Green Options » legislation

California Bill to Curb Urban Sprawl and Cut Carbon Emissions

Meg Hamill — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:32:09 +0000

[This is a guest post by Meg Hamill, who works at an environmental nonprofit called LandPaths, in partnership with the Sonoma County Open Space District of Sonoma County, California.]

Here’s a few sobering statistics: For the past twenty years, the number of miles driven in California has increased at a 50% faster rate than the rate of population growth. In the Bay Area alone, residents drive enough miles to get to the moon and back every day. Passenger vehicles are thought to be responsible for about 30% of all the state’s heat-trapping gasses.

>>More on California environmental policy at RG&B

Last Monday, the California State Assembly passed a bill, that if approved by the Senate, will become the nation’s most far-reaching attempt to curb urban and suburban sprawl. Interestingly enough, the main goal of the bill is to reduce the amount of time Californians spend commuting in their cars, and in turn reducing carbon emissions. The bill aims to accomplish this goal by promoting housing development near already existing industry and job sites. State Senator Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat sponsoring the bill, said that he expected the Senate to approve the measure soon, however Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has not made public whether or not he will offer his support.

Read more of this story »

Republicans Work to Reconcile their (Oil) Platform with McCain’s Climate Change Thingy

Timothy B. Hurst — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:40:17 +0000

While most of the big events at the Republican National Convention were shelved Monday in deference to hurricane Gustav, there was still plenty of work to be done putting the final touches on the party’s platform, which they did. While there were few bold new propositions in the platform, the Platform Committee did attempt to narrow some of the gaps between traditional Republican positions and some of John McCain’s positions. One of the most notable differences is McCain’s position on climate change viz. the Republican Party’s traditional position (McCain is in the minority amongst his peers in terms of even believing in anthropogenic causes of climate change). What struck me as I was reading through the platform (pdf), was when issues of climate change and renewable energy were approached, they were done so with great trepidation; you could almost hear the Platform Committee gritting their collective teeth as they formulated these paragraphs.

>>More convention coverage at RG&B>>

Read more of this story »

Open Thread: Blog Day 2008 - Your Favorite Environmental Politics Blogs

Timothy B. Hurst — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:43:52 +0000

Blog Day was created with the belief that bloggers should have one day dedicated to getting to know other bloggers from other countries and areas of interest. The idea is that on August 31 (today), participating blogs will “post a recommendation of 5 new blogs; preferably blogs that are different from their own culture, point of view and attitude.” I had completely forgotten about it until our friends at Max Gladwell reminded us.

In the spirit of collaborative politics, I’d like to make this a collaborative project. Here’s what I’m thinking; in stead of me popping off the five most important, most-visited, or my otherwise favorite environmental politics blogs (which I did an iteration of already), I’ll just start us off with a couple of good ones and why I like them. Then we want you to tell us what you all are reading and why you are reading them for your environmental politics fix.

The universe of environmental politics blogs is ever-expanding, so keeping track of all the growth can be a dizzying enterprise. This project is all about spreading the word about good blogs, and in particular, about blogs that might fly under the radar of the “mainstream” green blogs. Obscure, international, and highly specialized blogs are encouraged and welcomed. This can even be an exercise in self-promotion. If you think your blog is a valuable source of information or analysis on the major themes found in environmental politics. Alright, let’s have at it!

Open Thread: Environmental Politics Blogs:

Hill Heat: Edited and published by “The Cunctator,” located in Washington, D.C., Hill Heat provides informative commentary and analysis of covering global warming developments on Capitol Hill. What I find particularly helpful is the complete listing of global-warming related congressional hearings and other events in and around D.C.

DeSmogBlog: With a tag-line like, “We’re here to clear the PR pollution that clouds the science of climate change,” what’s not to love? DeSmogBlog is loaded with well-written, timely, and insightful content. I particularly enjoy how they focus on covering the coverage and watching the watchers.

The Sietch Blog: Although I don’t visit as often as I used to (the same can be said for virtually all of the blogs I visit), the Sietch Blog always has something good in store for its dedicated cadre of readers. The blog focus is not only on environmental politics, but on clean tech, renewable energy, and the larger “green” movement. On any given day, you can find some good writing mixed with a smattering of video content and even a little humor thrown in for good measure.

