Obama’s Emergency Economic Plan

Unlike McCain, who can’t remember the price of gas or how many houses he owns, Obama recognizes working Americans are struggling.  In response to the current economic crisis, Obama’s Emergency Economic Plan offers both long and short term solutions.  In a move reminiscent of Robin Hood, Obama would take from rich oil companies and give to the American people. The emergency plan also includes a $50 billion stimulus package designed to save 1 million jobs. 

Read more of this story »

It looks like the new line of clean diesels from VW, including the new Jetta TDI and SportWagen, will be eligible for a $1,300 Federal Income Tax Credit.

VW made the announcement earlier in the week after receiving notification from the IRS that clean diesels would meet the “Advanced Lean Burn” motor vehicle income tax credit.

Read more of this story »

We want to let you know about an excellent new resource available to you– GreenMadeSimple.com. This site has created a very comprehensive database of green rebates, tax incentives and free offers across the US.

Their zip-code guided search allows you to find incentives and deals related to energy-efficient appliances and lighting, solar power, hybrid and alt-fuel vehicles, and more. The database includes federal, state and local incentives. Just put in your zip code and prepare to go green and save money.

Here are some examples of the jewels you’ll find:

Read more of this story »

For the average American working for a paycheck, May Day — a pagan spring ritual where you dance around a Maypole — marks yet another, less festive occasion.

From the first of January until around the first of May, all the money many of us will earn goes to pay our share of income tax to the US government.

Kiss those months — that money — goodbye (the present tax stimulus package is really just a refund).

We followed the advice of our parents, as most children do: get a good education, go to college and get a job — a nice, secure, well-paying one, with great fringe benefits, stock options or profit-sharing. But the bimonthly paychecks — after the government gets its share for income, Social Security and Medicare taxes — aren’t enough to keep up with the bills. Even with raises and promotions, many of us feel that we keep getting further in the hole, since the more we earn in earned income, the more it’s taxed. The reality is that the system is largely devised this way, not to tax the very rich but to exact a fee on the middle class and poor to keep these wage earners on the treadmaster of a job — or “promising career.”

Read more of this story »

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are the two most-cited proposals for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Supporters argue over which plan would be the most efficient method of cutting emissions while allowing for flexibility in the economy.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on CO2 emissions. Those who favor a carbon tax say it will drive innovations and technologies that allow for the same amount of work to be done with less pollution, and decrease the demand for products that are dirtier and thus more expensive. Critics point out that a tax would have a harsher impact on the poor, while others argue that carbon tax revenues could be used to lower other taxes, like income taxes or payroll taxes.

A carbon tax also makes many elected officials nervous: New taxes, fees, or whatever you want to call them, are rarely popular with voters. One notable supporter of carbon taxes — although he’s not running for office anymore — is Al Gore. He has promoted a carbon tax in addition to implementing a cap-and-trade program.

A cap-and-trade system requires an overall cut in emissions. Companies that cut emissions further than required are issued permits that they can then sell to companies that can’t or won’t cut emissions far enough.

Promoters of cap-and-trade say that the system provides an incentive — rather than a heavy-handed tax approach — to cut emissions because companies can sell the excess permits. It also requires a definitive limit on emissions, while some are afraid that a carbon tax would simply drive companies to pay the fines, pass the increase along to consumers, and keep on polluting. Companies like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, and Toyota back a cap-and-trade policy, as do many environmental groups and labor unions. Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama also prefer it.

This fall, Congress could see a slew of measures to cut CO2. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are planning to propose a cap-and-trade bill. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is expected to introduce a carbon tax proposal — not in the hopes of actually passing it, but rather just to show how unpopular such a tax would be.

San Francisco Chronicle
Wall Street Journal, via Environmental Economics

• Moving $16 billion in tax incentives away from oil companies and putting it towards renewable energy.
• New energy efficiency standards for appliances and building codes.
• The creation of a Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board to raise national awareness of solar energy options. The program would be funded completely by a portion of solar industry revenues, with no appropriations authorized.
• A modified 4-year extension of the wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC) that limits the credit to 35 percent of wind project costs.

Not in the bill is an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) that was a hot topic as the session came to a close. By avoiding a vote on CAFE standards, Democrats avoid public in-fighting with fellow Dems from auto industry states, notably Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI).

