Windfall profits tax on oil, tax incentives for renewable energy both fail in Senate this week

(Photo of oil rig in Catalina Channel from Flickr and photographer arbyreed)


Washington Report 1: The repeal of $17 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies and “price gouging” penalties for unseemly oil profits garnered only 51 of the 60 votes needed to get to a vote Tuesday in the Senate. Also going down to defeat was yet another bill to extend tax credits due to expire this year on renewable energy and efficiency. On the first bill, GOP Sens. Collins and Snowe from Maine, Coleman from Minn., Smith from Ore., Grassley from Iowa and Warner from Va. voted with the Democrats. Mary Landrieu from La. was the lone Dem against. On the second bill, Republicans Snowe, Smith and Bob Corker of Tenn. voted with the majority, but that made only 50 votes. Key Democrats Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and Byrd were absent, as was Republican John McCain. Both bills faced a veto from the White House. However, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he intends to revive the renewable tax credit bill, which passed the House last fall in a different form. Both parties seem to favor extending the credits, needed to maintain growth in renewable energy, but there’s a dispute about how and whether to pay for it with other taxes. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E News,
AP/Washington Post)

House approves funding for Amtrak, high-speed trains, study of biofuel use

(Photo of an Amtrak train in Bloomington-Normal, IL, from Flickr and photographer Jim Frazier)

Washington Report 2: The House of Representatives voted 311-104 Wednesday for an Amtrak reauthorization bill that includes $1.75 billion over 5 years for developing 11 high-speed intercity rail corridors. It also provides $2.5 billion for states to provide new or improved intercity rail. Another provision funds studies of how a biofuel blend instead of straight diesel could cut CO2 emissions and the feasibility of bio-based lubricants. The Senate passed a similar bill in October. Now the two go to conference to resolve their differences. President Bush has threatened a veto but both chambers passed their bills by more than a two-thirds majority so would likely be able to override a veto. A bipartisan transportation panel had recommended a high-speed network across the country, costing an estimated $66.3 billion by 2015. (Source: E&E Daily)

IEA says global ‘energy revolution’ needed to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050

(Photo of wind turbines in Italy from Flickr and photographer gorillaradio/Sebastiano Pitruzzello)

News Update 1: A worldwide “revolution” in the way we use energy is needed in the next 40 years, the International Energy Agency said last week. The cost will be $45 trillion, the agency said. But failure to act will result in an energy shortage and a slowdown in the global economy. Massive changes will be needed on a worldwide basis, including:
• Retrofitting 35 coal-fired plants and 20 natural gas plants each year to capture and store carbon dioxide.
• Building 32 nuclear plants a year.
• Installing 17,500 new wind turbines a year.
• Increasing solar energy and second-generation biofuels that won’t compete with food.
One of the most challenging changes will be to drastically reduce fossil fuel use for transport, at a time when auto and plane use is skyrocketing in developing nations. Oil demand needs to be cut to 27% of 2005 levels, said the agency, which advises 27 nations on energy policy. The task at hand is gargantuan, but without it oil demand will likely grow 70% and GHG emissions will increase 130% by mid-century, IEA said. The impact would be calamitous, with more severe droughts, famines, floods and rising seas that engulf coastal cities. IEA urged the G-8 to endorse the goal to reduce GHG in half by 2050 at its meeting in July. (Sources: Greenwire, New York Times)

Nuclear wins, renewables lose in DOE's R&D budget

(Photo of nuclear power plant on Lake Erie from Flickr and photographer mandj98/James Phelps)

News Update 2: Nuclear energy is the big winner in the Department of Energy’s fiscal 2009 budget for research and development, and renewable energy and efficiency are the losers. Funds for research, development and deployment in the nuclear sector are up 46%, while RD&D money for renewable energy and efficiency is down 50%, said a report released last week by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Also cut, by 15%, was much-needed improvement to the electricity transmission and distribution system. The weatherization program was eliminated. The budget doesn’t reflect the technologies needed for a low-carbon energy supply, said the report, which urged a drastic increase in spending for new technologies, efficiency and energy storage. The budget “is a far cry from the Manhattan Project for clean energy technology some have proposed,” the report said. The breakdown in the new budget:
*Nuclear fusion 15%
*Nuclear fission 21%
*Fossil fuels 23%
*Renewable energy 17%
*Efficiency 16%
*Hydroelectric 5%
*Electricity transmission 3%
(Sources: E&E News PM, Kennedy School of Government Belfer Center Report)

Freight trains slowed by congestion; more investment needed to expand rail system

(Photo of freight train from Flickr and photographer mre770/Bill Wooten)

News Update 3: Getting freight off the highways and onto trains would be good for the environment. But rail industry leaders are saying there already is too much freight congestion on the nation’s 140,000 miles of track and the system is strained, with freight cars sitting for hours because of one-track lines. At a recent Congressional hearing on rail congestion, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said, “The amount of money invested nationally is pathetic.” In Chicago, the country’s rail hub, trains sometimes are sidelined for as long as 36 hours, according to Jason Breslow on Medill Reports. Freight traffic is expected to nearly double in the next 2 decades, and that is without a nationwide effort to make more use of rails to cut carbon emissions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates expansion would cost $148 billion over 3 decades, most of it paid by the rail companies. (Sources: Greenwire, Medill Reports)

Ten key Dem Senators had problems with global warming bill -- what happens next?

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Gawnesco/Scott Gawne.)

