Green Options » Political News

World Needs Nelson Mandela’s Lasting Influence on Sustainability

Sam Aola Ooko — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:25:43 +0000

This article is part of EcoWorldly’s week-long spotlight on Politicians You Can Believe In. To read more, subscribe to our RSS feed, or view our posts about politics.

“Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that generation” - Nelson Mandela, Make Poverty History rally, Trafalgar Square, London, UK, February 2005

What makes a political leader to be great? What makes a generation to be great? To think of it, one word defines it - sustainability. Would this, then, be a moral issue or an economic issue?

Does the world’s population today — both older and younger segments — understand the social dilemma that the next generation of leaders just on the threshold of global influence find themselves in?

Yes, next generation of leaders. Because we can no longer hedge our hopes and beliefs and inspirations on leaders who are stuck in the time warp of old politics.

Read more of this story »

UK Establishes Department of Energy and Climate Change

Sarah Lozanova — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:55:40 +0000

This article is part of EcoWorldly’s week-long spotlight on Politicians You Can Believe In. To read more, subscribe to our RSS feed, or view our posts about politics.

As part of Prime Minister Gordan’s reshuffle, a new department was created that is likely to boost growth in the renewable energy industry, while addressing climate change.

The UK is a country that is particularly vulnerable to the affects of climate change and has identified it as an issue of vital national importance. The EU’s goal to reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 may help mitigate this predicament, but requires significant action.

Energy and climate change had been addressed across two departments, the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) . As an attempt to bridge the gap between energy strategy and climate change policy, the UK has created a new department, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

Read more of this story »

Sen. Finance Committee Adds Renewables/Efficiency to Stimulus Plan. Bernie Sanders Wants “Tripartisanship”

Timothy B. Hurst — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:55:59 +0000

On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee included measures to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable energy through the end of the 2009. The PTC, which is currently the most effective policy tool for developing renewable energy in the US, is set to expire at the end of 2008. The bill would also extend for one year a credit, equal to 30 percent of qualifying expenditures, for the purchase for qualified PV and solar water heating.

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), a vocal supporter of renewable energy for rural communities, issued a statement in strong support of the move:

“This package provides targeted tax incentives for small businesses that are the engine of our economy…It is my hope that, before the end of the week, we can pass this bill in the Senate and begin working with our House colleagues to come to swift agreement on how to give America’s economy the jump-start it needs.”
Read more of this story »

Incandescent Rage at an End?

Pem Charnley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:42:40 +0000

I re-watch Al Gore’s acceptance speech again and again – and I always choke back tears. I suppose I choke them back because I’m an Englishman – with that supposed stiff upper lip.

Massive change is his message. Though of course individual action is beneficial, action on a larger scale is what’s needed.

Political will.

Praise then goes to the Irish government who have decided on a complete ban of incandescent light bulbs as of 2009.

This ties in so strongly with Mr Gore’s speech where he demanded – and eloquently too – that change needs to happen.

Now.

Not beleagueredly in a few years.

But now.

So is my government concurrent with regards to light bulbs?

No.

Read more of this story »

Kelly’s No Hero

Pem Charnley — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:35:04 +0000

So damned often in politics we, the observers, the eternal optimists, believe that some evidence will come from environmental speeches. We want to believe that there will be substance to the rhetoric. And yet it seems eternal that our misguided hopes are dashed against the walls of greed and nonsensical corporate expansion.

This comes mere weeks after Gordon Brown, the UK’s new prime minister, gave his first speech on the environment. Whilst not being exactly radical, it did at least entertain some hope that we finally had a leader with green credentials.

Until London Heathrow that is.

Airport bosses must be dancing a jig at the moment because the government has decided to give the green light to a third runway. And yes, I use the word “green” witheringly.

Read more of this story »

Power To The People - Suite: RUDY Blue Eyes

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:27:40 +0000

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is one of the ‘top tier’ candidates for the Republican nomination for President. Rudy served as Mayor from 1994 through 2001, distinguishing himself in the eyes of many Americans during the national crisis on September 11th. Giuliani had previously served in the Reagan White House, and also as a Public Prosecutor, and in the US Attorney’s Office.

On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, only next-door (Massachusetts) neighbor Mitt Romney has made more trips to New Hampshire than Giuliani has. Rudy has campaigned in every corner of our state.

I caught up with “America’s Mayor” in mid-June. I asked him about his plans to make America energy independent. Giuliani replied, “”Let’s get serious about energy independence. We need to put resources into ethanol production. We need to license more nuclear plants. Nuclear power is dangerous but so is every other form of power.” (Really? Wind power is dangerous???)

When I asked him about what forms of clean energy he favored, he seemed ambivalent – “We need to look into cleaning coal. Wind and solar energy today are just too inconsistent.”

While on the stump that day, Giuliani spoke about how energy independence was a critical component of our national security. He begrudgingly acknowledged that global warming is occurring and that we are probably exacerbating the problem but it is not a staple of his stump speech. While he doesn’t run from the topic when asked, he doesn’t offer it without provocation.

So what are Giuliani’s plans for Energy Independence?

· He wants to expand domestic corn ethanol production; he believes that we should use bio-fuels to help displace foreign oil use in our vehicles. Corn and cellulosic ethanol, as well as bio-diesel should play a role. He believes that the bio-fuels industry can help revitalize rural America

· Giuliani wants to license more nuclear plants within the US and to relicense and modernize existing plants. To anyone worried about the safety of nuclear power, Giuliani said, “No one’s ever died from nuclear power in the United States” but that nuclear power needs to be produced safely.

· Giuliani also called for more clean-burning domestic natural gas;

· He has been promoting expanded drilling for domestic oil and natural gas, including drilling off of the coast of Florida and in ANWR;

· He believes that clean coal technology will help us become more energy independent. Carbon sequestration techniques are a priority for him. He stated that our abundant coal reserves may help wean us off polluting fossil fuels;

· Giuliani also supports the coal to fuel synthesis claiming it can be one of most “valuable contributors to our energy independence;”

· Giuliani is promoting Efficiency and Conservation. He has stated that America’s government, corporations, and individuals must engage in efficiency and conservation efforts that reduce demand for oil, without damaging America’s competitiveness worldwide or our standard of living. America needs to use more energy-efficient technologies and take personal responsibility for conserving energy.
With respect to climate change, Giuliani recognizes that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. He has said, “I do believe there’s global warming, yes. The big question has always been how much of it is happening because of natural climate changes and how much of it is happening because of human intervention. I think we have to accept the view that scientists have that there is global warming and that human operation, human condition, contributes to that.”