The Senate already approved an increase in fuel efficiency back in June, which will be just another piece of the Senate bill to be reconciled with the House version in conference committee this fall. In addition, the White House has threatened to veto any legislation containing a renewable energy standard.

Renewable Energy Access
The Sietch Blog
Yahoo News

Thursday morning’s session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium focused on the "green economy": how to craft economic policy that both internalizes the costs of a carbon-based economy, and creates incentives to move away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The presenters in this session were Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and former member of the Clinton administration, and Angelo Consoli, Director, Codeco s.s., European Affairs and Progressive Communication.

Professor Stiglitz’s presentation picked up on a theme that has run throughout the conference: the question of the best economic mechanisms to address climate change. Stiglitz argued (as have others) that a carbon tax is preferable to a cap and trade system (the model embraced by the Kyoto treaty, and much of the business world). Because changes in the market away from fossil fuels will inevitably make those energy sources less expensive, carbon taxes keep their prices high, reflecting the costs imposed on society by carbon emissions. Stiglitz also argued that such taxation responds to another reality: market-based approaches won’t work by itself, and government investments in infrastructure, research, and preparedness will be needed to round out a comprehensive approach to fighting climate change.

Other costs that the developed world likely will face stems from advancing the concepts of energy security and independence. If countries like China and India act in accordance with these concepts, that inevitably means that they’ll be burning more coal — China is already building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one/week. This could be disastrous in terms of climate change, but it points to the need for developing countries to build their energy infrastructure. If countries like China and India have to impede their own development to play a part in a global response to the climate crisis, Stiglitz argued that they should probably be compensated.

All of these question are important for the next round of climate negotiations. Stiglitz noted that in order to bring the developing world into this process, measuring carbon emissions on a per capita basis will be critical, as will a strict enforcement system. His last point: trade sanctions will likely be the most effective means of enforcing adherence to carbon mitigation strategies adopted by the international community.

Consoli’s presentation dealt with a completely different issue: the necessity (his argument) of developing the hydrogen economy in order to address global warming. He argued that one of the major impediments facing the growth of renewable generation technologies is storage, and that by using renewables such as wind and solar power to electrolyze water and create hydrogen, we can overcome that impediment. Consoli noted that the development of such systems, which would be decentralized, also has the benefit of empowering (in every sense of the word) people around the globe without access to electricity, or the capital to create it with current centralized generation technologies. The economic effect of such a transition involves a move from carbon-intensive energy sources, which require high amounts capital, to renewable sources that require high amounts of labor, so renewable production of hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism ends up boosting employment and economic growth.

Consoli presented the EU Parliament’s Written Declaration on energy, and it’s five pillars:

• Efficiency
• Renewables
• CO2 Reduction
• Hydrogen
• Smart Grids

As you might imagine, the questions and responses came quickly and furiously to these presentations, and included thoughts about the political reality of carbon taxation, the idea that such taxes create a right to pollute, the problem of hydrogen generation from "dirty" sources, and the methods by which governments can encourage their citizens to accept changes that could be painful in the short term. As usual, I’m giving a quick and dirty overview here — feel free to ask questions or offer your own responses.

They may not have been rocking out at Live Earth, but business leaders from 150 companies around the world – including 30 Fortune Global 500 ones - have called for action on global warming.

The leaders signed a declaration at the United Nations Global Compact Leaders Summit, committing themselves to cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from their products and services and to report annually on their progress. They also called on governments to agree as soon as possible on measures to secure climate market mechanisms for after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires.

But don’t presume that global warming is necessarily seen as a threat to businesses. On the contrary, many view the problem as an enormous opportunity for innovation, profits, as well as saving the planet and its people. So noted the executive director of the UN Environment Program, Achim Steiner:

"In terms of global warming and climate change, the key to rapid progress is in part premised upon getting markets and, by implication, businesses to become not skeptics and doubters and therefore brakes on progress, but rather catalysts, innovators and multipliers for a transition to a more energy efficient economy.”

Companies aren’t about to go gangbusters on energy innovation and carbon-cutting technology without some stable rules and policies, however. Mindy S. Lubber is the president of Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups that work with companies to address issues like global warming. She explained on WorldChanging.com:

“…investors tend to weight their equity portfolios towards companies focused on succeeding in stable and predictable markets, not on those gambling on doubtful, uncertain regulatory landscapes. The current lack of a coherent, comprehensive U.S. strategy for addressing climate change is hindering the ability of American businesses to invest and innovate…And that means we need – some businesses will argue, they crave – a national climate change policy with specific, mandatory limits on carbon emissions.”