I could keep going, but now it’s your turn…

California Moving to Block Sprawl

Philip Proefrock — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:34:47 +0000

Sprawl is a constant issue at the outside periphery of every city in the country. Although matters have abated temporarily in the midst of the housing and mortgage crunch, new construction continues to decimate the countryside at further distances away from the city centers. However, the state of California is weighing a measure in the state legislature that might help curtail the growth of exurban sprawl developments.

The extension of suburbs further and further out from the core of businesses and services not only consumes acres of land, with its attendant loss of woods, fields, wetlands, farmland, and animal habitat, but it also requires miles of pavement, and the attendant infrastructure (sewers, phone and power lines, etc.) to support the new development. Residents of these displaced communities are forced to rely on cars for more and more of their access to various services and amenities, and very often travel greater distances to work as well as other destinations. This increases both the consumption of fuel resources and the pollution caused from the extra travel.

Read more of this story »

Wisconsin Looks to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Amiel Blajchman — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:15:20 +0000

Wisconsin’s Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming has recommended that the state achieve 2005 levels by 2014; reduce emissions by 22% from 2005 levels by 2022 (someone one day will have to explain to me the fascination with number alliteration); and finally, it calls for 75% reductions from 2005 levels by 2050.

The task force has also recommended a two-pronged approach, adopting state level support for either a federal or state-level cap and trade program, as well as a series of policy recommendations for several important state industry sectors:

Energy Sector
Transportation Sector
Agriculture and Forestry Sectors
Industry Sector
Waste Sector
Read more of this story »

Car-sharing Website under Threat from Bus Company

Amiel Blajchman — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:23:04 +0000

Canadian website PickupPal is a ride-sharing “service [that] is providing a venue for either passengers or packages to find or be matched to a driver—typically already traveling in a certain direction or destination.” PickupPal uses its own software to match travelers and drivers, and then it’s up to them to negotiate prices, since PickupPal makes its money through advertising on the website itself. A pretty innovative service that gives travelers a bit more flexibility when traveling between cities, especially ones that are perhaps a bit more underserved by the bus/train/plane. The good news/ bad news situation for PickupPal is that they’ve become successful enough that their competitors are trying to shut them down.

Read more of this story »

Don’t Be Fuelish: Offshore Drilling Will Only Leave Us Screwed

Jerry James Stone — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:57:15 +0000

Step right up and prepare to be amazed! Don’t be shy. Friends and children of all ages…behold the wonderment that is Offshore Drilling. A true modern miracle! Step up to the greatest show on earth!

Yes, it will dazzle you - no, it will bedazzle you - with its awesomeness! It’s fast acting, 3-times concentrated and cheaper than the leading brand. It reduces the price of gasoline to mere pennies, and it’s 100% effective in the fight against plaque and Global Warming. But that’s not all folks. No more starving babies in Africa - especially the cute ones. And it doesn’t stop there - it gives you longer and more satisfying sex, whether you’re having it with someone else or not. It’s that good!

SPOILER ALERT: No. It’s. Not.

Thar’s Black Gold in Them Thar Hills: Actually, not so much. When it comes to the production of crude oil, America does takes the bronze. But it’s a slighted accomplishment, considering that the top oil producers - both Russia and Saudi Arabia - out produce the U.S. by a factor of 2 to 1. In reality, the U.S. only contributes to about 10-percent of the world’s oil supply.

Confessions of a Consumer Whore: Though, we are the heavy weight champions when it comes to consumption. We use over 25-percent of the world’s oil, of which more than half of that is imported. That’s twenty-five freakin percent! Wow, we’re almost kinda special.

It’s the Economy, Stupid: We consume 20.7 million barrels of oil a day, but only 40-percent of that is home grown. Considering we only own 3-percent of the world’s oil reserves, offshore contributions would barely be significant. And even if they were, the price of oil is still set by a global market. Therefore no employee discount, we’re still stuck with high prices.

Danger, Will Robinson: Even if we could Dumbledore our way into having offshore crude oil today, it still doesn’t address our biggest fossil-fuel-foul, global warming. It just postpones it.