While he recognizes that climate change is a problem, he opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. He falls back on the old argument that “if China and India are not restricted, then our contribution will be minor.” (Where is the leadership?)

Surprisingly, regarding Renewable Energy, Rudy said, “Renewable sources of electricity, including solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power, will play an important role in our move to energy independence.”

However, I do tend to take his comments on expansion of renewable energy with a grain of salt. The reason for that is because he is leading all of the presidential candidates, of both parties, in accepting contributions from people in the oil and gas industry, totaling over a half million dollars already! Not incidentally, his current law firm has represented such companies as Chevron Texaco, Enron, Duke Energy and Pacific Gas and Electric.

Based on current national polls, Rudy may very well wind up being the Republican nominee in 2008. The NH Republican primary voters just might not support Rudy if they keep the sage words of Stephen Stills, ringing in their ears,

“Don’t let the past remind us of what we are not now. I am not dreaming.”

Next Week: Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo

SmartPower - the national non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Campaign Website

Image Credit: Flickr - First in the Nation Forum, Manchester, NH

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power To The People’ Columns

Power To The People: Ch-ch-ch-Changes

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:36:47 +0000

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes….

Senator Barack Obama is the junior US Senator representing the state of Illinois in the US Senate. He was elected to the Senate in 2004 and is serving in his first term. Previously, Obama had served as a 3-term Illinois state senator. Barack is married to his wife, Michelle, and they have two young daughters.

Obama, even as a freshman US Senator, is in the ‘top tier’ of Democratic candidates for President. He has visited New Hampshire more than 20 times, spending more than a month’s worth of time traveling across the Granite State. He has been virtually in every corner of this state bringing his messages of hope to Democratic and Independent voters here.

Obama’s reputation for delivering passionate speeches full of hope and promise is legendary. He is often compared to Senator Robert F. Kennedy for his ability to inspire and motivate those who hear him. But for all his inspirations and hope, Obama appears to be a man of great contradictions, at least as far as renewable energy issues are concerned.

I caught up with Senator Obama in mid May traveling through NH’s seacoast area. At a town hall meeting, I asked him, as I have asked all of the candidates, about his views on promoting clean energy. Obama’s response, “I have been leading the bipartisan effort to raise CAFÉ standards and to promote the development and use of hybrid cars.” Well, raising CAFÉ standards is a good idea and hybrid cars are great but I really wanted some depth (and inspiration) from this man.

I followed up with my usual follow-up question about how can we make America more energy independent and he replied, “I am also working on a bipartisan effort to produce more clean coal.” Not quite what I had hoped he would say. His candidacy and his campaign positions offer some opposing views.

Last month, Senator Obama unveiled details of an ambitious energy policy, right here in New Hampshire. Unlike in most of the presidential debates, clean energy is a real concern of the voters here, so announcing his plan in NH made sense. Senator Obama supports:

* A Cap-and-Trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. This seems to be the standard against which all ‘green’ candidates are being measured. Obama wants the emission permits to be auctioned rather than allocated, which would a lot of money that he wants dedicated to clean energy research and development.

* He supports a national renewable portfolio standard that would require 25% of US electricity to be generated from renewable sources by the year 2025.

* He supports huge and continued subsidies for corn-derived ethanol production, which would certainly help farmers in Illinois, but do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, he does support expanded use and development of cellulosic biofuel production.

* There is another issue that Obama has supported that has not won him many friends in the environmental and renewable energy communities. He strongly supports expanding and developing more ‘clean coal’ technologies. He also wants to invest in lower emission coal plants. Again, this would help southern Illinois coal producers, but at the expense of exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions.

* Obama has stated that, ”The U.S. is recognized as the global leader in understanding better geologic coal-sequestration technologies. If we abandon that leadership, we risk leaving the rest of the planet wide open to investing billions in polluting infrastructure.”

* He would support signing the Kyoto protocols to demonstrate American leadership in battling global warming. Obama would prefer a new international global warming partnership.

* As recently as the last Democratic debate (in Las Vegas) Obama reiterated his support, albeit lukewarm, for nuclear power. He reminds us that nuclear currently provides over 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. But he does understand that there are significant safety and waste issues that are cause for real concern. Nonetheless, his support is undeterred because of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

* Obama wishes to invest $150 Billion over the next ten years to develop renewable energy technologies in the United States.

* Another courageous stand, that many candidates are not advocating, is conservation. Obama would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 35% by 2030.

* He is also promoting energy efficiency by making federal government buildings more energy efficient. His energy efficiency plans also call for the phasing out of traditional incandescent lightbulbs by 2014.

* Obama also wants the federal government to lead America in the use of clean energy. He wants 30 percent of the government’s electricity use to come from clean energy by 2020.

* Obama has authored or co-authored over 100 eco-friendly bills in the US Senate and promises this set of issues will have a prominent place in the Obama Administration.

Senator Barack Obama is a man full of hope, promise, and complicated positions and beliefs. He is a compelling candidate, with some really strong environmental beliefs. But in his short political career, his positions on a variety of issues have changed, and so has he.

As David Bowie might sing, “Time may change me, But I can’t trace time…..”

Next week: Former NY City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

SmartPower - The national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Barack Obama’s Presidential Website

Image Credit: Flickr - Obama at UNH, Durham, NH - February 2007

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People’ Columns

Power To The People: ‘Dunc’ - The Energy Hunter

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:23:20 +0000

Congressman Duncan Hunter is a Republican representing California’s 52nd Congressional District, an area surrounding San Diego. Hunter has been a Congressman since 1981, serving his 13th term. However, he stated that he would not seek reelection to his seat, as he was occupied with running for President. But fear not, San Diegoans, Duncan D. Hunter, the Congressman’s son, has announced his candidacy for his father’s seat. Whew… that was close. Hunter is married to his wife, Lynne, and they have two sons

It is extremely hard to find any politically uncommitted New Hampshire residents who have actually seen Duncan Hunter on the campaign trail – though it has been reported he has made 9 separate trips up here. It’s even harder to find someone who actually heard Duncan Hunter talk about clean energy or energy independence while he was here.

In early June, Hunter did attend a gathering of the New Hampshire State Republican Party in Manchester. I was able to ask him a question about making America energy independent. His response, “I support drilling offshore and in ANWR to reduce our dependence on hostile foreign sources. We need to increase our dependence on American oil. I would also support construction of more American oil refineries.”