Many companies around the globe have begun to tackle global warming but can and want to do more. Although each of us can screw in a CFL bulb or drive a fuel-efficient car, we will see the swiftest action on global warming when government sets the rules of the CO2 market and businesses - and their consumers - fully take advantage of those opportunities.

CSR Wire
Voice of America
WorldChanging.com

Oregon’s legislative session went out with a bang. Building on the renewagble energy standard passed earlier this summer that requires 25 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2025, this week Governor Ted Kulongoski signed key solar power policies that will continue to encourage solar manufacturing and solar energy systems in the state.

For starters, the tax credit for solar power projects jumped from 35 percent of project costs to 50 percent. A tax exemption passed for solar net metered systems, and a provision requiring public buildings to set aside 1.5 percent of their construction budget to fund onsite solar power technologies also made it through.

Jon Miller, executive director of the Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association, explained why solar power is good for Oregon:

It's another example of how we're growing manufacturing in the northwest. We're now a powerhouse in the United States in solar manufacturing. Oregon's established and educated semiconductor workforce makes it a natural fit for the solar PV industry.

Solar business is booming in Oregon. Indeed, two manufacturers (Germany-based SolarWorld AG and California-based Solaicx) have already committed to the state, and overall the solar industry is growing more than 30 percent annually. Oregon ranks 5th in the U.S. for solar hot water systems and in the top 10 for photovoltaic (PV) systems. By 2009, Oregon is expected to be the largest producer of PV cells in the U.S.

Renewable Energy Access

This bill is all about government and the main word is ‘control’. It bumps the CAFÉ standards up, controlling the type of car we will be able to buy in the future… it imposes greater control on domestic oil/refinery capacity… it imposes ethanol production mandates (thank you ADM and the farm lobby)… and generally says to America "We and our lobbyists know what is best for you."

Alternative energy research is up and that’s a good thing but the overall effect will be an energy bill that is not responsive to any of the expected advancements due to imposed inflexibility.

Sadly, the whole thing could be simply scrapped and replaced with an energy and geo-political tax on oil to cover alternative fuel development and to cover the tab for sending our soldiers across the globe every decade or so to protect world oil interests. Such a tax indexes the cost at the pump to the real cost of fuel, and, at the same time, gives us the resource and incentive to invest in winning alternatives. No bloated government programs and no cash-cow lobby paybacks for big agriculture. Suddenly, it just makes more sense for the consumer to vote with his/her dollars in a way that advances US energy independence without the peak and valley market effects of regulatory nonsense.

So the Energy bill is our topic today. We invite your thoughts in the comments below.

Referring to the wayward Embassy during a radio talk show last Thursday, he said: “If it was up to me, I would’ve seized their cars and crushed them, but it’s not legal for me to do that. I would've been quite happy to crush the car with the American ambassador in it, quite frankly.”

Washington argues that the congestion charge is a tax. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted under the auspices of the United Nations in 1961, embassies and diplomats are exempt from paying national taxes. So, if the charge is a tax, diplomats are not obliged to pay it. But, Mayor Livingstone replies, the congestion charge is not a tax. It is more like a toll, the charge payable to use a bridge or road, a fee that everyone, without exception, must pay.

The congestion charge was first introduced in February 2003, and at the time it met with great opposition both in the media and from Londoners. But when, not long after implementation, the positive effects of the toll became noticeable, it was hailed as a success. Within a year there was a palpable decline in traffic throughout the central zone and figures confirmed a substantial increase in the use of public transportation throughout the city. In July 2005 the charge was raised from £5 to £8. Since then the American Embassy, headed by Ambassador Robert Tuttle, has refused to pay and has thereby incurred a sizeable debt.

How much does the American Embassy owe to London? Different figures are floating around on different websites. In October 2006 the BBC cited 1 million pounds in unpaid charges and penalties. A press release from the mayor’s office lists the sum of £891,000, about $1.6 million, owed in September 2006. At the end of the press release there is a note to editors: “The Mayor has demanded that the Embassy pay outstanding fines as the congestion charge is not a tax but a charge for a service – reduced congestion – from which US diplomats benefit.”

