According to a recent CNN Opinion Poll, 74% of Americans are in favor of offshore drilling. While still split 49% to 44% on prioritizing the environment and the economy. In The Swamp, a Chicago Tribune Weblog, Matthew Hay Brown reports this survey is the latest one showing rising support for drilling, from consumers who are tired of rising gas prices.
The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted from June 26th - 29th and included more than 1,000 Americans.
U.S. Senator Bernie Saunders (I-VT) has introduced a Bill to the Senate that would help homeowners to slash the cost of installing solar panels. The 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2008 will offer rebates for up to half the cost of installing solar photovoltaic systems, and run for ten years. A wide range of people and organizations, including homeowners, businesses, non-profit organizations, state and local governments will be eligible to apply.
The Bill will be formally introduced when the Senate [...]
U.S. Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced landmark legislation [PDF] on Thursday that will provide security for investments in the renewable-energy sector by guaranteeing rates for renewable-energy generation. This policy mechanism, also known as a national feed-in tariff, may be the single most effective tool to expand renewable energy development that we know of. Feed-in tariffs have been introduced in several U.S. states, but none have the bills have been passed into law.
The International Energy Agency, the European Commission and the United Kingdom’s Stern Review have determined that feed-in tariff policies in Germany, Spain, France and other European Union countries have achieved larger renewable energy deployment at lower costs, compared with policies in other European Union countries.
The legislation has two principle titles. The first would streamline interconnection standards and the patchwork of policies currently governing interconnection. The second title addresses the actual process of setting of renewable energy tariffs, and what would qualify. This bill would not only apply to the mom and pop backyard wind turbines, and rooftop solar - the tariff extends to projects as large as 20 megawatts!
For the second time this week, the Senate has voted to block progress on a bill designed to extend Renewable Energy Tax Credits. Although the Bill, that enjoys broad cross-party support, gained a majority of 52-44, Republican opposition meant that it fell just short of the 60 votes needed to proceed.
News that progress on the $17.7 billion package of tax breaks could now be delayed until after the presidential elections in November has been greeted with dismay by the renewables industry. Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association warned that if the tax credits were allowed to expire at the end of this year it will “result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar.”
I was appalled and shocked to read that President Bush is proposing to take $70 million from the $180 million salmon disaster relief funds included in the farm bill to pay for the census. My family is supported by commercial fishing, and following a poor dungeness crab season, fisherman along the West Coast are really hurting financially. Many captains can’t afford to make their boat payments, let alone their mortgages and skyrocketing fuel prices. Taking money from salmon fisherman equates to taking money from food stamps programs to fund the census. People’s livelihoods are at stake, and West Coast representatives and governors are reeling at Bush’s suggestion.
Why do we need more money for the census? The money is needed because of a failed contract with the Harris Corporation for the 2010 counts. The Census Bureau had planned to use handheld computers, but the Florida-based contractor went over budget. Now, we have to return to a paper-based census, which will cost taxpayers more money. Instead of trying to take money from fisherman to pay for a failed contract, shouldn’t we reevaluate the census itself? Is it really necessary to complete this population count every ten years? Could we modify the count to every 15 or 20 years?
West Coast governors and congress men/women are upset at Bush’s proposal. In an angry letter to the president, Democrats Mike Thompson, Peter DeFazio, Darlene Hooley, Anna Eshoo, Jim McDermott, Brian Baird, Doris Matsui, Lois Capps, Lynn Woolsey, Earl Blumenauer, David Wu, Rick Larson, Sam Farr and Jay Inslee wrote:
This proposal is especially egregious when you consider that your administration’s water policies on all of the Pacific Northwest’s major salmon rivers are the reason this disaster funding is needed in the first place. These failed policies have resulted in over 80,000 dead adult salmon in the Klamath River, record low returns to the Sacramento and Columbia/Snake River systems, two fishery disaster declarations issued by the Secretary of Commerce and two years of fishing closures impacting thousands of families and small business.
Editor’s Note: This is a follow up post to Obama’s Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence.
Regardless of who is elected next November, both candidates agree that climate change is a fact and not a theory. “I know that climate change is real,” said John McCain. “We can have a debate about how serious it is, but the debate about climate change is over.”
McCain and Obama however vary widely in their response to this issue, leaving the American people with a choice of approaches when choosing the next president. McCain’s primary weapons in this battle includes implementing a cap and trade system for emissions and utilizing greater amounts of nuclear power.
“Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they’ve had problems but it is still the right thing to do,” said John McCain. “It is what we did in relation to acid rain.”
One of the reasons McCain supports this approach is because it encourages the market to respond with the lowest cost approach. He believes the market will correct itself with the use of cleaner technologies without the need for intervention, such as a tax credit or major investment from the government.
