “A to B” tactic called a “cap and trade” system. The government will issue permits to industries according to their emissions ratings. For instance, a tire-making company is issued a permit with an emissions evaluation of 90. They invest in “greener machinery,” or begin to rely more on recycled materials to make their products. The government will lower their emissions permit to 70, the company can sell the margin (or an emissions evaluation of 20) to entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and other organizations that want to buy them. Economic incentives will drive companies to lower their emissions standards in favor of a greater profit margin.

Obama uses strategy to empower American workers through job opportunities. Much like Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, Obama’s environmental program will try to create 5 million “green collar” jobs through government intervention. Although this approach may not be as direct as John McCain’s, it takes into account an immediate need for jobs. Basically, Obama’s plan favors the creation of new green industries and distribution of green products and services, while McCain aims to make existing industries environmentally friendly. Of course there will be some overlap, yet these are the basic ideas that each candidate carries.

So now you know the difference between “tactic” and “strategy.” Choose whichever you feel is necessary—just don’t be confused.

Tech Today or Tech Tomorrow? Energy Debate 2

Michelle Bennett — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:30:22 +0000

This is Part Two on a debate by The Economist. The official debate concluded earlier this week, but you can still vote and leave comments or critique. The question was:

“Can we solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations?”

Though we often envision debates as pitting two opponents against each other, hopefully in an intense battle of wit and wordsmithing, this one was not so. Both sides found themselves agreeing with each other more often than not, and parried with points on implementation.

Read more of this story »

Tech Today or Tech Tomorrow? Energy Debate 1

Michelle Bennett — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:30:36 +0000

The “Economist” debate involves journalists, industry gurus, investors, bureaucrats, and of course economists who have all long been involved in renewable energy. The question:

“Can we solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations?”

This is the defining question of our time.

New innovations, improvements, or breakthroughs are happening all the time in clean tech, especially among renewable energy technologies. Yet technological limitations still plague the various industries. These hurdles include energy storage, energy efficiency, transmission infrastructure and technology, hydrogen power, CO2 capture and sequestration, and producing bio-fuels at an industrial scale. Economics is also a potent issue that both hampers and launches these technologies, hence the host of this debate.

Read more of this story »

Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability: Justin Van Kleeck and Caroline Savery. 6-Caroline

Caroline Savery — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:51:40 +0000

Dear Justin… and Dear all!

Special thanks to Jeff Strasburg for helping us indulge our imaginations in this series! I’d also like to extend my gratitude to Justin for engaging me in this form. It has been edifying to explore concepts about sustainability. I hope that the readers of this “debate” have enjoyed the process as well, and I know I speak for Justin when I say: we welcome all comments! This a dialog, a free exchange of ideas, so tell us yours and help to fuel the mutual inspiration.

(Author’s Note: I include the image above not only because, figuratively speaking, the “sun is setting” on our Sustainability dialog, but also because I will be travelling westward-ho! throughout the United States until the beginning of September. My objective is to get some relief from my high-technology-based lifestyle right now, so the vacation will heavily consist of camping in national parks. Therefore, I will blog if I am able to during this time, but if not… be prepared for both the Sust Enable episode debuts AND a bona fide blogging bonanza upon my return in early September.)

Without further ado,

Here are my final thoughts, in conclusion.

1) If you can learn to modify your life to be as close to environmental sustainability as possible, it is necessary that you proceed to do so. The human will is one of the most powerful–and dangerous–elements on the planet. At first glance, it might feel like “too much” to give up using a flush toilet (just for an example). But is it really? Think about the idea. Get familiar with it. Picture what it would look like to use a composting toilet in your home. Maybe start with a little one, to be used only sometimes. Soon, the consequences may not seem all that daunting. There is always a choice.

Don’t let your true identity and dreams for what the world could be become casualties of conforming. You only have one life, so use it, in the most effective ways visible. If many individuals decided that, deep in their hearts, ecocide felt wrong to them, that many persons when taken together comprise a mutiny against old, obsolete customs and beliefs. Your little action today plays a role in a social revolution, of the “green” kind.

Read more of this story »

Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability: Justin Van Kleeck and Caroline Savery. 2-Caroline

Caroline Savery — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:30:55 +0000

Hi Justin,

I deeply appreciate your thoughts and your comments from “Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability - #1″. I can tell that this is something you’ve been chewing on! Me too.

I believe that changing a million lightbulbs to CFLs is absolutely NOT sustainable, because CFLs are currently (and probably will never be) manufactured sustainably, and so that option is simply unacceptable in terms of one-Earth sustainability. It may be more “green,” but it’s only an excuse to continue exploiting the Earth and its priceless natural arrangement. Besides, what are the benefits of using more electricity versus not putting more and more mercury into our landfills and environments due to CFLs? I’d like to see those numbers, too.

I think I seem radical (and truly, some of what I’ve tried has been too intense for me to even handle) because I demand sustainability NOW, and reinforce that sustainability can be possible NOW. You are correct in saying that, in terms of basic “impact,” 10 people living off the grid makes less of a global difference than 1,000 people changing lightbulbs. But will using “green” lightbulbs–or any kind of lightbulbs at all!–ever be one-Earth sustainable?

For more on this same kind of lens/perspective, check out Derrick Jensen. He argues that, for instance, using less gasoline doesn’t mean all the gasoline won’t get used up. We are simply attempting feel-good tactics to remove ourselves from the guilt that comes with this awareness: that we are utterly dooming ourselves and all of life on Earth by our worldwide actions.

So what’s the trade-off there: a life that’s slightly more inconvenient (but possibly more satisfying) that allows for life on Earth and a thriving ecosystem… or one single lifetime that is convenient, comfy and luxurious, at the expense of hundreds of lifetimes to come?

Read more of this story »