I quickly followed it up with a question about if he felt that fossil fuels were exacerbating the global warming crisis. Hunter’s response, ”I have to leave now.” Perhaps he actually did have to leave. Or perhaps he thought I was one of those enviro-types! In any event, that was all that he said.

Not to be deterred, I searched Hunter’s official presidential campaign website for his positions on energy independence, and how he would combat global warming. I think the ‘Internet wasn’t working properly’ because no matter how hard I tried to find information on his website about those two topics, I couldn’t find them? I hunted, and hunted, and hunted – to no avail.

At a Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, Hunter stated that we “should battle the problems of global warming and energy independence together” – which isn’t a bad idea! But where is Hunter’s plan for doing that?

The Republicans for Environmental Protection watchdog group, hardly a group of left-leaning environmental crazies, gave Hunter a rating of 13 (out of 100) for the year 2006. While that is an awfully low rating, it was a marked improvement over his 2005 rating of MINUS 4! The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters issued Hunter the lowest possible environmental score for 2006; his lifetime rating from the LCV is just nine percent.

Even without a written energy plan or a plan to combat global warming, some people in New Hampshire are supporting Hunter. But how many? Well the recent NH polls all have Hunter at 1 to 2% or less. In fact, reviewing the Republican polls from 2006 forward, there were no polls in which his support in NH measured more than 2%.

I guess New Hampshire Republican voters are just ‘hunting” for someone else.

Next week: Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois

SmartPower - The national non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a volunatry market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Duncan Hunter’s Presidential Website

NH Polling Home

Image Credit - Flickr - Hunter in NH at St. Anselm’s Debatein Manchester

Republicans for Environmental Protection

League of Conservation Voters

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People” Columns

Power to the People: There’s No Place Like Nome

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:03:42 +0000

Although many people believe that the former US Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, is running a Quixotic campaign for President, he is making his presence felt at every chance. While his colleagues have taken some jabs at the front runner, Gravel has leveled serious blows and he makes his views known whenever he is on the national stage.

Mike Gravel was the first Democrat to officially announce his candidacy for President, doing so in 2006. He has spent considerable time in the Granite State. He has traveled the state trying to drive up his name recognition. Unlike some other states, New Hampshire has always included Gravel in any of its sanctioned debates. But Gravel is barely registering in the polls at, generally, 1% or less. But he continues undaunted.

Mike Gravel served in the US Senate from 1969 to 1981 representing the state of Alaska. He was one of the most influential politicians of his time – an ardent opponent of the war in Vietnam and an outspoken critic of the Nixon Administration. He is the man who put the Pentagon Papers into the public arena by including them in the Congressional Record. Gravel also earned tremendous respect for leading a one-man filibuster against renewing the military draft. Gravel’s tactics put so much pressure on Nixon that a moratorium on renewing the draft was issued and the draft was finally ended. Gravel also fought against the use of nuclear weapons and against the use of nuclear power. He left the public eye in 1981 and only returned in the last few years. He and his wife, Whitney, live in Virginia.

I met up with the former Senator from Alaska at WMUR’s Conversations with a Candidate, in Manchester in April. I asked Gravel what were his plans for combating global warming. Gravel said, “I want to cap carbon emissions as a means to end global warming.” I followed with “How do you plan to make America energy independen?. The Senator said, “I want to employ a WPA-like national program to wean the US off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Gravel’s energy plan is unique in many respects, not the least of which is the centerpiece: a hydrogen-based fuel for the economy (more on that later). But some of Gravel’s energy positions are relatively more mainstream:

Gravel will reduce America’s carbon footprint by passing legislation that caps emissions;
He wants the United States to lead in the fight against global deforestation;
Gravel wants the U.S. to lead a massive global scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil;
Gravel will impose a carbon tax, much like Senator Chris Dodd has proposed, but with the major difference that he wants the US to work with other countries to do the same. The funds from this carbon tax will be pooled, and the resulting revenues will fund an international scientific and engineering effort to wean the world from fossil fuels within 10 years;
Gravel feels that that the best way to solve the energy problem is to let prices rise so that alternative energies can become more competitively priced.
He proposes a hydrogen liquid fuel for our cars – Gravel states, “One of the things we can do is take electricity from windmills, run it through water, and have hydrogen. And by altering the technology of our existing cars and gas stations, they can be used to run on and distribute hydrogen liquid. You’re not making hydrogen fuel cells; that technology is not on the table yet. You’re making liquid fuel from hydrogen. Meanwhile, we can just manufacture the hell out of windmills and then turn around and produce all this hydrogen.”
Gravel wants to eliminate all of the coal-fired power plants and change then into hydrogen power plants.
He wants the United States to ratify the Kyoto protocols and to aggressively accelerate the goals. He states, “many European countries are ahead of their targets while the US hasn’t even agreed to it.”
Gravel strongly and ardently opposes the use of nuclear power. Gravel states, “If we can have large electrical base-load plants fed by hydrogen, then we don’t have to have the nuclear.”
Gravel sees biofuels has counterproductive. “What I know about the corn deal, it takes more energy to produce a gallon of biofuel from corn than it does to just use conventional fuel, so that’s a negative. Secondly, we have to realize that when we’re growing this stuff, we may be displacing the whole distribution of food throughout the world.”

Mike Gravel may not wind up winning the Democratic primary in January, but the debate process is elevated by his candor, his courage, and his ideas.

Next week: Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter

SmartPower - The national non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Mike Gravel’s Presidential Campaign Website

New Hampshire Political Polling Site

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous “Power to the People” Columns

Kerry Addresses Climate Change, Politics and Hope

Shirley Siluk Gregory — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:37:00 +0000

Talking with an elected official about how to get climate change legislation with teeth on the books conjures up the quote from Otto von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

That’s how I felt, anyway, after getting off the phone following a conference call between Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and environmental bloggers today. Kerry demonstrates a full and deep understanding of the challenges posed by global warming, but also makes it clear — without actually having to say it — how slowly and painstakingly the legislative process moves to address those challenges.

Kerry expressed confidence in the prospects of the current Lieberman-Warner proposal for a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions. He indicated cautious optimism that the next administration will enable law-makers to enact even stronger measures aimed at curbing climate change. He placed a lot of hope on the abilities of science, technology and business to develop solutions to challenges such as developing carbon capture and storage so we can burn coal cleanly.