With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, Senate Democrats wanted the U.S. government to throttle back on the billions of dollars in profits being taken in by the major oil companies. But with the White House threatening a veto of the bill, the Senate voted 51-43 to close debate, well shy of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.
The proposed windfall profits tax would have been somewhere between 10 and 12 billion dollars for this year, and it would have been levied against the country’s five largest oil companies. The legislation would have also rescinded $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade.
“The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy,” said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, warning that if oil prices are not reined in, “we’re going to find ourselves in a deep recession.”
[UPDATE 1: The Consumer First Energy Act which would impose a 'windfall profits tax' on big oil companies, and the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act both failed to move on. The second of those two contained a one year extension of the Production Tax Credit. The votes were largely along party lines. Kate Shepard at Grist provides a good review of the two bills in this report.]
The PTC has been the single biggest policy driver of renewable energy development in the U.S., and the short one and two year extensions (as well as the absence of those extensions) have produced a ‘feast-or-famine‘ cycle of renewable energy growth in the United States, where all new development is virtually frozen in place, awaiting a tax incentive. As it currently stands, the PTC will expire at the end of 2008.
According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), studies show that 116,000 jobs and more than $19 billion in clean energy investment are at risk from a failure to extend the PTC and other renewable energy tax credits.
Thus far, the biggest hangup for extending the renewable energy tax credits has been the question of funding. Ironically, the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility in Congress, and do not want to pass the bill without a way to pay for it.
Last week at WINDPOWER 2008, I had the opportunity to sit down with Greg Wetstone, Senior Director of Government and Public Affairs for AWEA, and Tom Gray, the Deputy Executive Director. The pair told me that the tax credit issue was really one of fiscal ideology. And that unfortunately, many in Congress had been using the renewable energy tax credits as a “political football.”
Thus far, the Democrats have dominated the media’s attentions as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battle it for the nomination. True, it is hard to ignore innuendos about RFK’s assassination; however, it is time we start paying attention to the Republican nominee John McCain. Personally, I can’t imagine he will be elected, but I have been wrong before with my election predictions, and it is important to know where he stands on climate change.
Two weeks ago while campaigning in Oregon, McCain stood amongst wind turbines to talk climate change:
Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.
I agree with McCain on many levels, but what exactly are his climate change strategies beyond political rhetoric? According to Plenty Magazine, “He proposes a cap-and-trade scheme that will limit greenhouse gas emissions to sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050;” however, scientists, Obama, and Clinton recommend 80 percent reductions. McCain does not favor allowing companies to buy extra carbon allowances, and he supports carbon offsetting. The problem with McCain’s ideas on climate change is he supports tax payer subsidies for nuclear power and has voted several times against a renewable energy standard.
Alaska Public Radio Network reports, at a recent press conference President Bush pushed for ANWR drilling as he “scolded” congress for preventing it thus far. Citing estimates from the Department of Energy, the President stated the possibility of ANWR producing 1 million barrels of oil per day translates to 27 million gallons of gas and diesel which would “likely” mean lower gas prices.
Following the press conference, APRN spoke with Senator Ted Stevens. Legislation sponsored by Senator Stevens and Senator Lisa Murkowski, both from Alaska, allows for drilling in a designated section of ANWR if the price of oil reaches $125 per barrel and stays at that price for five consecutive days. These two Senators are advocates of drilling ANWR to obtain our own oil in order to drastically reduce the amount of oil we import from the middle east. Based on the amount of oil currently purchased and used per day, they say the oil obtained from ANWR would reduce our price at the pump.
According to Senator Stevens’ web site he supports a balanced approach to the energy crisis which includes retrieving domestic oil, conservation, and alternative energy sources. I agree with Senator Stevens, we need a balanced approach. Is drilling ANWR the answer? In April it was reported that billions of barrels of oil are sitting under the Bakken Shale, and that area is already being drilled. Would it make more sense to continue and expand our efforts there?
Six Democratic Senators joined together on Wednesday to announce a comprehensive energy bill that would tax windfall profits and “force” investment in renewable energy.
Among other things, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 would roll back tax breaks for oil companies and invest the money in renewable energy development and energy efficiency technology. It also would create a windfall profit tax on oil companies failing to invest in increased capacity and renewable energy resources.
According to one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT):
“The bottom line is that at a time when this country faces a major crisis in terms of the price of oil, when many working families in our state and all over this country are hurting, I think we have brought forth a comprehensive piece of legislation, which begins to attack that problem with the result of lowering the price of oil.”
Subscribe to our RSS feed or newsletter