The charge system was altered again in February 2007, not with a rise in fee this time but with an extension of the zone to West London. According to the BBC, “residents staged a peaceful demonstration against the new charge”, saying it would “damage business and cost residents hundreds of pounds a year”. The toll zone is now about double the area of the original zone and includes other embassies, a number of which have stopped paying the charge. As Allen Cowell of The International Herald Tribune wrote, “the American envoy won support from an unlikely quarter” notably from the French Embassy, which is now also incurring debt.

Mayor Livingstone is infuriated by the diplomats’ repudiation of British regulations. At the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit held in New York last month, he chronicled the evolution of the congestion toll. According to a press release from the summit he “described how the initial proposal for a congestion charge came from a consortium of London business interests that calculated the cost of congestion in terms of London’s productivity and competitiveness at two billion pounds”, around 4 billion dollars, annually. “In one year,” he said, “the congestion charge has brought about a 38% drop in private cars entering London – twice the anticipated figure.” With the massive increase in cyclists and bus passengers, from four to six million, there has been “a 20% reduction in carbon emissions”.

From the green perspective, the American, French and other embassies should pay the congestion charge even if the sole benefit were the reduction in carbon emissions, but other benefits provide an even more powerful argument in favor of the toll. Other positive effects appeal to a wider audience, including skeptics of the green movement. The obvious example is the benefit of greater productivity. While the ol’ saying “time is money” may be trite, it is ringing true as businesses and individuals save time thanks to the decline in traffic. But, in order for the system to work, everyone needs to pay up.

There was talk at the Large Cities Summit of introducing a congestion charge, based on the London model, in New York. Yes, I say, and everyone must pay. Even the British Embassy.

Image Credit: Jennifer Carlile / MSNBC.com

www.london.gov.uk/mayor/congest/, news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6368957.stm, www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/21/news/london.php, www.nycclimatesummit.com/pressReleases/pr_2007_0515.html

Related info from GO:

www.greenoptions.com/2007/05/22/world_s_mayors_take_on_global_warming
www.greenoptions.com/news/hybrid_sales_boosted_emission_cut_by_london_congestion_charge

The crown jewel was certainly a near-40 percent increase in fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles by 2020. For the first time, SUVs, vans, and small trucks fall under the same regulations as passenger cars. Each vehicle group must achieve a 10 miles per gallon (mpg) increase in fuel efficiency by the target year, with an overall average requirement for the manufacturer’s fleet increasing from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. The current requirement has not changed in nearly 20 years.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) fought the standards and wanted to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel requirement. But he admitted that one reason for his effort’s failure was the growing concern over global warming. From the Associated Press:

“‘The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming,’ Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is ‘a juicy target.’”

Although an improvement in fuel efficiency is a long-overdue step forward, some perspective is required. Watthead over at Cleanergy.org points out the 35 mpg standards by 2020 is about where China and Japan are today, where the European Union was five years ago, and where states that adopt California’s tailpipe standards will be in five years.

Other achievements in the energy bill include:

• A 36 billion gallon by 2022 renewable fuels standard, including the specification that at least 60 percent of the requirement must be met by “next generation” biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is not made from corn but rather other plant materials like switchgrass.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards, as well as a requirement that the federal government accelerate the use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• The development of an action plan (but not a requirement) to cut oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017. That’s roughly the same as the total current imports of oil from the Middle East. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for the plan.

Here’s what didn’t make it in the energy bill:

• No support for coal-to-liquids synthetic fuel production and no support for expanded coal, nuclear, or oil use. So although some key pieces of progressive clean energy legislation were left out, at least we’re (so far) not expanding more of our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

• No package that would have extended production tax credits and other financial incentives and offsets for renewable energy. The $32 billion package, previously approved 15-5 by the Senate Finance Committee, also included a repeal of tax credits for major gas and oil companies' domestic manufacturing activities.

• No national renewable energy standard that would have required 15 percent of our energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2020.

The Senate energy bill now awaits action in the House. The House Ways and Means Committee passed a tax provision last week that includes support for wind and biodiesel. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representative Edward Mackey (D-MA) have both agreed that gasoline use must be more efficient and plan to work to ensure that the House’s action mirrors the Senate’s.