Kerry also noted he and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) will be taking a delegation to Bali next month — for talks to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol — "to make sure the U.S. is properly represented. We’re not going to let the stonewalling of this administration dominate." And he urged us to put steady, ongoing pressure on other legislators, especially moderates and those in states likely to feel the greatest impact of climate change, to make the right decisions.

It’s encouraging we’re taking steps toward addressing climate change. It’s also good to see we’re taking more and more of those steps each day, and speeding up our stride little by little. But still I’m left with a lingering concern that, despite all the well-informed and properly motivated leaders like Kerry, the gears of government are grinding too slowly to make meaningful action possible in the immediate future.

Kerry is more optimistic, and I hope he proves my fears unfounded.

"I think basically we’re on the brink of a very exciting era," he said. "We’re going to get some of these projects (such as carbon capture and storage) rolling. There are some very exciting concepts out there."

Power to the People: Pride Goeth Before Ron Paul ….

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:13 +0000

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been a member of the US House sporadically since 1976. He served terms of 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to present, always serving different Congressional districts of Texas. Paul is a licensed physician and practiced for a number of years before entering politics. He is married, and he and his wife, Carol Wells, have 5 children. Paul ran for President once before, as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Interestingly, he ran as the Libertarian nominee while registered as a Republican.

Paul has not visited New Hampshire very often. In fact, only Fred Thompson, who entered the presidential race a month ago in September, has visited NH less often than Ron Paul. That may explain why Congressman Paul is mired at 3% in the most recent NH poll.

Paul visited WMUR-TV, Channel 9, and appeared on their popular Conversations with a Candidate program in February. I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Paul if he believed that global warming was a serious problem. His response, "I don’t think that the jury has fully come in on global warming. There is still a lot of debate on that subject."

Given that context, I followed up by asking Paul if he felt that we need to embrace clean energy. Paul’s response: "I am a Free Trader and I think that if Clean Energy were a viable option, it would be more economical in the marketplace."

My final question centered on how Paul felt we should deal with making America energy independent. Paul stated, "We should look at more domestic drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we should look at nuclear power as well as a short-term solution."

Paul’s positions, regrettably, are fairly predictable for this self-avowed free trader. Paul supports and believes as follows:

He doesn’t believe that climate change is an important issue to voters. He has stated that some global warming may be occurring naturally and may not be caused by human beings.
In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that "environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people."
Paul has voted in favor of offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. He has also voted for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Paul would end all subsidies of any kind to all energy companies, including oil companies.
Paul would suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.
Paul co-sponsored legislation that would fast track the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.
Paul voted in 2001 against raising CAFÉ standards to 27.5 mpg for 2005 and 2006 cars and trucks.
Paul supports expanding the use of domestic coal as a fuel source. "Technology is improving all the time and by using coal this might be something that can help the US become more energy independent."
Paul opposes domestic subsidies for the corn industry to support ethanol.
Paul opposes offering any federal subsidies to the energy technology sector, much like oil, gas and coal have received for many years. As a free market trader, Paul believes that the market will only support the best product at the best price. All subsidies should be stopped.
Paul opposes a carbon tax. Paul believes that the carbon tax is like legalizing pollution.
According to Paul, energy independence does not mean that the US has to produce every single ounce of energy used. Paul believes that independence means having no government-mandated policy. If you need oil or energy, you can simply buy it.
Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes "…it’s the safest form of energy we have." (Seriously, he actually believes that!)

Paul’s positions are predictable for a free trader and Libertarian at heart, and so will be his finish in the New Hampshire Republican primary. It is highly unlikely that his views will garner double-digit support in the Granite State.

Stay tuned to see if NH voters have the common sense for which I am giving them credit.

Next week: Former Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska

SmartPower — the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy independence

Ron Paul for President Campaign

NH Republican Presidential Poll

Image Credit on Flickr

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People’ Columns

Should Scientists Exaggerate What They Think to Win Politically?

Black Wallaby — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:42:15 +0000

I remember a good while ago that the “outspoken” James Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies was reputed to have spieled words to the effect that it is no longer necessary to exaggerate on global warming, and it was time to be more rational and science-based. However, I see in the recent following link that he is still at it! (I summarize the important part if you don’t want to grind through the ramble)

"Research Finds That Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point."

It is certainly scary stuff, to learn that the West Antarctic ice sheet is vanishing so quickly! However, a rational person might dare to enquire what is happening in East Antarctica, which is not at all mentioned by Hansen. Such checking reveals that he appears to be selecting the data he likes best, to make things seem much worse than they actually are. For instance, not only is there a great deal more land-based ice in “the absent” East Antarctica, but it appears to be growing from snowfall at about double the RATE of the localized thinning that Hansen seizes upon. The European Space Agency provides a fuller picture, and here is a partial quote:

The team used data from the European Space Agency’s radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, which measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica’s interior - more than 8.5 million square kilometres, roughly the same size as the United States.East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered. The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica’s total land area - but as its ice is thicker, it carries about 85% of the total ice volume. "It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it," says Davis.In contrast, smaller West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year. "It’s amazing that they can measure such small changes," says Vaughan.

Does anyone think that it is OK for Hansen to deceptively give us all "the terrors" like that? Is he not referred to as one of the leading climate SCIENTISTS in the world?

Power to the People: Dodd Man Out

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:04:45 +0000

Chris Dodd is the senior United States Senator from Connecticut. He is a Democrat and was elected to the US House of Representatives as part of the "Watergate Freshman Class of 1974." He served in the House until 1980, when he was elected to the Senate. Dodd is married and he and his second wife, Jackie, have two young daughters. Dodd’s father, Thomas, was a 2-term US Senator from Connecticut as well.

Dodd has visited the Granite State on many occasions. His 39 days spent in New Hampshire (as of October 23rd) ranks him in 2nd place, just behind former Senator John Edwards, and just ahead of Governor Bill Richardson.

Dodd’s campaign was one of the first to announce a very comprehensive energy plan. His campaign highly touts the praise they received on his campaign website:

"Very creative" — Former Vice President Al Gore
"Ambitious …. Aggressive" — League of Conservation Voters
"Dodd gets it." — Former Senator Bill Bradley
"A serious policy …" — Senator John Kerry

Dodd came to Nashua, NH, back in April, to discuss this plan. I asked him for some highlights of this plan and he stated, "I am one of the only major candidates who has the courage to call for a carbon tax. I want this money to go into a fund to support renewable energy and cleaning the environment. Let the polluters pay."