We are making progress. SUVs are going the way of the Dodo bird; alternative fuel vehicles are becoming more and more prevalent. Heck, even my mom uses reusable bags now. But here’s the half-empty: offshore drilling is not a solution, it’s not even a quick fix - it’s a mistake, plain and simple. The only thing it has to offer is false hope and more environmental damage.

Offshore Drilling Ban Opens Discussion for Other Domestic Oil Options
Poll: Americans Don’t Think More Drilling Will Lower Gas Prices
Offshore Drilling, Why It May Not Happen, Even if Approved by Congress

Image source: Tank Theory at zenviroments.com

Campaign Contributions Versus Lobbying: Big Oil Spends Big Money in Washington

Jennifer Lance — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:35:56 +0000

Big oil has been spending big money in Washington, but it may surprise you that gas and oil companies spend more money on corporate lobbying than individual campaign contributions. Why chose lobbying over campaign contributions? Lobbying is more effective at crushing energy bills, as we have seen this year. As Ralph Nader explains, “The corporate lobby in Washington is basically designed to stifle all legislative activity on behalf of consumers.” It’s no coincidence that recently the Senate blocked the extension renewable energy tax credits.

Thus far in 2008, oil and gas companies have spent $55,339,015 million on lobbying in an effort to convince lawmakers to vote in the industry’s favor and against renewables. Not surprisingly, the top spender is Exxon-Mobil. At the current rate of spending, the industry is set to break last year’s record of $83 million. Big Oil defends this increased spending in response to more energy bills being on the “menu” and denies it is responsible for the failure of these bills; however, lobbying dollars speak for themselves. According to CNN:

The oil industry may have not gotten its drilling wish list just yet, but so far they have been able to avoid higher taxes.

Meanwhile, the renewable energy folks haven’t seen a big increase in funding.

Looking at the dollars spent lobbying Congress, that may not be surprising. The renewable industry and their allies in the environmental movement have spent a combined $19 million lobbying Congress this year - half what the oil industry has spent.
Read more of this story »

The Proposed Neutering of Our Endangered Species Act

Jerry James Stone — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:33:03 +0000

On Monday, the Bush administration proposed a policy that threatens to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the point of extinction. This comes as no surprise. Like the war in Iraq, removing the fetters of environmental protection has been an administrational goal since 2001. Unlike the war in Iraq, this time Bush and his cronies could very well succeed.

Targeting the ESA’s consultation process, the policy changes boil down to this: only when a federal agency feels their intended actions could bring about harm must they consult an outside agency like the Fish and Wildlife Service. Currently, all of these decisions are subject to an independent scientific review.

If the ambiguity of that policy makes you uncomfortable then please raise your hand because it scares the crap out of me.

First off, our current administration has been, if anything, consistent in its attempt to sidestep environmental policy over the past seven years. Consider this, Bush’s administration has only added about 60 species to the endangered species list. That is about 10-percent of what was listed under the Clinton administration, and only about 3-percent of what the Reagan administration listed. Even George Bush’s dad added around 200 species to the list!

Wait, it gets better. This whole process is incredibly sneaky. These suggested changes are not even subject to Congressional approval. Outside of that, the Interior Department is only allowing comments on the proposal for 30 days, and in an attempt to reduce public outcry they are not accepting any comments via email - snail mail only!

If this sounds sketch, it should. With the proposed changes, for example, agencies won’t even be required to assess how their projects will contribute to global warming, or the effect of those emissions on species and habitat. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we won’t have many of those around if these changes are allowed.

Fact is, this proposal is obscene and another wicked example of the Bush administration circumventing the law. And don’t let them fool you…the consequences are grand, such that we ourselves might might make the endangered list.

Take Action:

Comment Online via the NRDC

Where Issues Intertwine: Why Animals Matter
Should All Arctic Species be Listed as Endangered?
Alaska Sues to End the Polar Bear

Image source: Voices at Flickr

The Environmental Impotence of the Religious Right

Jerry James Stone — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:19:55 +0000

And once again I find myself both amused and completely horror-struck by the evangelical cult that resides within the GOP. They’re consistently bested by their faith, and to the point of absurdity. This is especially true with regards to the climate crisis. And quite frankly, I blame Jesus.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s comments about House Speaker Pelosi brought the issue to the front of the line. In her current bout of political tourettes, she had this to say:

“[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s just trying to save the planet,” Bachmann told news site OneNewsNow. “We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Yes, folks…stop recycling, throwout your reusable bags and just let your cars run all day long. For Jesus, yes the one and only Jesus, has already fixed that whole global warming thingamabob.