Weekly Angst: Following a 48-36 vote (60 were needed) to end debate on the Climate Security Act Friday, 10 keys Dems, 9 of whom voted with the leadership, said they had problems with the bill that would have kept them from ultimately voting for it.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the 10 said their states would be the most adversely affected by the bill, as written. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin (Mich.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Jim Webb (Va.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said they favored a cap-and-trade bill but it must “ensure consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship.” The following issues need to be addressed, they said:
* Make sure there’s a short-term cushion to ensure technologies will be there to help meet early emissions targets.
* Fold state laws into the federal system.
* Expand agriculture and forestry offsets.
Advocates are now looking to a new President and new Congress to get a cap-and-trade bill passed. With Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) retiring, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he is looking for a new partner to continue working on the Climate Security Act.

Next on the Senate agenda
While the global warming bill may be dead for now, Senate leadership is moving on to other energy bills: the unfinished business of passing an extension of renewable tax credits (approved by the House) and a “windfall profits” bill to tax major oil companies and address “price gouging.”

The renewable tax credit extentions (HR6049) would continue wind farm production credits 1 year and solar energy investment credits 6 years, as well as continue credits for other renewable energy sources and efficiency. The credits are due to expire the end of this year and without them renewable projects face an uncertain future.

The windfall profits bill (S3044) will probably come up first and is intended to address high oil and gasoline prices. In addition to a new tax and the repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, the bill has a price-gouging provision and also allows the Justice Department to bring anti-trust actions against OPEC. This one is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and President Bush has threatened a veto.

And across the way in the House
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected a GOP challenge to debate global warming on the floor of the House before the 4th of July and said any activity this year will be in Energy Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.)’s committee. She indicated chances for passing a strong bill will be much better next year.

Dingell has announced his subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, headed by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), will hold hearings on the bill that just died in the Senate, as well as the two strong bill introduced in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Waxman’s bill calls for an emissions cut of 80% by 2050, with 100% of the credits auctioned, and Markey mandates an 85% reduction, with 94% of credits auctioned. Dingell and Boucher are expected to produce their own bill at some point.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Senate global warming bill dies without debate

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Matt Wright.)

Washington Report: America’s Climate Security Act died an ignominious death Friday morning, when those who wanted to limit debate and move toward a vote lost a cloture motion 48-36 (60 votes were needed). Seven Republicans – Collins, Snowe, Warner, Smith, Sununu, Martinez and Dole – joined 39 Democrats and 2 Independents to support the motion. An additional 6 senators – Obama, McCain, Clinton, Kennedy, Biden and Coleman -- sent written messages that they would have voted for cloture if they’d been there. The vote followed several days of filibustering by the GOP leadership, including the forced 9-hour reading of the entire 492-page bill aloud by clerks. A point of contention was Majority Leader Harry Reid’s refusal to allow unlimited amendments. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the move was a protest against Democrat delay on judicial appointments. Along with McConnell, others using procedural motions to delay debate included Sens. Allard, Inhofe and Cornyn. A GOP lobbyist’s memo that was leaked pointed to a strategy to “make political points” by linking the debate to the high price of gasoline every day. Democrat leaders now say they are looking to next year and a new administration to carry the ball forward. In an effort to rally support in the final hours, bill co-sponsor Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told colleagues a new president could have the EPA draft global warming regulations under the Supreme Court decision Massachusetts vs. EPA, and Congress would have little input. Republicans’ main argument against the bill was cost. Four Democrats broke with their colleagues and voted no: Sens. Dorgan, Johnson, Brown and Landrieu. For more on the bill see the blog Grist. (Sources: E&E News PM, E&E Daily, Greenwire, Grist, Sierra Club)

Hawaii, West Coast metro areas have lowest per capita residential carbon footprints -- why?

(Photo of Honolulu from Flickr and photographer Christopher Dale.)

News Update 1: If you want to reduce your personal carbon footprint, it might be a good idea to move to the West Coast, or possibly Hawaii. In a study of the 100 largest metro areas in the U.S., measuring highway driving and residential energy use, Honolulu came in first. California, Oregon and Washington all did well – in part because of the mild climate and use of hydropower, but also because of aggressive policies on energy pricing, efficiency, and availability of mass transit. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana was second, Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton third and New York City-Long Island-Northern New Jersey 4th. In California, 8 of the 10 largest metro areas were in the top 25. Washington, D.C. ranked last and had a per capita footprint 10 times that of Seattle, which was sixth. Also low on the list were Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Toledo. Among the study’s recommendations for the federal government:
• Set a price on carbon emissions
• Pass a renewable electricity standard
• Invest more in research and development
• Help states reform electricity regulations to reward efficiency
• Give more support to mass transit
For more on the carbon footprint of the 100 metro areas see the Brookings site. (Sources: ClimateWire, New York Times)

Great Lakes threatened by climate change

(Photo of Lake Michigan at Petoskey from Flickr and photographer .jowo/Joel Dinda.)