Associated Press, via CIO Today
BioCycle
Cleanergy.org
Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Jimmy: Well… since President Bush is SOARING in the polls with his approval rating hovering in the 30% range I thought it might be interesting to take a look at his environmental record and his perceived Turn-Around on the environment, particularly on climate change.

As I have noted before Bush doesn’t always earn the enmity the environmental community harbors against him. One personal anecdote that would be funny if it wasn’t sad is this walk-the-walk vs. a talk-the-talk comparison of residence between George Bush and uber-conservationist Al Gore. Now Big Al has since made amends and is LEEDing the way by giving his place an environmental make-over… but it sometimes makes me wonder where his heart really is.

Bush does live somewhat conservatively to the extent any president can but what about Bush’s policy? I find it hard to cut through the rhetoric with the environmental community attacking every policy as not enough and Bush seemingly unwilling to aggressively defend his policy for fear it might hurt his street cred as an evil capitalist.

I guess some research is in order.Though some will dismiss Whitehouse.gov as biased tripe, I do encourage you to visit the site here and look at the many accomplishments we have made during the Bush administration. It’s a vast contrast to what you will read anywhere else where only controversy and strife make seem to make the news.

Anyway, I’ve made the case before that economics are tremendously important to the environment and I’ve defended Bush on these grounds. The purpose of this thread though is to debate actual actions and accomplishments so I open up the comments and invite you to share your perceptions of how good or bad Bush is doing and I’ll again try to defend the seemingly indefensible: Bush’s record on the environment.

One legislative bill, awaiting Gov. Ted Kulongoski's signature, that will limit caloric, sugar, and fat content of foods sold in vending machines and school stores. Three more bills currently being debated that would promote, among other things, utilizing food from Oregon farmers, bakeries, and other processors. HB 3476 allocates seven cents per meal served in Oregon public schools to incorporate Oregon agricultural products. HB 3307 creates a Farm to School program within the Oregon Deparment of Agriculture, and HB 3185 awards mini-grants to schools creating gardens and other agriculture/food-based learning. The three bills would cost the state approximately $10 million.

Because public school cafeteria budgets are often strained (at best), many cafeterias rely on fatty, salty, and sugary products that students will pay a premium for to boost their budgets. This is particularly true in Oregon, which is one of a handful of states that does not supplement the National School Lunch and Breakfast program with state dollars. Incorporating local food puts less-processed foods on the table for students, promoting a healthier diet than chicken nuggets and pizza.

Utilizing local producers also cuts down on fuel use/costs, provides fresher, better tasting produce, and boosts local economies by forging steady partnerships between school districts and local agriculture. For example, in the Bend-La Pine School District, students eat blueberries, strawberries and cantaloupe from the local 25-acre Happy Harvest Farms. In Gresham, blueberries, broccoli and milk come from Portland-area farms.

There are downsides. Using local produce can cost more, and that cost will likely be passed onto the students despite the state's possible additional funding. And the amount of local food being used in only a fraction of the food being fed to schoolchildren. But it's a step in the right direction for healthier kids and creating a more sustainable food system.

The Oregonian

Editor's note: Fair Trade is a topic that GreenOptions.com has been covering for some time now, so we thought it might be interesting to debate from the progressive vs. conservative perspective. Brady and Alicia offer us some excellent background on the discussion. Now, it's Jimmy and Shirley's turn…

Jimmy: Although I am generally conservative on fiscal matters and would normally lean toward unfettered free trade, I understand the importance of Fair Trade to our country’s interest and as a humanitarian influence on the world. Fair Trade levels the playing field. Where we have certain standards for the treatment of our workers and environmental restrictions, while other countries do not; therefore, they have a competitive advantage. In circumstances where slave and prison labor is used to compete with American labor the need for Fair Trade standards is obvious. But what about circumstances where the cost of living in undeveloped countries is simply so much lower that this allows the country to clobber the US with low cost labor?

Free trade would seem only fair given willing workers and willing employers. Also many of our increasingly stringent environmental standards are a testimony of our wealth. Although basic health and sanitation standards are a must, do we hold other developing countries to the high environmental standards that only our wealth can support?

These are important questions that we will consider. Please add your thoughts as well so that we can determine what might be the best form of Fair Trade policy to live and support.