Mind you, this lady is notorious for her hair-brained explanations. For example, did you know that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is now 100% wildlife free? Yep, same great taste but less filling. And this is why the Democrats favor high gas prices:

“They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That’s their vision for America.”

Yes, Al Gore, dressed a la Dr. Evil, is trying to scare us all in to using light rail. Oh the horror of it all! It’s just too convenient. I mean all of it, if the planet is all saved thanks to Super Jesus then why do I keep getting copies of the Watchtower? Just let the guy do his job, already - no one likes to be micromanaged.

But that’s the rub. We’re not saved. He did not save us. None of it is okay. We must stop denying it like that mom in the jaw-dropping Jesus Camp movie? We cannot lend ourselves to distractions like the plight of the incandescent bulb. There is no time. Accountability is our only salvation, not Jesus.

So I pray. I pray for Congresswoman Bachmann. I also pray for that crazy mom in the movie. I pray that for whatever bulb they choose, they themselves won’t remain perpetually dim.

Saving More Than Souls: Religious Groups Seek “Renewal” for the Environment
You’re Either with Us, or You’re with the CFLs : Red, Green, and Blue
Jesus Unplugged: Religious Groups Participate in Earth Hour 2008

Image source: Asemta at Flickr

Paris Hilton and US Energy Policy

Amiel Blajchman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:06:30 +0000

Now I’m scared. Paris Hilton has jumped into the Presidential race fray thanks to John McCain’s perhaps ill-advised decision to compare Barrack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. (See fellow blogger Clayton’s summary.) In return, Ms. Hilton came out with a professional-looking, tongue-in-cheek riposte that can only be described as… both an illuminating look into American celebrity culture and traditional politics, as well as what we should all understand as a snapshot into how speechwriting can make or break you.

Read more of this story »

House GOP Protest Leaked via New Media [w/video]

Timothy B. Hurst — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:01:27 +0000

Oddly enough, last Friday’s impromptu protest held by a gaggle of rebellious GOP members of the House, gave most of those members more press than they’ve received since their most recent campaign. Odd, because this particular act of political theater was not covered by the cameras of C-SPAN. Before the sit-in morphed into a full-blown press conference, there was no ‘real’ media to speak of. But ‘New Media’ is different. It can slip in, un-noticed, via mobile phone or Blackberry and slip out via 180 character-or-less Twitter updates or YouTube videos; much like this one I came across at Red State (5 mins.)

This story contains additional media. Click here to view the media.

I’m pretty sure whoever shot this was breaking the law, or, at the very least, House Rules — but I’m quite glad they did. I’m always entertained by politics as theater.

Is Free Trade the Solution to Climate Change?

Jennifer Lance — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:01:59 +0000

Globalization is a fact of modern times, and supporters of “free trade” tout it is good for the US economy and supports world peace. Given that it will take a global effort to solve the climate crisis, free trade has a new spin: The solution to global warming. In fact, Republican presidential candidate John McCain thinks that a free-market provides solutions to climate change, such as capping carbon emissions, which contradicts the very notion of free trade’s elimination of government imposed regulations. Even Rush Limbaugh’s not buying free trade is the solution (mostly because he doesn’t believe in global warming).

Free trade puts corporations and profits first, ahead of environmental and social concerns. McCain thinks this is not a problem, “As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy…” Will the market reward alternative energy companies with profit? The US and EU are already calling on the elimination of tariffs for goods and services that protect the environment and fight climate change to help these companies profit.

Read more of this story »

New Law Buoys U.S. Efforts to Make Ocean-Going Ships Cleaner

Timothy B. Hurst — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:38:41 +0000

U.S. agencies have taken another step forward in implementing a key international agreement to reduce air pollution from large ships. Yesterday, President Bush signed into law the Maritime Pollution Protection Act of 2008, which clears the way for U.S. ratification of the international treaty regulating emissions – known as MARPOL Annex VI - from large diesel-powered, ocean-going vessels.