News Update 2: Climate change will hurt the Great Lakes ecosystem, a report released last week says. Even worse, it will put pressure on the 8 states and 2 Canadian provinces bordering the lakes to sell water to other states and even other countries as droughts get worse and the value of water goes up. To meet the diversion threat, states in the Great Lakes basin have formed a compact not to divert the water. Wisconsin was the 6th state to sign on last week. But the agreement must be ratified by Congress. Will reps from other regions be willing to do that? The Great Lakes contain 20% of the world’s fresh surface water. Other climate change threats to the lakes include invasive species interrupting the food chain for fish, shallow water disrupting shipping, and stronger storms sending more pollution into the lakes. Tourist activities like fishing, skiing, snowmobiling and swimming will likely be hurt by the warming of the region and changes in the lakes. Learn more and download the report. (Sources: ClimateWire, National Wildlife Federation)

Cost of doing nothing about global warming: up to $3.6 trillion a year for losses in the U.S.

(Photo of damage from Hurricane Katrina from Flickr and and photographer SAsqrd/Steve.)

Weekly Angst: Every time I hear that it will cost too much to fight climate change and will “wreck the economy,” I say to myself (or sometimes out loud), “But what will it cost if we DON'T do anything?” So I was happy to see that Tufts University has just released a report on the cost of doing nothing, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The study determined that continuing business-as-usual in terms of greenhouse gases could end up costing the U.S. economy as much as $3.6 trillion a year by the end of the century.

They also estimated that the cost of four major climate change impacts – coastal hurricanes, real-estate damage from rising seas, increased energy costs to meet hot temperatures, and water scarcity – would rise over time and could cost $1.9 trillion annually by 2100. The breakdown for that year:
• Hurricane damages $422 billion
• Real estate losses: $360 billion
• Increased energy costs: $141 billion
• Water costs: $950 billion

Other hard-hit sectors include tourism and agriculture.

“The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.

The report predicted an average temperature increase of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the U.S. in the next century and 18 degrees in Alaska, which is warming faster. Seas were predicted to rise 23 inches by 2050 and 45 inches by 2100, engulfing coastlines.

If global warming continues unchecked, the analysis found, New York City will have the climate of Las Vegas, and San Francisco will feel like New Orleans.

“Climate change is on a collision course with the U.S. economy,” warned Frank Ackerman, lead author of the study. The researchers used a new British model for figuring overall costs. They looked at economic losses, non-economic damages and the increased risk of catastrophe.

Climate disasters
And speaking of the increased risk of catastrophe, an op-ed piece in the New York Times Saturday by Charles M. Blow pointed out that we’re already experiencing more costly extreme weather disasters.

There have been four times as many weather disasters worldwide in the past 30 years as in the preceding 75, he said, citing the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The U.S. has suffered most of them.

Of the 30 costliest hurricanes in the U.S. history, 10 have occurred since 2000, according to the National Hurricane Center. The worst year, of course, was 2005 (Katrina et al), with an estimated $39 billion loss.

Report’s recommendations
But getting back to the Tufts/NRDC report – it concludes with three overriding recommendations for action:
1. Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on global warming pollution to stimulate investment and guarantee that we meet emission targets.
2. Overcome barriers to investment in energy efficiency.
3. Accelerate development and deployment of emerging clean energy technologies.

Do it and do it now. Then we can avoid most of these costs (not all, though, because GHG in the atmosphere now will be there for many years.) And, of course, it’s not just financial cost. Think about the human cost of all these disasters. It’s mind-boggling.

Download the report.

(Sources: NRDC, Greenwire, New York Times)

Environmental organizations protest nuclear amendment to Senate global warming bill

(Photo of nuclear power plant in Byron, Ill., from Flickr and photographers iluvcocacola/Bill and Vicky Tracey.)

Washington Report 1: Ten environmental organizations have sent a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) protesting their nuclear title amendment to the global warming bill (S. 3036), which would give a portion of carbon-credit auction revenue to support the making of nuclear reactor parts. The groups say the money isn’t needed because nuclear energy already gets loan guarantees, production tax credits and disaster insurance from the 2005 Energy Bill, and that it is likely to sit unused. Instead the funds should go to energy efficiency and renewables, say Clean Water Action, Environment America, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the League of Women Voters, Nuclear Policy Institute/Beyond Nuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club. (Source” E&E News PM)

Labor, other groups back Global Warming bill

Washington Report 2: The following eclectic list organizations gave their seal of approval this week to the revised Boxer/Lieberman/Warner global warming bill (S. 3036): GE, National Resources Defense Council, Alcoa, Florida Power & Light, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Trout Unlimited, the boilermakers union, plumbers and pipefitters, electrical workers, brickmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger (R-Calif.) Those calling for changes in the bill include Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Oxfam America. (Source: E&E News PM)

Strong climate bill unveiled by Rep. Markey

(Photo of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) from Flickr and photographer Keith Ivey.)

Washington Report 3: Expect U. S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a champion of strong climate change legislation, to introduce his iCap bill (Invest in Climate Action & Protection Act) in the House Tuesday. The bill calls for:
• 85% cut in greenhouse gases by mid-century
• a cap-and-trade plan to start in 2012
• 94% of credits auctioned from the start, with 6% given to vulnerable industries like glass, steel and cement
• Auction proceeds going to tax cuts for low- and middle-income people, energy technology research, energy efficiency, adaptation to climate change
• A carrot-and-stick approach to trade with other nations, with the carrot being access to billions for clean technology and forestation for those with similarly strong climate plans and the stick an added cost in the form of having to buy carbon credits if they want to export carbon-intensive products to us
• Overriding the EPA decision to deny California (and many other states) the ability to curb tailpipe emissions
• New EPA regulations for coal mines, landfills, large animal feeding operations and other emitters of greenhouse gases not otherwise covered in the bill.
This is a bill environmentalists have to love. It shows many of the Senate bill’s shortcomings. (Source: ClimateWire)

Polar bears in cross-hairs of legal maneuvers

(Photo of polar bear from Flickr and and photographer metrognome0.)