This carbon tax proposal has encouraged much debate among the candidates. While Dodd fully supports a carbon tax, some candidates do not. The opponents of a carbon tax state that if one were instituted, consumers, ultimately, would wind up paying for it, through increased costs for the goods that they purchase. Dodd, however, is undeterred in his support for a corporate carbon tax trust fund, the proceeds from which would be used for research and development of renewable energy technologies. While most candidates oppose suggesting any new taxes on the campaign trail, Dodd feels that the American public can handle the truth, even when it will be unpopular.

Dodd further told me, "We absolutely need to expand our renewable capabilities and usage. I do not support expanding nuclear options, but I do want to encourage wind, water, solar and biofuels expansion."

Dodd is obviously unafraid to express his opinions about supporting renewable energy (which is the majority position of all of the Democratic candidates) but he seems to have mixed feelings about his very limited support for nuclear power. He is careful to state that while it should be an option to reduce global warming, he has great concerns about nuclear waste, and he hopes that technology may provide an answer to its safe disposal.

I also asked Dodd if he would support SmartPower’s "20% by 2010"^SM program for the US government. The SmartPower program assists municipalities and organizations to commit to purchase 20% of their electricity needs from clean and renewable sources, such as wind, solar, and small hydro, by the year 2010. That was an idea that Dodd likes; he says he wants all US government offices to use clean energy for all their needs. In fact, Dodd now proposes that the United States get 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Dodd also strongly supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 80% from 1990 levels by the year 2050, which is the amount that most scientists agree is necessary to begin to reverse the effects of global warming.

Dodd’s energy plan combines his carbon tax with a cap-and-trade program and significantly higher CAFÉ standards — Dodd proposes a 50 MPG for new cars and trucks by 2017.

But Dodd doesn’t support every new energy technology. He opposes coal liquification technology. Dodd has stated that turning coal into liquid fuel does not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and it works against the overall goal of fighting global climate change.

Dodd’s energy plan requires any and all new coal plants to capture and sequester CO2 without any exceptions or exclusions.

He does encourage government support for ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and other similar types of biofuels. In fact Dodd would require that new federal automobile fleets be run on E85 ethanol or other biofuels.

Dodd also would sign the Kyoto protocol because he believes that even without China’s and India’s agreement and cooperation, the United States should lead the world in fighting greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, Dodd opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Whether you agree or disagree with the elements of Dodd’s energy plan, you have to admit it is bold and aggressive. Whether it attracts enough support in New Hampshire to catapult Dodd into the top tier of candidates in the next few months remains to be seen. Keep watching!

Next week: Republican Congressman Ron Paul

SmartPower — the national non-profit marketing organization that is creating a voluntary market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Senator Chris Dodd’s Presidential Campaign Website

Image Credit: New York Times

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous "Power to the People" columns

Power to the People: Dreams Of A Father

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:00:44 +0000

In the early 1950s, Detroit owned the automotive world. Cars were big, heavy, and fast! They had huge, monstrously powerful gas-guzzling engines. A visionary auto executive at the nearly bankrupt American Motors Corporation came up with an idea. He created the unthinkable — a compact American car. That visionary executive was George Romney and he coined the phrase "gas guzzling dinosaur." Romney became extremely successful and helped Rambler sell millions of cars. He then entered politics, became the Governor of Michigan and ran for President, unsuccessfully, in 1968

Fast forward about half a century — one of the sons of George Romney becomes governor of Massachusetts. Willard "Mitt" Romney serves one term as governor. But like his father before him, he holds higher aspirations.

In February of this year, Romney formally announced his candidacy for President. Given that he is no longer serving as governor, and that he has homes in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Romney has made more visits to New Hampshire than any other Republican candidate. Does familiarity breed contempt, as the old adage advises? Apparently not! In a recent NH poll, Romney garnered 27% of the Republican vote, to Rudy Giuliani’s 21% and John McCain’s 17%.

In April, Romney visited the border town of Salem, and I had an opportunity to ask him how, as President, he would make America energy independent. Romney stated, "America is too dependent on foreign oil." That statement is unarguable!

Romney continued, "We can use alternative sources of power. I support increasing our use of biodiesel, nuclear power and ethanol." Choosing his words carefully, Romney sandwiched his support for nuclear power between biodiesel and ethanol. I guess he thinks either we didn’t notice that, or that he thinks that by somehow associating nuclear power with biodiesel and ethanol, that makes it more palatable.

Romney concluded with, "We should also drill for more domestic oil in the Continental Shelf and in Alaska. Combine that with improving our energy efficiency and we will no longer be dependent on countries that are potentially hostile to us." Encouraging America to drill in ANWR seems to be part of all of the Republican candidates mantras. Seemingly to offend environmentalists everywhere, Romney also chose to include drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf as well. But his plea for energy efficiency is one that more candidates should embrace.

Digging deeper into Romney’s energy plans, we searched his website. What we found didn’t make us feel all "warm and fuzzy":

Romney believes that coal is an important element of our future energy mix. He is hoping that "hybrid concepts," such as combining combustion and gasification of coal, will produce even cleaner and more efficient power generation.

He wants America to invest in research and development of power generation and fuel technology.

When asked if he supports increased CAFÉ standards, Romney demurred to pressure from his birth state of Michigan and opposed "raising CAFÉ standards on their own." However, he left open the door for support of raising these standards if they are "part of a broader energy plan."

What is missing from Romney’s so-called energy plan is a little thing called substance.

What are his views on Cap-and-Trade?
What about Carbon Sequestration?
Does he believe that global warming is a serious issue?

There are more questions about Romney’s plans for making America energy independent than there are answers. While George Romney was a visionary leader but a failed politician, it appears that his son, Mitt, prefers to be a successful in politics and vision be damned!

Next week: Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut

SmartPower — the award-winning national non-profit marketing organization that promotes clean energy and energy efficiency.

Mitt Romney for President

NH Political Poll

Image Credit: Flickr

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous "Power to the People" Columns

Power to the People: Having A Bad Hair Day …

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:20:55 +0000

The above reference is just jealousy on my part for not being able to afford a $400 haircut like a certain former Senator can afford.

Former Senator John Edwards is from North Carolina and has, essentially, been running for President since the presidential election of 2004 ended. Edwards has visited New Hampshire more than any other Democrat, having made 24 separate trips, totaling 40 days. Obviously, that is one benefit of not currently holding public office.