Under MARPOL Annex VI, container ships, tankers, cruise ships and bulk carriers must limit NOx emissions from their category three diesel engines. It also sets a cap on the sulfur content of the fuel they burn and includes a program for designating areas where more stringent fuel controls apply, such as near coastlines that have more severe air quality concerns.

According to the EPA, MARPOL stakeholders will work to strengthen NOx and SO2 standards and the sulfur requirements in fuel this October. If adopted, these stronger international standards have the potential to yield significant environmental and public health benefits in the U.S. and around the world (Read more about reigning-in the pollution caused by oceangoing vessels at the EPA’s website.)

Offshore Drilling and a 10 Year Plan

Heidi Suydam — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:23:37 +0000

With the executive ban on offshore drilling officially lifted by President Bush, the deciding factor now lies with Congress and the legislative ban that must also be lifted in order for drilling to occur. If this were to happen actual prices at the gas pump would not immediately decrease. The White House openly states there is no “quick fix” for the price of oil however starting now can help in the future. More politicians are openly expressing their support for allowing offshore drilling and exploration.

Florida Congressman, Jeff Miller (Rep.) was previously opposed to offshore drilling. He has recently stated it may be time to lift the ban and begin to use the resources available to us. In an NPR news article dated July 14th Congressman Miller is quoted, saying:

“I think when the public begins to change their tune … then elected leaders need to be paying attention as well. The breaking point seemed to be $4-a-gallon gas,”

A fiscally conservative group of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition are also in favor of opening new areas for drilling. A recent CNN Opinion Poll and a Gallup poll show that American’s want to drill. Why? Do people really believe that the price of gas would decrease immediately? Are we, as American’s, tired of purchasing foreign oil?

While the debate about drilling domestic oil continued this week, Al Gore presented an aggressive energy plan for America. A 10 year plan Mr. Gore likened to the Apollo Moon Project, stating that it may seem impossible but it can be accomplished. Mr. Gore emphasized:

“Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind,”

Can we combine efforts? Offshore drilling and Mr. Gore’s 10 year goal are both things that will take time. A balanced approach is necessary to accomplish Energy Independence and to decrease (or end) our dependence on oil. Domestic drilling is not the answer, however, it is part of the process.

Photo Credit: Nantaskart! via Flickr Creative Commons License

EPA Enforcement of Clean Water Act Undermined Due To Questions About Supreme Court Decision

Nayelli Gonzalez — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:41:08 +0000

Earlier this week two members of Congress sent a letter citing “grave concerns” over the implementation of the Clean Water Act to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

In the July 7th letter to Johnson, chairmen Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee credit an internal EPA memo, which was given to them by activist group Greenpeace, for leading them to explore the EPA’s inadequate enforcement of the Clean Water Act.

The memorandum, which was sent on Mar. 4, 2008 from Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water, points out the conflicting ideals of the 1972 Clean Water Act and the 2006 U.S. Supremem Court decision Rapanos v. United States.

While the Act protects wetlands from urban development for water conservation, the court ruling challenges water protection provisions and upholds individual’s rights to build over wetlands.

According to Nakayama’s memo, the fundamental discord between the federal law and Supreme Court decision has led to confusion about federal wetlands protections which has resulted in the agency’s “conscious decision not to pursue enforcement of 300 Clean Water Act violations because of the jurisdictional uncertainty.”

In a Washington Post article printed Tuesday, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar responded to the congressional inquiry. “We will be reviewing the new request and will work with the chairmen to provide information on our enforcement program,” Shradar was quoted.

Part of a series of pivitol environmental laws passed in the 1970s, the Clean Water Act was a monumental step forward for the environmental movement and surface water protection in the United States. The recent Rapanos v. United States ruling, however, overturned earlier decisions that stopped two seperate developers from building on their wetland properties due to environmental regulations connected to the CWA.

In the end, the court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of development and left the CWA in limbo.

Photo: EPA

Americans Want to Drill

Heidi Suydam — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:19:34 +0000

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 showed the following:

49% of Americans favor environmental protection, even if it means slowing economic growth
44% of those surveyed place the economy as their top priority, even at the expense of the environment
73% favor more offshore drilling for natural gas and oil

Previously on June 19th CNN reported Gallup Poll findings that support their more recent opinion poll. The Gallup Poll results showed more than half of Americans favor drilling in areas that are currently off limits such as coastal and wilderness areas. Why? Is this really a “drill our way out” mentality? Cathy Landry, American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman stated:

“Any credible energy report will tell you energy demand will increase over the next few decades, we cannot drill our way out of this problem, but drilling is an important part of the solution.”