Washington Report 4: A flurry of lawsuits have been filed against the Interior Department in the wake of it’s decision earlier this month that the polar bear is “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act but that it will do little to protect the marine mammal that requires sea ice to hunt, mate and dig a den for its offspring. The day after the decision, several environmental groups filed a complaint saying the new special rule against regulating greenhouse gases violated the ESA. Then Alaskan officials sued to reverse the “threatened” status, apparently concerned about the oil business, though under this Administration they need not worry. Finally, a hunting group, U.S.-based Safari Club International, sued to allow hunters to continue bringing back trophy polar bear carcasses from Canada. The group pointed out that hunters must pay $1,000 for each carcass they bring back and that money goes to research and conservation of the polar bear. Huh?? (Source: E&E PM)

Renewable energy use here down 1% last year due to dought, carbon dioxide emissions grew

(Photo of hydroelectric waterfall from Flickr and photographer grendelkhan.)

News Update 1: Consumption of renewable energy in the U.S, slipped slightly in 2007 because lack of rain cut hydroelectric power 14%. Drought is predicted to be a continuing problem because of climate change. Other forms of renewable energy were up, according to a report from the Energy Information Administration. Wind rose 21% and biomass 7% (mostly because of ethanol). Overall renewables were down 1%, following several years of growth. Sources of energy in 2007 were:
• renewables 7%
• petroleum 40%
• natural gas 23%
• coal 22%
• nuclear 8%
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. grew 1.6%, according to the EIA, with all the growth attributed to residential and commercial buildings. Since 1990 C02 growth in the U.S. was nearly 20%. Nations that signed the Kyoto treaty (not us) were committed to cutting C02 5% from 1990 levels.
(Source: E&E News PM, Greenwire)

San Francisco Bay Area imposes carbon fee

(Photo of Bay Area from Flickr and photographer brothergrimm/Matthew Grimm.)

News Update 2: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District imposed a carbon fee on refiners, cement plants, gas stations and other stationary sources, despite vociferous opposition from the oil industry, which will be hardest hit. The fee of 4.4 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalents applies to a 9-county area in Northern California, around San Francisco. The district said the rule is based on the need to cut emissions expressed in the California climate law, A.B.32. (Source: E&E PM, Mercury News.)

Ocean acidity from greenhouse gases speeding up much faster than expected

(Photo of California coast from Flickr and photographer Alykat/Alyson Hurt.)

News Update 3: Greenhouse gas emissions have caused surface water in the ocean off the West Coast to acidify far faster than anticipated, according to a new study published in Science. Some areas have reached acidity levels not expected until 50-100 years from now. The oceans have absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere in the past 150 years, and acidity has grown 30%, researchers said. This could damage shellfish, corals and ultimately be disastrous for fish. While much of climate change involves warming temperatures, ocean acidity is another direct result of greenhouse gases, just as warming is. (Source: E&E News PM)

Global warming debate in Senate set for next week

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Charles Pence.)

Weekly Angst: Prepare to turn on C-Span next week and watch the debate over the Senate global warming bill. It should be revealing.

Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came up with a “substitute” bill (S. 3036) last week, which incorporates the one by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), but tries to meet some objections to garner more support. It includes, for example, a $955 billion fund (from now through 2050) to pay down the federal deficit, to make the bill budget neutral (if not carbon neutral). The debate is expected to start in the early evening June 2, with a cloture vote that even staunch opponents are likely to go along with – they want a debate too. Lieberman and Warner have signed off on Boxer’s substitute and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) are co-sponsors.

It should be a zoo. This topic elicits strong feelings because global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet but also has implications for industry, as it calls for a seismic shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free (or at least low-carbon) energy. The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system, which puts an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auctions or gives away credits that businesses can trade depending on whether they meet their emissions targets. If they don't, they must buy credits from those who do.

All kinds of amendments planned, from one by Lieberman and Warner to include more nuclear power, to one by Republicans to return revenue from the auction of carbon credits to the taxpayers as tax cuts. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) wants to tell the U.S. to engage in global climate negotiations for real, and a likely Republican amendment will ask for inclusion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. Dems have been alerted, too, about planned GOP amendments specifically designed to embarrass them and their likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

Environmental groups (2 dozen of them) released a statement late last week saying the bill still “needs to be strengthened to ensure it will meet the reductions science dictates” (at least 80% cut by 2050), which it does not. Boxer did not increase the target, which is 71% by 2050, but really only 66% because it does not include all greenhouse gas emissions. It's not clear to me if there’s been any change in the percent of credits auctioned off, which start as 26.5% in 2012, going up to 79% in 2031. Bur since there’s been no mention of it, I assume it hasn’t changed much. That percentage is deemed too low by most environmentalists, because it means more free credits to polluters and less money bolster renewable energy. Many want 100% auctioned.