Rural electric cooperatives ("co-ops") are nonprofit organizations that distribute electricity and are owned by their customers. There are more than 800 of them across the U.S., and more than 50 of them own a power plant. The co-ops plan to spend $35 billion to build old-fashioned coal plants over the next 10 years. A sobering reality check: That’s enough to offset all state and federal efforts to cut CO2 emissions over that time.

The Office of Management and Budget wants to end the loans for new power plants and limit the ones for transmission projects in the most remote areas. But the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is a powerful lobby, and sent 3,000 members to Capitol Hill last week to keep the lending program rolling, arguing that the new coal plants are needed to keep energy cheap and reliable.

Glenn English, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, pointed out that taxable utilities get tax breaks to encourage renewable energy projects and efficiency measures, but rural co-ops can’t. He wants Congress to give the nonprofit co-ops incentives too, like no-interest loans.

Besides political influence, co-ops often carry a lot of clout in their communities because they are more involved than just distributing electricity. English explained that one co-op reopened a gas station that went out of business. Another bought and kept open the local Dairy Queen.

Others argue that many of the co-ops shouldn’t qualify as rural anymore because of their expansion into densely populated zones, like Dallas-Fort Worth area and Atlanta. Additionally, the low-interest money they receive removes any incentive to promote energy efficiency or go after renewable resources. In fact, rural co-ops get on average 80 percent of their electricity from coal, compared to 50 percent with the rest of the country. Their energy demand is also growing at twice the national rate.

This is going to be a tough political issue for Congress to tackle. Both sides may have valid points, but the system must be restructured to be a more efficient process that emphasizes clean, renewable, local energy. If not, than all the state and federal goals, programs, and initiatives that aim to cut climate change emissions will be simply blown away.

Washington Post

The first thing you'll want to do is file electronically. You can do this in many different ways, but basically, you'll be taking the paper out of the process. Seventy-three million tax returns were filed electronically in 2006! That's what we call tree-happy taxes! Plus, there is a program available to some lower income families called Free File, which offers free e-filing.

Owe money? Ouch. Lessen the pain by not writing out a check - that just hurts. Instead, pay Uncle Sam electronically via credit card. You're paperless on those credit card statements anyway, right?

Getting money? Yeessss! Get a direct deposit and you'll not only save paper printing and mailing, but you'll get your money back almost a month sooner.

Oh, and don't forget about your phone credit, which you don't really need. Consider donating it to Refunds for Good.

Rebecca says: This is a themed tip for Tax Day, but everyone has already filed theirs, right? I mean, it was done back in February, for sure. If so, then feel free to check this one off without even lifting a finger!

Chameides argued that the fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is with a policy called cap-and-trade. This system tells big emitters – like powerplants, automobile manufacturers, etc – that they have to cut their CO2 emissions by a certain amount by a certain date. For companies that make deeper cuts than what is required, a credit is issued and can be traded (sold) to other emitters that don’t meet the targets. With this system, explained Chameides, government plays “a fairly light role” by ensuring that technologies are valid and are reducing emissions, while carbon dioxide becomes a commodity and sold on the open market. Companies are rewarded for innovations that take them beyond targets set by lawmakers.

Cap-and-trade isn’t a new concept: A cap-and-trade policy was enacted with the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to cut emissions that cause acid rain. According to the current Bush Administration, the cap-and-trade system has been a “resounding success,” cutting annual sulfur dioxide emissions ahead of target dates and at one-third of the expected cost.

When a caller pointed out the lack of action from the federal government on CO2, Chameides noted that states have taken the initiative. For example, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce CO2 emissions. RGGI employs a multi-state cap-and-trade program and requires electric power generators to make the cuts. California is also implementing a cap-and-trade system (one that targets all big emitters, not just the electricity sector, and which covers all six major global warming gases, not just CO2), and Europe’s cap-and-trade came into effect over two years ago. As important as it is for states to forge ahead, Chameides is concerned that without leadership from the federal government, we won’t get the cuts we need and we’ll fall behind in renewable energy innovation:

“Europe is way ahead of us in renewable energy technology and that’s where we’re really going to have to play catch up…If we wait long enough, we’ll have to be an importer of these technologies instead of an exporter.”

There are several bills in Congress that have cap-and-trade policies, and many see a “clear preference” for this approach among utilities, compared to a carbon tax. In fact, 91 percent of California businesses in one survey responded that a cap-and-trade policy was the best way to meet CO2 reduction goals. Chameides argued that a carbon tax – besides being “a political nonstarter” – doesn’t allow for measurable reductions, and the government sets the price on CO2 rather than the marketplace. The best way to slow global warming, spur technological innovation, boost our economy, and clean up our environment is with a measurable, market-based system like cap-and-trade.

