Bill would require just 15% of electricity to come from renewable sources

House Democrats negotiating a climate and energy bill have reportedly reached a compromise on a renewable energy standard (RES) as part of the American Clean Energy & Security Act that would allow those states unable to meet the requirement to make up for it with gains in energy efficiency.

The agreement would break what has been a point of contention for House negotiators for weeks. Concerned that they would be unable to meet the target of 25 percent renewables by 2025 first proposed in the Waxman-Markey draft in March, Southern Democrats balked, arguing that they didn’t have access to strong solar or wind resources the other states do and that high cost would make such a target cost prohibitive.

Read more of this story »

The Waxman-Markey bill that recently was introduced into the House has already caused quit a stir, and that was before someone found a provision tucked in it’s 600 plus pages that would make it legal to sue the Government if you suffer from Global Warming.

The bill is big, robust, and in many cases even more aggressive in it’s battle against C02 then the Obama plan (maybe for a reason: to make the Obama plan seem palatable in comparison?).  This one little subsection, however, has the Washingtin Times all up in arms.  They are worried about the huge number of new lawsuits that this could cause tying up the legal system.  Wait a second… does that mean that they are admitting that these hypothetical lawsuits would be justified?  That the realize there would be a reason to be upset at the Feds for their inaction on Global Warming?   Nah…

Legal Options for Those “Harmed” by Global Warming.

According to the Times, the bill opens up a direct legal action option for individuals who feel they have been harmed in some way by Global Warming.  I located the passage they are talking about in the bill, and the Times seems to have it about right: here’s a line or two from the SEC. 336. ENFORCEMENT bit of the bill.

The persons authorized by subsection (a) to commence an action under this section shall include any person who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).

What is harm, you ask?  Well as near as I can tease out, it’s a wide open definition: “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.”  Well, I’m an asthmatic, and it’s been getting worse my whole life.  Does this mean I now have someone to blame!?

Read more of this story »

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), intended to “create jobs, help end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and combat global warming” according to the official announcement of the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, centers around four titles:

• A clean energy title that promotes renewable sources of energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low-carbon fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission;
• An energy efficiency title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry;
• A global warming title that places limits on emissions of heat-trapping pollutants; and
• A transitioning title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.

The bill seeks emissions reductions greater than those proposed by the president: calling for a 20 percent cut in emissions from 2005 by 2020 instead of the 14 percent included in Obama’s Feburary budget. It also calls for utilities to produce one-quarter of US electricity from renewables sources by 2025, and includes a federal low carbon fuel standard modeled on California legislation.

Read more of this story »

A high profile Congressional committee investigation has revealed that, since 2006, the outgoing Bush administration has dropped or stalled enforcement actions on more than 500 cases of severe water pollution.

According to the Committee chairmen, the situation is now so bad that, “the federal government’s Clean Water Act enforcement program has been decimated over the past two years, imperiling the health and safety of the nation’s waters.”

Read more of this story »

It would take a book to chronicle the eco-disaster that is the Bush Administration, and thankfully Robert F. Kennedy Jr. already wrote that book. If you're looking for a laundry list of Bush's environmental misdeeds, the NRDC can help with that, too. Here, we'll take a look at just a few of Bush's worst environmental offenses:

• The Kyoto Protocol - Even after promising to regulate carbon emissions in his 2000 campaign, Bush promptly pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Treaty shortly after taking office. Sure, Kyoto is flawed in some ways and would have required industrialized countries like the United States to re-prioritize and take immediate steps toward emissions reductions and renewable energy development. That was the point, wasn't it? But Bush didn't work to make the adjustments that would have made Kyoto a better and fairer agreement. He simply took his ball and went home.

• Cheney's Energy Task Force - In 2001, President Bush formed a task force to help him develop a national energy policy and appointed Vice President Cheney to head it. Their meetings were held in secret and most of the participants were not disclosed. Though many of the Task Force's documents have yet to be released completely uncensored, it is known that several of Bush and Cheney's old oil friends, including Enron's top brass, were influential contributors. It is also known that the Task Force's final recommendations heavily favored oil, gas, and coal companies. The Nation reported in 2002:

When Cheney and [Enron CEO Kenneth] Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate recommendations. Representative Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, ordered an analysis of the memo against the final report of the task force; it shows that the group adopted all or significant portions of the recommendations in seven of eight policy areas. Seventeen policies sought by Enron or that clearly benefit the company… were included.

The results of those recommendations are still Bush Administration policy today, which is no doubt why Bush and Cheney have fought so hard over the years to keep the full, uncensored records of the Task Force unavailable for public consumption.

• Renewable Energy Research and Development - This one is easy: Bush constantly uses the State of the Union address or other high-profile events to promote the idea of increased funding for renewable and clean energy, and then cuts that funding time and time again. This type of behavior inspired a popular book by the next Senator from Minnesota.

• Clear Skies, Healthy Forests - It's not just the condescending Orwellian language that has pushed progressive environmentalists to new heights of indignation, but also the genuinely awful policy changes that proposals like the Clear Skies initiative and the Healthy Forests Act reflect. "Clear Skies" does nothing to combat global warming and weakens a variety of existing laws and regulations on air pollutants. "Healthy Forests" takes the idea that no trees equals no forest fires and lets logging companies run with it.

These are just a few of the blights on the Bush enviro-record. There are many more. I invite you to use the comments below discuss which of Bush's crimes against nature make your head spin the most.

The response from the right to many progressive criticisms of Bush's environmental record usually takes the form of, "It's the economy, stupid!" There are two basic flaws with the "economy above all" argument. First, why is it assumed that the investments made in renewable energy technology, pollution reduction, (actually) healthy ecosystems, and so on, will result in no return on investment? We aren't talking about the Star Wars Missile Defense system. In the long run, green investments will pay off far more than building another coal-fired power plant or drilling another oil well in ANWR. We can grow the GDP without sacrificing the future. It's the sustainable economy, stupid!

Second, if you'll excuse my bleeding heart, what meaning does "strong economy" have if, in a generation from now, kids are fighting wars over the last reserves of drinkable water and smoking the equivalent of three packs of cigarettes a day just breathing? Sometimes the invisible hand has an equally invisible relevance. That is a concept that George W. Bush seems unable or unwilling to grasp even at its most fundamental level, and that inhumane, myopic view is clearly reflected by his almost total lack of genuine leadership on environmental issues.

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

What is the Roll of Government?

It’s an age old question, one that (theoretically) divides progressives from conservatives and all that jazz.  But here is a definition that I think most folks on either side of the aisle can get behind: the government’s roll in our society is to protect us from what we can not protect our selves from.  That means militarily, that means financially, and increasingly that means environmentally.   I can go an entire year with a zero carbon footprint, but that is completely undone by one person driving around New York in a stretch navigator for a weekend.  At some point, that fact is that I can’t protect myself fully from other peoples actions… in which case isn’t it the government’s responsibility to do that, or to provide me an option for protecting myself?

Interesting stuff.  We will see if it manages to make it out of the Energy Committee and onto the floor of the House.

Image: CC Licensed by flickr user talicat2000