Where the revenue will go
The Boxer version of the bill lists specific payoffs to different segments from the bill’s revenues, which will come from auction of credits:
• $911 billion for consumers for help with increased energy costs and energy efficiency projects. Most ($850B) would help with energy costs.
• $231B in assistance to steel, glass, aluminum, rubber and paper companies to make needed changes -- they're seen as the industries that will have the most trouble adjusting.
• $566B for states to deal with GHG cuts.
• $307B for electric utilities to revamp.
• $150B for renewable energy companies.
• $68B to the auto industry to retool for hybrids, plug-ins, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.
• $250B for adaptation to climate change, largely for coastal states.
• $288B for wildlife adaptation.
• $560B for a fund states can access if they switch over from their own emissions programs to the federal one.
(All these amounts are spread over 40 years)

Free credits for fossil fuels have shrunk in the new version but more credits will be given for capture and storage of carbon dioxide. But if I’m reading this right, there is WAY too little going to renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to be virtually switched over to them from fossil fuels by 2050. So why so stingy? Could it be that the lobbyists for these fledgling industries don't have the money to spread around that oil, gas and other mature industries have? You betcha.

It looks like nuclear energy will be one of the winners in this new version. The bill now provides $92 million in incentives, on top of what the nuclear power industry already gets from the government. And a successful Lieberman-Warner amendment would bring them even more. Nuclear, which now provides 8% of U.S. power, is a huge bone of contention with many environmentalists who don’t like the radiation involved and say "no nukes, no way." Even those who think some nuclear plants might be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels -- if safety and disposal problems can be solved -- would far rather see money go to really clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and wave action.

Even if this bill should pass the Senate, it's unlikely the House will act before the end of the year. And this president would not sign a bill that would satisfy anyone who sees a need for urgent change. So the debate is probably just the first salvo in a battle that may be more successful with the next Congress and next president. But it still should be interesting to watch it unfold.
(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E News PM)

Take action: Send an e-mail to your senators.

House passes bill to extend renewable energy tax credits, despite White House veto threat

(Photo of solar panels from Flickr and photographer kqed quest.)

Washington Report: The House of Representatives voted 263-160 Wednesday to approve yet another bill extending tax incentives for renewable energy such as wind and solar. But the White House is threatening to veto the $59 billion tax package, not so much on the credit extensions as the means to pay for them. The vote was largely along party lines. Renewable energy industries are eager to see extension of the incentives, due to expire in December, in order to maintain momentum. A House bill that included extensions paid for by repeal of oil and gas breaks, passed late last year but stalled in the Senate. Then earlier this year the Senate attached renewable incentives to a housing bill, but without any means to pay for them. The House, whose leaders want all expenditures paid for, added revenue from tax changes for offshore and multinational businesses to this bill. And that is the part President Bush objects to most. The bill extends production credits for wind till the end of 2009 and for geothermal and biomass for 3 years, as well as investment credits for solar for 6 years. It includes a $4,000 credit for residential solar power and $3,000 or more for buying plug-in cars. House Dems and Republicans disagree about the bill’s chances in the Senate. Meanwhile, House Republicans unveiled their own energy agenda, which would increase incentives for domestic production of fossil fuels, alternative fuels and nuclear energy, in addition to renewables and efficiency. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E News PM)

Massive new study links global warming to physical, biological changes on planet

(Photo of Alps from Flickr and Philippe Tarboureich.)

News Update: An international team of scientists has affirmed and expanded on last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by linking human activity and rising temperatures to physical and biological changes observed on Earth over the past 30 years. “The human footprint on the planet is clear,” said one of the authors, Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The study, published in Nature, matched changes like melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, warming lakes and rivers, longer growing seasons, earlier migration and breeding of birds, movement of heat-intolerant species up mountains, and changes in fish communities. They point to a few specifics, by continent: 89 flower species blooming earlier in Europe, melting glaciers in the Alps and in Patagonia, changes in the freeze depth of permafrost in Russia, and a 50% decline in the Emperor penguin on the Antarctic peninsula. Temperature was far more a factor than land use, pollution and population, according to the 30,000 data sets studied. In a second study published in Nature, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was found to be 28% higher than at any time in 800,000 years, according to gas bubbles in ice in Antarctic -- and methane was 124% higher. Both add carbon to the atmosphere. (Sources: E&E News PM, The Daily Green, Planet Ark.)

Wind energy could be 20% of total U.S. power by 2030, Energy Department says

(Photo of windfarm from Flickr and photographer Brent Danley.)

News Update: The U.S. could be getting one-fifth of its energy from wind by 2030, the Department of Energy said last week – so long as there is support from private industry and government agencies. A jump to 20% is possible technically, but would require a good interstate transmission grid, DOE said. A 20% share would mean a cut of 25% in greenhouse gas emissions, and wind energy would require 17% less water. Today, wind is only 1% of the total here, but growing. Last year, 3,100 turbines were installed in 34 states. Another 2,000 are under construction. (Sources: PlanetArk, E&E News PM)

Environmental leaders weigh in with their solutions to global warming

(Photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from Flickr and photographer King dafy/Devin Ford.)

