Green Options » energy bill

Look into the Light: the CFL

Simran Sethi and Sarah Smarsh — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:30 +0000

If you ask Simran about compact florescent light bulbs, she may crack one open and cut you. Not really, that would scatter mercury, but she is loca for the light bulbs. Check Monday’s Huffington Post for the full version of this post.

People give you this whole rap about how easy saving the planet is. Change a light bulb and save the world. Yes and no. How about we consider it a start rather than an end destination?

Lighting accounts for about 20% of our electric bills. Traditional bulbs burn heat rather than light, so are extremely inefficient. Compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs) are 80% more efficient and can last up to 10 times longer than a traditional bulb. Last December, Congress voted to phase out the inefficient incandescent. By 2012, the 100-watt bulb will be history.

In the interim, environmentally-minded folks of all ilks are heralding the bulb. The virtual Stop Global Warming march reminds us swapping out three incandescent bulbs for CFLs will save us 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 a year. The Coalition On the Environment and Jewish Life suggests installing CFLs for Hanukkah as a way to redefine “energy-stretching light” and reflect environmental stewardship. Students in Pennsylvania sell light bulbs instead of candy to raise money for their schools. (Simran prefers candy.)

EPA Ordered to Release California Emissions Waiver Documents to Congress

Max Lindberg — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:42:24 +0000

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered to release all documents pertaining to Administrator Stephen Johnson’s controversial blocking of California’s waiver to control greenhouse gasses in that state.

The announcement came in an email released by Public Employees forEnvironmental Responsibility (PEER), saying Johnson has bowed to a Congressional request for the information, following the controversy sparked by his controversial decision.

PEER’s Executive Director Jeff Ruch is quoted as saying: “What made Johnson’s decision so striking is that for months he said he was basing it on the scientific and legal merits and then did the precise opposite. One employee told me ‘I am ashamed to admit that I work at EPA’ and another asked ‘What am I supposed to tell my children when they ask me what I am doing to fight global warming?’”

Johnson has said he will not attend a field hearing of Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA), Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on January 10th in Los Angeles. His appearance before Congress, however, promises to be contentious at best.

Opinion: We Have A New Energy Bill..Kinda

Max Lindberg — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:00:55 +0000

Well, our president raised his magical pen and signed the long-awaited, eagerly anticipated energy bill. Some people will call a leap forward and others will maintain it’s but a step. Congress will say it’s the result of compromise. I call it a sell-out to oil and industry.

OK, so we get to raise the federal standard automakers must meet to 35 mpg for passenger cars, SUVs and small trucks by the year 2020. Today’s standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and light trucks.

The bill increases ethanol production from the current 6 billion to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Detractors constantly denounce the use of food grains to make vehicular fuels, citing poor countries that depend on our surpluses, not to mention the poor starving people in the U.S. And they cite rising costs to the consumer, rich and poor alike, because of so much corn being diverted to the ethanol plant.

Farmers who raise corn are happy, the price is up to around $4 a bushel - not bad for a product that brought $2 in 2002. Livestock growers, on the other hand, see their feed costs rise just as our grocery bill is rising. In one of his more lucid moments, the president is quoted as saying, “We understand the hog growers are getting nervous. The price of corn is up.”

Yes sir, nothing like having the Chief of State up to snuff on the price of hog feed.

OK, so I’m not being nice. Make no mistake, I respect the Office of the President of the United States; however, I have little or no respect for the man sitting in it. He’s sold us out environmentally, and forced us into an illegal war. What’s to like?

Now he praises the signing of an energy bill that wouldn’t have gotten this far unless he had gotten his way. Let’s look at that. He threatened a veto unless a $21 billion tax increase for industry and the oil companies was eliminated. Congress did what politicians do, compromise in order to get half a loaf. An almost ironic, or sad note, Congress delivered the legislation to the White House in a gas-hybrid sedan. Not even a blend of ethanol? Tacky.

I’ve witnessed this kind of thing from Congress for decades, so that’s why you hear my sarcasm and rage over the bastardization of a system that was designed “for the people”.

Small Wind Remains in Farm Bill

Timothy B. Hurst — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:38:13 +0000

Renewable energy advocates are clearly disappointed with the recently passed version of the 2007 energy bill. Yes, there is an important increase in auto fuel efficiency, but considering that CAFE hasn’t been upped in nearly 30 years, I don’t think Congress should be patting themselves on the back too hard for that one. However, a little piece of renewable energy legislation may have sneaked into the farm bill without too many Republicans noticing, and it just might have a chance of getting passed into law.

The version of the farm bill passed by the Senate on Friday contains a small wind tax provision - the first in more than 20 years. The provision is a 30% investment tax credit (up to $4,000) for the installation of small wind systems. The credit is available for farmers, small businesses and homeowners for new wind systems up to 10 kw. This may be another piece of evidence of a farm bill in energy bill’s clothing.

The tax-credit has remained a part of the farm bill despite an attempt to scuttle it. Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and others defeated an amendment sponsored by Lamar Alexander (R-TN) that would have limited the small wind investment tax credit to farmers and small businesses, thus excluding owners of rural residential property and commercial property suitable for small wind from taking advantage of what has traditionally been viewed as a burden. It comes as no surprise to see Sen. Alexander championing the anti-wind cause once again. The Senator from Tennessee has been surprisingly outspoken about wind energy policy in the U.S., even going as far as suggesting that it ruins mountaintops (to say nothing of the practice of ‘mountaintop removal’ in TN and other coal-heavy states). It is also interesting to note that Alexander owns property on Nantucket Island in MA, not far at all from the proposed Cape Wind project and that he has been a vocal opponent and unlikely ally of Sen. Edward Kennedy. Coincidence?! I think not.

I suppose I shouldn’t be trumpeting this small victory too loudly, President Bush hasn’t signed the bill into law yet, so I suppose there is also a chance that the small tax credit will get axed from the bill just like all of the other renewable energy legislation.