In addition to major environmental concerns, another concern about domestic drilling is having the mentality that we must fill the oil demand we currently live with and continue to fill the demand as it increases over time. Finding ways to reduce our oil consumption seems to be contradictory to drilling domestically. However, I would like propose drilling domestically could allow us to decrease our oil consumption over time. Allowing us to gain independence from foreign oil, and focus on alternative energy options. Under the guidelines and leadership of environmentalists and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, I believe Americans are capable of drilling domestically in an environmentally safe way.

Our presidential front runners recently had the opportunity to speak out about off shore drilling as President Bush called for lifting the ban currently in place. As a result we learned Barack Obama does not want to consider any domestic drilling, while John McCain spoke out in support of offshore drilling on the East Coast. A closed door to our domestic resources from one candidate and a politically convenient statement from the other. Despite which candidate you support, there is a need to take a realistic look at the economy and environment, this internal conflict is really shaping the upcoming election.

I like the words of deputy campaigns director of Greenpeace, Carroll Muffett:

“In truth, what is truly good for the environment is what is truly good for the economy, because a shift to better energy solutions would create jobs.”

She, of course, is not referring to any type of drilling but the concept of environment and economy going hand in hand. I agree with her thought process in that respect. Drilling domestically in America may not ever be considered “good for the environment” it can surely be part of the solution that can help the American economy and ultimately our pursuit of alternative energy.

McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling

Can We Love Oil and Be Green at the Same Time? Yes Say Republicans

OPEC and Friends Want Oil Prices to Behave Like a Hot Air Balloon, Not a Bubble

Photo Credit: AV8TER via Flikr Creative Commons License

U.S. Could Get Ten Million Solar Roofs in Ten Years

Andrew Williams — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:03:13 +0000

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (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 reconvenes on Monday following the 4th July recess. Co-sponsors come from across the political spectrum, including Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Ben Cardon (D-MD), Arlen Specter (R-PA), John Warner (R-VA), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The proposal looks very similar to an initiative launched in San Francisco late last month that will provide rebates of $3,000 to $6,000 in the largest city-wide solar promotion scheme in the U.S.

Read more of this story »

House Democrats Introduce National Feed-in Tariff for Renewable Energy Projects

Timothy B. Hurst — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:49:37 +0000

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!

Read more of this story »

Senate Blocks Renewable Energy Tax Credits Bill…Again - SF to go it Alone

Andrew Williams — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:22:25 +0000

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.”

Read more of this story »

Green Options » legislation

California Bill to Curb Urban Sprawl and Cut Carbon Emissions

Republicans Work to Reconcile their (Oil) Platform with McCain’s Climate Change Thingy

Open Thread: Blog Day 2008 - Your Favorite Environmental Politics Blogs

Open Thread: Environmental Politics Blogs:

California Moving to Block Sprawl

Wisconsin Looks to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Car-sharing Website under Threat from Bus Company

Don’t Be Fuelish: Offshore Drilling Will Only Leave Us Screwed

Related Posts:

Campaign Contributions Versus Lobbying: Big Oil Spends Big Money in Washington

The Proposed Neutering of Our Endangered Species Act

Take Action:

Related Posts:

The Environmental Impotence of the Religious Right

Related Posts:

Paris Hilton and US Energy Policy

House GOP Protest Leaked via New Media [w/video]

More posts on oil, offshore drilling, and gas prices:

Is Free Trade the Solution to Climate Change?

New Law Buoys U.S. Efforts to Make Ocean-Going Ships Cleaner

Related Posts on Air Pollution and Marine Vessels:

Offshore Drilling and a 10 Year Plan

EPA Enforcement of Clean Water Act Undermined Due To Questions About Supreme Court Decision

Americans Want to Drill

U.S. Could Get Ten Million Solar Roofs in Ten Years

House Democrats Introduce National Feed-in Tariff for Renewable Energy Projects

Senate Blocks Renewable Energy Tax Credits Bill…Again - SF to go it Alone