Weekly Angst: Last weekend we heard from several climate leaders that the impact of global warming will be even worse than predicted a year or two ago. Now, some words of wisdom on what we need to do to salvage the situation.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance:
The U.S. has the second largest geothermal resources in the world, plus enough wind in 3 states to meet all our electricity needs, as well as enough potential solar power in 19% of desert in the Southwest to meet nearly all our needs, even if everyone had a plug-in car. In order to bring about a renewable-energy revolution, the new president should immediately:
1) Initiate a cap-and-trade system to put pressure on carbon emissions and reward energy innovation.
2) Revamp the antiquated power grid so it can transmit renewable energy over long distances. Open it up by getting rid of state rules that restrict access and add “smart” features to deliver power where and when it is needed.
3) Spend $1 trillion over the next 15 years on infrastructure, paid for by government, utilities, investors and entrepreneurs.
4) Encourage much more efficient buildings and machines, through energy efficiency and tax credits.
(Source: Vanity Fair)

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and author of the new “Earth: The Sequel”:
The Congress must mandate a cap-and-trade system with a steadily declining limit on global warming pollution. Survival depends on a “wholesale reinvention of the way we make and use energy. We need a “second industrial revolution as sweeping as [the one] a century ago … We will need to harness energy from the sun, the waves, living organisms, and the heat embedded in the planet. We will need to reinvent automobiles, clean up emissions from the immense and rapidly growing coal infrastructure, use the energy we have far more efficiently and put an end to tropical deforestation. A cap on carbon will launch all these solutions into the mainstream.” Energy innovators abound but are up against industries that have subsidies, trade agreements and regulations in their favor, plus control distribution routes. Cap-and-trade would allow the market to decide who “really can deliver the goods.” (Source: “Earth: the Sequel.”)

Bill McKibben, author of “The End of Nature” (1989) and founder and organizer of Step It Up 2007, which has turned into 1sky.org, and now founder of a new global group, 350.org:
The key is to rally public opinion. “We need a movement … a political swell larger than the civil rights movement …. Without it we’re not going to best the fossil fuel companies and automakers and the rest of the vested interests that are keeping us from change.” Once there’s a price on carbon, money will flow quickly to efficiency and conservation. The savings will be huge. “There’s not enough money in the world to deal with global warming if it gets out of control.” (Sources: Greenwire, Salt Lake Tribune, Yes! Magazine.)

Guy Duancy, organizer, speaker and co-author of “Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change”:
Buildings, transportation and food/forests are each responsible for about a third of CO2 emissions. So, the solutions lie in those areas, as well as the electricity that powers homes and industry.
1) Buildings: The U.S. Conference of Mayors approved an initiative to have all new buildings and major renovations in the U.S. carbon neutral by 2030. Britain requires new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2016. In existing buildings, owners could cut energy use 20-50% with new windows, super-insulation, heat-recovery, and efficient boilers and appliances. We need tax credits and rules like San Francisco’s requiring owners to upgrade buildings before they are sold.
2) Transportation: A switch to electric cars and plug-in hybrids made of light-weight material, combined with high-speed trains, bus rapid transit, biking, walking and telecommuting could reduce fuel need to about 5%. Long-distance trucking emissions should be severely curtailed by using more goods locally and switching to hydrogen-enhanced hybrid biofueled trucks.
3) Food: Livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gases. Methane from cows’ stomachs and nitrous oxide from their manure, and in fertilizer, are far more potent than CO2. The solution is to eat less meat and dairy and more locally grown and organic vegetarian fare.
4) Forests: Destruction of the world’s rainforests releases 17% of world carbon emissions. We need to protect forests in the Amazon, Indonesia and the Congo by buying them, putting them in trust for indigenous people, and paying for policing against illegal logging.
5) Electric power: The challenge is to make the transition to renewable energy in time. We need non-corrupted governments to cap oil wells, close coal mines, require efficiency in autos, buildings and appliances, and redirect investment to renewables.
(Source: Yes! Magazine, click on buildings, electricity, transportation, food and forests.)

Take action: If you haven't already done so, join the 1.2 million-plus who have signed up for Al Gore's We and read the list of solutions they propose.

Inslee, Markey and Waxman set 'principles' for global warming legislation in House

(Photo of Rep. Jay Inslee (D- Wash.) from Flickr, uploaded by Jay Inslee.)

Washington Report 1: Three key Congressmen are collecting their colleagues’ signatures on a set of principles they say must be part of any climate change legislation. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) aren’t leaving it up to chance or to the Energy Committee, headed by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) to set the course for legislation in the House. At least that’s my take. They also may be serving a warning to the Senate that parts of its global warming bill are not acceptable. The overriding principles they cite are pretty bland: 1) Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming, 2) Transition America to a clean energy economy, 3) Recognize and minimize any economic impacts, and 4) Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming. The specifics, however, mark out a much stronger territory:
• Set strong science-based targets for near- and long-term emissions;
• Auction emissions allowances rather than giving them free to polluters;
• Invest auction revenues in clean-energy technologies;
• Return some auction revenues to consumers, workers and communities to offset any economic impacts;
• Preserve state authority;
• Protect against trade disadvantages to U.S. industry; and
• Dedicate a portion of auction revenues to address harm from already unavoidable global warming.
Take action: Call, visit or write to urge your representative to sign on to this letter of principles. We don't want -- and the planet can't tolerate -- anything weaker.

One more try to extend renewable tax credits so wind, solar growth doesn't lose power

(Photo of wind turbines from Flickr and photographer Nick Atkins.)