Edwards was a one-term US Senator from North Carolina. His term ended in 2004, when he was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and he decided not to run for re-election to the Senate. Edwards is married to his wildly popular (and outspoken!) wife, Elizabeth, and they have three children.

Back in February, Edwards came to my hometown and at a neighbor’s house party made the following statement to me in response to my question about making America energy independent, "Along with the war in Iraq and affordable healthcare, renewable energy and global warming are the three main issues of this campaign. We need to start making some real sacrifices to deal with that problem. We must end our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. We need to greatly expand our use of clean energy."

Edwards was the first candidate in this race to have put a comprehensive energy and environmental plan on paper. While on the stump in New Hampshire, his energy mantra has been, "Our generation must be the one that says, we must halt global warming. Our generation must be the one that says "Yes" to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won’t be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."

All of what he has been saying since Day One about energy independence and protecting our environment has been resonating with Democratic voters in the Granite State, who are focusing on these issues. Lets look deeper at what Edwards is proposing:

Halt global warming by instituting a cap-and -trade system to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
Create a new energy economy by investing in clean, renewable energy.
Meet the demand for new electricity during the next decade by increasing energy efficiency methods, instead of producing more power.
Cap greenhouse gases at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Edwards wants to reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050.
Create a new Global Climate Change Treaty.
Expand renewable energy. While it is socially desirable to use clean energy, it is also costly. Wind is already competitive with conventional sources in many markets. Solar could be competitive within three to eight years.
Power companies should be required to generate 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025.
Coal is an important source of U.S. and global electricity, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. America needs to invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently.
We must reduce oil imports by 7.5 million barrels a day by 2025 to get us on the path toward energy independence.
We must open up the electric grid to innovation, so Edwards proposes a $5,000 tax credit for homes and small businesses that invest in onsite generation of renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal power.
Electricity use is projected to increase by 1.5 percent a year between 2008 and 2018, on average. He calls for a national goal of meeting this demand by getting more power out of the electricity we use now, instead of producing more electricity.
He wants to reduce the U.S. government’s use of energy by 20 percent, and expand the government’s use of renewable sources.
Edwards will create a Green Corps within AmeriCorps to create opportunities for them to help Americans with saving energy.

Edwards has an energy plan that has some good positions but there are some glaring omissions. Edwards’ new coal plants do not have to sequester greenhouse gas emissions, they just have to be compatible with plants that do. This means that the reality is a "new" Edwards’ coal plant could still emit 80% as much CO2 as one of the present coal plants, so where is the benefit?

While at Dartmouth in August, Edwards stated that when he is president, "we will avoid mistakes like liquid coal and nuclear power." But does that mean he would forbid new nuclear plants from being built? Does that mean he would relicense existing plants? What, exactly, does that mean?

The most recent American Research Group (ARG) New Hampshire poll showed Clinton at 41%; Obama is 2nd with 22%; Edwards is a distant 3rd at 10% with Richardson right on his heels at 8%. It seems like his campaign isn’t really gaining traction in New Hampshire.

Perhaps it’s just a bad hair day for John!

Next week…. Former Republican Governor Mitt Romney

SmartPower

Edwards for President

Image Credit: John Edwards in Nashua, NH - Flickr

American Research Group NH Presidential Poll

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous "Power to the People" Columns

Power to the People: Johnny B. Goode (And Green!)

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:47:45 +0000

John McCain is a long-serving United States Senator representing the state of Arizona. McCain was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 1982 and served two terms. He was then elected to the US Senate in 1986. He and his second wife, Cindy, live in Phoenix. He has seven children and four grandchildren.

McCain is a man of great contradictions. On one hand, he gained great national admiration as a heroic prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict. McCain spent 5 ½ years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. On the other hand, he was one of the "Keating Five" – the five US Senators who were accused of impropriety for attempting to influence federal regulators in favor of Lincoln Savings and Loan in the 1980s.

McCain is no stranger to New Hampshire. He has made more trips to NH than any other Republican candidate, except the former Governor from next door (Massachusetts), Mitt Romney. In the 2000 NH Presidential Primary, McCain stunned then-Texas Governor, George W. Bush, 49-30%, and he made many long-lasting friendships that he has rekindled today.

In March of this year, McCain visited WMUR-TV and participated in the Conversations with a Candidate program. During the program, I asked him about his energy plans for America. McCain said, "Global Warming is a huge problem and we must do something about it now. We need to become more energy self-sufficient and that means more fuel-efficient cars and conserving electricity." — Those are words that any thinking American could support!

When he was pressed further by me as to how he would accomplish making America more energy self-sufficient, McCain stated, "It may also mean we have to drill for more domestic oil, look at nuclear power, as well as exploring all types of renewable options such as wind, solar, biomass and ethanol." — He ended that sentence well, but the drilling and nuclear power, while expected, were still troubling.

McCain’s presidential campaign website states: "John McCain has a proud record of common sense stewardship. Along with his commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space, he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore."

A video on McCain’s website compares McCain to the "great environmentalists presidents" — Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Okay, TR I can understand. They guy was a hunter, an avid outdoorsman, and he set aside more land for the National Parks system than all his predecessors combined. But Ronald Reagan? This was the man who had James Watt as his Secretary of the Interior, and during his 1980 campaign, Reagan blamed trees for emitting 93 percent of the nation’s nitrogen oxide pollution — giving rise to jokes about "killer trees." Reagan was not an environmentalist! It appears that McCain is trying to coddle the "Reagan Republican" base.

McCain also stated that there may come a "tipping point" on our environment, when we cannot reverse the effects of global warming, but we "aren’t there yet." He also stated that we should not participate in the Kyoto Treaty, "unless China and India also join." Senator McCain also believes:

"I am very confident that Republican voters care about climate change. I am the greenest Republican in the presidential race."
"Ignoring the problem of global warming reflects a liberal, live for today attitude unworthy of our great country." – I didn’t realize that liberals love global warming!

McCain’s other environmental and energy stands are:

He supports a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
He opposes a carbon tax.
He was a strong critic of ethanol and the public subsidies that it receives. Now he supports ethanol – but still opposes subsidies. He now jokes on the campaign stump, "I always have a glass of ethanol before breakfast every morning."
He is a strong proponent of nuclear power as a way to generate electricity without producing greenhouse-gas emissions. His 2007 Climate Proposal would take some of the money raised under his proposed cap-and-trade auctions and make it available for loans for new nuclear power plants. At the NH Republican debate in June, McCain said, "Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green. It does not emit greenhouse gases."
He supports public-private partnerships to develop high-tech systems for coal gasification and carbon sequestration.
He has opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
He has been highly critical of the Bush administration’s lack of action against global warming.
He voted against a renewable portfolio standard that would have required the U.S. to get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

I will leave you with a quote from musician Chuck Berry, from his song "Johnny B Goode:

Way back up on the woods among the evergreens,
There stood an old cabin made of earth and wood,
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B Goode.