UPDATE: See Maria Energia for another point of view: Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek argues that a global carbon tax is the most efficient, market-friendly way to cut emissions that cause global warming.

Business Wire, via Find Articles
Climate Action Network Europe
MarketWatch
National Public Radio
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Terra Daily
WhiteHouse.gov

Much of Bush’s criticism comes from undoing many of the things Clinton/Gore never really did in the first place.

Do you believe Clinton removed the arsenic from the water? Not only did he NOT do that, not only did he make us drink arsenic-laced water for the last 8 years, this order he signed stipulated that the arsenic was not to be removed from the water "until 2004." That's right. Look it up. Clinton's big environmental do-good act in the last minutes of his term guaranteed that we would be drinking the same levels of arsenic we've been drinking since 1942 — the last time a REAL Democrat had the guts to stand up to the mining interests and reduce the levels of this poison. The Canadians and Europeans did it long ago. Clinton made it official that we would all be drinking arsenic during the entire Bush administration. Maybe he was doing us a favor.

And how about those COO emission regulations that Bush II overturned? Did I say "overturn?" Overturn what? All Bush did was maintain the Clinton status quo. He said, in essence, that "I'm going to pollute the air at the very same levels Clinton did during his entire eight years, just as you are going to drink the same arsenic in the water under my watch as you did under Clinton's." And, like the built-in three-year delay in his arsenic reductions, Clinton's orders on the toxic emissions in his last days specified that they were not to be totally reduced '"until 2008, per the Kyoto agreement."

So, after violating the Kyoto accords he had signed by doing NOTHING about CO2 in the past few years, he then tries to look good by doing NOTHING about CO2 for another seven years! So the air that was dirty is still dirty and will remain dirty, just as Clinton had ordered.

 

I don’t share the writer’s contempt for Clinton. I just think that the standards were reasonable and that staying with earlier standards and working toward gradual improvement is a smarter tack. Sandbagging Bush with these unreasonable last minute executive orders was a pretty dirty political trick though and the media played along as anyone could have predicted.

Another misnomer is that Bush has not acknowledged global climate change and is deaf to the issue. This letter from March of 2001 would indicate otherwise:

Consistent with these concerns, we will continue to fully examine global climate change issues — including the science, technologies, market-based systems, and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am very optimistic that, with the proper focus and working with our friends and allies, we will be able to develop technologies, market incentives, and other creative ways to address global climate change.

The U.S. has made vast improvements toward CO2 mitigation and is on track to lead the world with policies refined by this administration.

Also there is a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk on energy and the environment. It seems World Conservation Superstar Al Gore has a little problem with energy consumption in his 10,000 square foot mansion. Bill Hobbs over at Ecotality.com notes a Tennessee Center for Policy Research article:

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.

Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.”

George Bush also gets demerits from the environmental community for his general Fiscal Conservatism. For some reason fiscal conservatism is unhitched these days from environmental conservatism as if only running money through an inefficient, often corrupt and politically motivated bureaucracy will save the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Take Venezuela for example. Hugo Chavez is conducting the ultimate fiscal liberalism experiment by nationalizing all the oil, telecommunication and other private infrastructure. In doing so he is developing a new populist socialistic economy… with predictable results:

At this moment there are serious food shortages in Venezuela as he has increased government control over production and established unrealistic price controls for foodstuffs. Inflation in the food sector is running at 36% for the year. At the same time, unemployment and inflation rates are the largest in Latin America.

I predict Venezuela will continue to decline economically and the inevitable environmental rape will follow as they will have the economic means for nothing else. It’s a melodramatic melt-down of Ayn Rand proportions and it’s as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

In summary, a Google search of Bush + Environment will result in a legion of articles and commentary assailing the president on his environmental policy. In every article they take one small fragment issue to try to discredit the whole of a complex and effective environmental policy. The truth of the record shows that Bush has made steady progress on the environment while at the same time balancing reasonable economic concerns against environmental hysteria. He is a true Rational Environmentalist.

Want to discuss Ryan and Jimmy's posts further? Visit the Red, Green and Blue discussion forum.