Go Go Johnny!

Next week: Democratic Senator John Edwards

SmartPower

John McCain for President Exploratory Campaign Website

Photo Credit: McCain at the June 2007 NH Republican Candidate Debate: Time Magazine

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s previous "Power to the People" columns

The Environmental “New Deal”: Will France Lead the Way?

Heidi Strebel — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:56:47 +0000

The first phase in the French government’s environmental "New Deal" is complete. Jean-Louis Borloo, the minister of ecology and sustainable development, hosted a conference in Paris last Thursday to present the results of that initial phase and to launch the second phase. In his press release, Borloo employed rousing terms to describe a momentous turning point in French society.

After a time of inquiry, now is the time for action, and France will be present at the forefront of the fight for human rights in the 21st century. The environmental new deal is an unprecedented democratic process. The role of the State is essentially to facilitate collective action. Its mission is to foster synergy between common and sometimes competing causes. After several weeks of debate one thing is clear: dialogue works and solutions exist.

Stirring indeed. But what makes this program so exceptional? The multilateral nature of the first phase, and the democratic or collective nature of the second, according to Borloo, adding that France can lead the way for the rest of the world by fashioning a sustainable society. "As both producers and consumers we will be subject to major changes, but those changes represent an opportunity for our economy, our health and our children." Sustainable living and economic growth are not incompatible. "By protecting the environment we prepare our companies for the economic competition of the future, we improve our quality of life, and we prevent illnesses caused by pollution."

More grand statements. There is a sense of deja vu. And I cannot help but ask, as I have been asking repeatedly over the last few weeks, is there any substance behind the hype?

Within a week of taking office last Spring, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called a meeting on sustainable development and the environment. The gathering marked the beginning of the larger program that constitutes the "New Deal." In the first phase of the program, members from different sectors of society were assembled in six working groups that convened over the summer, with each group focusing on a different environmental issue. Representatives of NGOs, companies, unions, local councils and government bodies joined scientists and other specialized experts to confer on the status quo and to draft a plan of action.

The novelty lies in the diversity of the participants. Individuals and interest groups who are normally at loggerheads with one another were brought to the same negotiating table. Each delegate was equal in status with the next, and could contribute fully to the proceedings.

For example, working group number one was focused on climate change and energy needs. Jean Jouzel and Nicholas Stern were co-presidents of the group. Jouzel is an eminent French geochemist and climatologist who has carried out extensive research on climate change in Antarctica and Greenland; Stern is a prominent British economist and author of the renowned "Stern Review," a report which presents the impact of climate change on the global economy.

The NGO camp for group one consisted of delegates from international alliances such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), as well as envoys from national environmental groups. The employee camp was composed of representatives from different labor unions, including engineers, railway workers, technicians, and white-collar workers. The employer camp was comprised of leaders from various business associations, both general confederations and industry-specific alliances such as the Union of Chemical Manufacturers, and the Federation of Road Transportation. Finally, the state camp consisted of directors of government bodies such as the National Forestry Office and the Energy and Environment Agency.

It is hardly surprising that the government website features interviews with delegates who are by and large satisfied with the process and the outcome of the working groups. They admit that the challenges were great, the stakes were high, and there was a considerable time constraint, but they also refer to lively debate, a genuine exchange, progress and consensus. Delegates’ observations and remarks featured on an NGO website are much more subdued.

Bernard Cressens, program director at WWF France, participated in the workshops devoted to the subject of greening French agriculture. No one boycotted the meeting, Cressens says. A coalition of NGOs was even able to distribute a list of suggestions for use during one of the sessions. But as soon as the group began to focus on the details of a particular matter, someone, often a representative from the French Ministry of Agriculture, always raised an objection. "So — reduce the use of pesticides, yes that’s a good idea but it’s impossible; increase the percentage of organic farming in France, yes but is there the market for it; defend domestic biodiversity yes, well maybe, but…"

Olivier Louchard, a member of Climate Action Network, attended several workshops dedicated to questions of transportation and methods of reducing CO2 emissions. While he feels that the discussions were "relatively constructive," and some promising proposals were made, he was troubled by the time constraints, calling them "completely unrealistic." "It’s not possible to establish a national climate plan in only two months and certainly not one that can be implemented by the current government over the next five years." So Louchard wonders whether the government might not have its own plan of action, one that will be followed irrespective of what emerges from the working groups and the public debate.

Last week each working group drew up a report, outlining the conclusions of their discussions and providing suggestions for immediate, mid-term and long-term actions. The reports were presented at the conference on Thursday, and the second phase of the "new deal" was launched: the public debate. Anyone can participate in the debate, either by attending one of the regional meetings scheduled across the country from October 5 to 19, or by visiting the government website set up specifically for the occasion. The website is hosting a forum where the French people can leave comments on any of the reports, which are available in full and condensed versions. They can also take the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with one another.

Borloo concluded the conference by saying it has not yet been proven that another type of economic growth is possible. "But if all parts of society work together, if each day every one of us makes the right choices, if at every moment and in every aspect of our lives we vote for sustainable alternatives, then it is my conviction," he said, "that it is possible." Thus France can provide a model both in Europe and around the world, of a healthy growing and sustainable economy.

Yes, sounds great. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, or at least not regarding the general idea of the whole thing. The very fact that the working groups convened, engaged in dialogue and presented their reports, is an accomplishment in itself. The forum for public debate represents a unique opportunity for French citizens to participate and thereby hopefully become more engaged in the transformation toward sustainable living.

But, Borloo and company have cried green, twice in one month. There was the promise of the first eco-friendly Rugby World Cup. Then there was the promise of the ultra-cool green techno parade. In both cases, the government ministry and the organizing committees vowed to take actions that were entirely within the realm of the possible. So, if a promise to install proper recycling facilities at a sports stadium or along the route of a music parade cannot be kept, how can the pledge to revolutionize an entire society be taken seriously?

Image source: UMBC edu

Environmental "New Deal" French Government Website

Alliance for the Planet

Bush Hosts Climate Conference

Maria Surma Manka — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:36:11 +0000

The week began and ended with major international climate change conferences. The first was a United Nations meeting, prepping world leaders for the December talks in Bali that will be the first step to determining emissions goals after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The meeting that closed out this week was held by President Bush in Washington. Sixteen nations, the UN, and the European Union were invited.

At the start of the two-day “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told delegates that the U.S. while being a major emitter of global warming pollution, the government is very serious about fighting climate change. In a soundbite gobbled up by the media, she said that global warming, like terrorism, needs the nations of the world to work together to fight it.

Like the meeting earlier in the week, the Washington meeting was billed as a starting point for negotiations beyond Kyoto. But while the U.N. meetings discuss measurable emissions cuts and targets, Bush prefers voluntary measures or “intensity targets,” that call for emission reductions per each unit of economic production.

The problem is that intensity targets don’t mean overall emission cuts, and that makes many at home and abroad suspicious of the real motives behind the Bush meeting.

Besides the expected protestors outside the conference, the delegates inside were wary as well. The EU’s Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa explained:

“We have actually found many, many countries voicing our view that (a) voluntary approach may be useful but will not solve the issue. Voluntary goals so far have not got us to the level of ambition that we need.”

In fact, he went on to say that Europe will insist on a clearer picture of Bush’s emissions plan and how it will interlock with the Bali talks before they agree to any further meetings. Although the U.S.’s participation is welcome, they insist, officials want to ensure that the intentions of the Bali conference aren’t stalled.

Agence France-Presse
CNN
National Post

Power to the People: Which Way Ya Goin’ Billy …

Mike Garofalo — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:28:41 +0000

Ok, so I stole the title of this article from a song from that wildly popular Canadian pop group "The Poppy Family." It was a huge hit way, way, way back in 1969. But it truly does apply to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s 2008 presidential campaign. The messages from his energy plan seem to be going in many different directions.

Let’s look at his extremely impressive resume! Richardson is the current Governor of New Mexico, a job that he has held since 2003. But he has also been:

7-Term US Congressman from New Mexico
United Nations Ambassador, appointed by President Clinton
Secretary of Energy, under President Clinton
Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association
Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 Times
Brokered a cease-fire in Darfur
Negotiated the release of hostages and political prisoners in Iraq, North Korea and Cuba
Invented a chewing gum that will never lose its flavor

Ok, I made that last one up! But that resume is incredibly impressive. Richardson was born in California, but spent most of his childhood in Mexico City. As a teenager, he came back to the United States and went to school in the Boston area. He graduated from Tufts University and married his high school sweetheart Barbara Flavin.

Richardson has visited New Hampshire many times as a presidential candidate. He is a strong supporter of New Hampshire remaining as the first primary state. He has attended many events and was the first candidate to be interviewed on the SmartPower blog back in May about his energy plans.

On our blog, we asked Governor Richardson a series of questions about clean energy and the role it would play in a Richardson Administration. The main thrust for Richardson is that he has a huge plan for clean energy: "I want to initiate an Apollo-like program where in 10 years we have shifted 65% of our demand away from fossil fuels and towards renewables." That’s impressive!

We then asked Governor Richardson what he felt we should strive for with respect to reducing greenhouse gases: "We should reduce greenhouse gases by 90% by the year 2050." That is even higher than most experts have demanded — that is very good!

What would a Richardson Administration mandate the federal government to do about using clean energy? "I believe that the federal government should lead by example. I would issue an Executive Order that mandates a percentage of fleet vehicles be powered by natural gas. I believe that all future federal buildings should be ‘green.’ The government should use 20% clean energy to meet its energy needs by the year 2010." — He knows this drill!

Do you support or oppose a Carbon Tax? "I oppose a Carbon Tax. It will simply be passed on to the consumers. It doesn’t do the job. I am against a Carbon Tax." — there are mixed opinions about the validity of that tax, but his position is valid.

Finally, what role would nuclear power play in a Richardson Administration? "Well, I think nuclear has to be allowed to compete. But we do need to be able to resolve the waste issue. Perhaps technology is the answer. But it has to compete with other fuel sources."— Oh, NO! Not you Governor! Say it ain’t so!

Well, no one is perfect.

But Governor Richardson is also promoting:

A North American Energy Council, with Canada and Mexico, that would encourage oil from those friendly sources as opposed to nations that oppose us.
Detroit should get a 100 mpg car into the marketplace
A National Renewable Portfolio Standard of 30% by 2020
Support for "clean coal," but the Governor is not a fan of liquefied coal.

Overall, Richardsons energy plans are mostly positive. He shows true leadership in setting aggressive reduction targets and in promoting renewable energy sources. But his support for both clean coal and for nuclear power are troubling.

No matter "which way Billy is going," there is no dobt in my mind that many green voters will be going too!

Next week ….. Republican Senator John McCain

SmartPower - the national non profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy.

SmartPower Blog on Bill Richardson

Richardson for President

Image of Bill Richardson and the author holding a Clean Energy Lets Make More Magnet - Author.

Clean Coal is Like a Porous Condom

Philip C. Curtis — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:32:39 +0000

I didn’t say it…Robin Williams did. But it makes sense. Clean compared to what? Compared to the black lung producing crap that we used to burn?

I live in Michigan and our Governor has been paying a lot of lip service to environmentally-friendly practices and energy-conservation and so has our regional utility, Consumers Energy. However, that’s about it. The same thing is also going on in Seattle.

Recently, Consumers announced it will build a new 800 megawatt coal buring power plant near Bay City Michigan. A Consumer’s spokes person said the plant will have lower emissions than existing plants. This isn’t impressive. The spokes person also stated that wind and solar were not economically viable options for Consumers.
The problem that I have with Consumer’s economic analysis of this matter is that it does not seem to take into consideration the environmental cost of the pollution the coal burning plant will generate. I haven’t seen the financial plans for this new plant but I doubt this cost is considered in the analysis. What Consumers and other utility companies should say is that coal plants are more lucrative for them because they don’t have to pay for any of the environmental costs.
I am sure that wind and solar will eventually become more cost-effective even if one does not consider the environmental costs of operating a power plant. However, in the meantime wouldn’t it make sense to place an operating tax of some sort on power plants that would be commensurate to the level of pollution they create? This seems more reasonable than requiring us to give up our clean environment as a subsidy to the utility companies.
Besides, there will never be any incentive for consumers to reduce their energy consumption if the true cost of the power is not reflected in the cost consumer’s actually pay.