Washington Report 2: A new effort to assure continuation of renewable energy tax credits got the green light yesterday from the House Ways and Means Committee. The proposal backs off on paying for the $16.9 billion in credits by rolling back breaks for oil and gas, instead paying for them with totally unrelated tax changes for offshore and multinational companies. The Senate had objected to a tax hit on Big Oil but the House wanted to pay as you go. So it seems this may satisfy both, which would salvage the incentives that keep renewable energy viable. The three times since 1999 that wind credits were allowed to expire, installations dropped 70%, according to the American Wind Energy Assn. The new bill extends wind production tax credits till the end of 2009, biomass and geothermal credits for 3 years, and the solar energy incentive 6 years, also doubling the solar credit cap to $4,000. The bill also provides incentives for cellulosic biofuel and renewable diesel, installation of E85 pumps, and buying plug-in cars, as well as allowing $1.4 billion for coal and gasification projects that store carbon. (Source: E&E Daily)

"Threatened' polar bears will get no protection from global warming or oil drilling

(Photo of polar bear from Flickr and photographer Ironmanixs/Richard I Jzermans.)

Washington Report 3: Two Congressmen have introduced a “Polar Bear Seas Protection Act” and Earthjustice says it will pursue its three lawsuits in the wake of an Interior Department decision to list polar bears as “threatened” rather than “endangered “ Wednesday under the Endangered Species Act. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made it clear the designation did not mean the government needs to do anything to reduce global warming, which he acknowledged was responsible for the bears’ melting habitat, or stop oil and gas exploration in the area where they dwell. In fact, Interior held up making the designation for several months while it sold $2.66 billion in oil and gas leases in the Chuckchi Sea, including in prime bear habitat. So essentially the government will do nothing to protect the polar bears. The bill introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) asks for oil spill and cleanup standards, designation of critical habitat and a study of the impact of oil and gas drilling. If melting Arctic ice continues as predicted, two-thirds of polar bears will be gone by 2050, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. (Sources: E&E Daily, PlanetArk, The Daily Green.)

Grand Canyon eyed for uranium mining – is nothing sacred as nuclear energy demand explodes?

(Photo of Grand Canyon from Flickr and photographer Cobalt123.)

News Update 1: A British company, VANE Minerals, wants to mine uranium ore in the Kaibab National Forest at the south and north rims of the Grand Canyon. Another thousand requests may be pending near the canyon as the demand for uranium rises with the re-emergence of nuclear power as a carbon-free alternative to coal. The Grand Canyon reportedly holds huge uranium reserves. Environmental groups and local tribal leaders are objecting that toxicity and the risk of radioactivity endanger animals and drinking water in the area. The problem is national forests don't have the same rights national parks do to prevent mining. The Sierra Club and others are fighting in court to stop the mining and in April got a temporary restraining order. Arches and Canyonland national parks are also targets. (Sources: The Australian and the LA Times.)

Survey reveals most Republicans don’t believe in global warming or human cause

News Update 2: The percentage of Republicans believing the global temperature is rising has dropped significantly since January 2007 – to 49% from 62%, according to a new Pew survey out last week. That compares with 84% of Democrats and 75% of Independents. And just 25% of Republicans surveyed said warming was caused by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, while 58% of Dems and 50% of Independents said it was. Age and education were found to make a difference, with more than half of those younger than 30 believing humans are the cause and just 37% of those over 64 believing it. While a college education seems to correlate with belief in human causes, among the GOP higher education led to more skepticism. Could it be their political and corporate leaders are leading them astray? Looks like we still have an awful lot of public education to do. (Sources: ClimateWire, Pew Center for People and the Press.)
Take action: Tell the media to talk more about global warming during election campaign. Sign the League of Conservation Voters petition.

All-electric car sells for $109,000; Governator and Clooney both plan to be in driver’s seat

(Photo of George Clooney from Flickr and photographer Martin de Witte.)

News Update 3: Tesla motors opened its first store in LA last week, to sell its sleek two-seat luxury Roadster. Despite the $109,000 price tag, orders are pouring in for the 600 electric cars planned this year and there’s now a 15-month wait. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and actors George Clooney and Kelsey Grammer are among the first to buy. The car, which operates on a lithium-ion battery and can go 200 miles on a charge, has sleek lines like a Porsche. More Tesla stores are expected next year in New York and Chicago. Watch a video of the car’s unveiling or learn more about it at the Tesla Web site. (Source: thestate.com and teslamotors.com.)

Climate Counts site ranks companies’ commitment to curbing global warming emissions

(Photo of Google logo from Flickr and photographer Douglas Porter.)

News Update 4: Nonprofit Climate Counts has released its second annual ranking of 56 consumer companies’ commitment to going green. Criteria are measurement of emissions, plans to reduce them, and disclosure. Google, with its target of becoming carbon neutral, moved up 38 points to 55. Most companies showed some improvement, but the average is still just 40 out of a possible 100. See the scorecard at climatecounts.org to check out the companies whose products and services you use. (Sources: Greenwire, New York Times, Climatecounts.org)

Climate change leaders now say global warming is happening faster than expected

(Photo of German coal-fired plant from Flickr and photographer Bruno D. Rodriguez.)

Weekly Angst: At the end of 2006 and early part of 2007, a series of reports finished the job started by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and woke the slumbering world to the urgent need to stop global warming or suffer severe consequences. After the Stern and IPCC reports, the debate ended for most, but progress has been slow as governments and fossil-fuel businesses balked at change. Now the same people who told us we needed to take action in the first place are raising the decibels as they warn it’s even worse than they thought. Here is what they and others are saying, little more than a year later.

Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, whose ground-breaking 2006 report was the basis for policy in the UK and EU, now admits he was overly optimistic about the ability to cut GHG emissions and absorb some of the CO2. Stern now says he "badly underestimated the degree of damages and risks of climate change … Emissions are growing much faster than we'd thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we'd thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates, and the speed of climate change seems to be faster." He now says the developed world must cut emissions by 90% to meet a world-wide 50% reduction by 2050.(Source: Business Green)

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assumptions were too optimistic about cutting CO2, a new study in the journal Nature says. The IPCC report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize and is the basis for international negotiations, assumed that even without changes in government policy, new technology would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions this century. But with huge growth in Asia, based mainly on fossil fuels, the world is going in the wrong direction, say scientists from the University of Colorado, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and McGill University in Canada. We need enormous advances in technology to meet our goals, but also policies that motivate innovation, the researchers say. (E&E News PM, EurekAlert)

James Hansen of NASA, one of the lead scientists to sound the alarm about about global warming, has dramatically reduced the amount of CO2 he thinks the atmosphere can tolerate and still keep the planet similar to the one on which civilization developed. Recent research has led Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the conclusion that CO2 in the atmosphere must be brought down to 350 parts per million (from the current 385) to avoid a tipping point that would cause melting ice sheets and rapidly rising seas. The only way to do that, he says, is to phase out the use of coal by 2030 (unless it can be captured and sequestered). He calls for a moratorium on new coal-fired plants, as well as improved agriculture and forestry to reduce carbon 50 ppm by the end of the century. This assumes that we’re nearing the end of oil reserves and no more drilling will occur on public lands or in pristine areas. It also assumes little extraction of unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands. Hansen says bringing down CO2 levels to 350 would also solve the problem of acidity in oceans and destruction of coral reefs. He warned there must be global cooperation and it needs to start in the next few years. (Source: Environmental News Network.)

The UN Environment Programme warns in a new report, by 338 experts, that the future of humanity is at risk and may be pushed beyond the point of no return. The balance between consumers and resources is seriously out of whack, says Achim Steiner, executive director of the programme. The planet is increasingly stressed by climate change, which is “accelerating at a pace that goes beyond the scenarios and models we’ve been using.” Some regions may soon reach a point of environmental devastation from which they won’t be able to recover, he said, noting the increasing droughts in Africa and melting ice in the Himalayas that will leave China and India short of water. (Source: NaturalNews.)

Next week: Some suggested solutions

Looks like Lieberman-Warner global warming bill is running out of gas

Washington Report: Sponsors of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act are having trouble lining up the necessary 60 votes to avoid a Senate filibuster. Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) conceded last week she didn’t know if they could get to 60, but this bill showed progress and they still plan to have a debate in early June. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) admitted the votes aren’t there at this point. Several Senators are holding back, looking for more benefits for their states, while others oppose the bill for fear it will hurt the economy. Co-sponsor John Warner (R-Va.) is looking for a way the president could slow the cuts in emissions if the technology needed was not available, and also for a safety valve if the economy was under stress due to the high price of gasoline. Sen Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he plans to put a revised bill out there for others to comment on and tell him how to “improve.” Don’t hold your breath for a global warming bill to pass this year. With the make-up of this Senate, it’s just not going to happen. As they say in baseball, “Maybe next year.” Meanwhile greenhouse gas emissions keep climbing and the years to do something tick away. (Source: E&E Daily)

Still waiting for Chicago’s Climate Action Plan to fight global warming

(Photo of new blue carts in some neighborhoods from Flickr and photographer Zenia/ee.)

News Update: The long-awaited Chicago Climate Action Plan is still inactive. Expected last fall, it was to have been unveiled in April, Suzanne Malec-McKenna, city director of the environment, told environmental leaders in March. I figured Earth Day would be appropriate. But Earth Day has come and gone, and so has April, and here we are still waiting. Maybe the city is reeling over its (Cook County’s) recent designation as the third most carbon-emitting county in the nation. Or from the flunking grade it got last week from the American Lung Association for ozone and short-term particle pollution. The city’s “green” label is becoming a bit frayed. This would be a good time to release an ambitious master plan to deal with greenhouse gases. To Chicago’s credit, it has finally admitted it’s 13-year-old blue bag recycling program (where newspapers, plastics, glass and cans were packaged together and thrown in the garbage) is a failure and will fast-track expansion of its new cart program despite budget woes.

Is Big Oil turning back from wind and solar to focus on oil and gas despite carbon emissions?

(Photo of Shell station in Britain from Flickr and photographer Lee Jordan.)

News Update: Shell Oil pulled out of plans to build a large off-shore wind farm in the UK last week, sparking concern about the viability of the project, which could have powered a quarter of London’s homes. The company said it was selling its one-third share in 341-turbine London Array wind farm, casting doubts about the viability of the 1-gigawatt project. Another partner said it was weighing its options. The cost of the project had skyrocketed from $2 billion to about $5 billion, largely because of the high demand for wind turbines. Britian was counting on the project to help it meet its target of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Shell said it would continue to invest in onshore wind in the U.S., but a story in The Guardian questioned whether two oil giants, Shell and BP, were turning away from renewables to focus more on oil and gas, after ExxonMobil made the biggest profit this year while avoiding renewable investment. BP is cooling on solar, The Guardian said, and putting money into tar sands, after earlier refusing to do so because of the greenhouse gases emitted. Meanwhile, descendents of John D. Rockefeller, who started Standard Oil, forerunner of Exxon, pushed the company to begin investing in renewables, citing the dangers of climate change. Leading the charge was Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) (Sources: The Financial Times and The Guardian.)

Etc.: Arctic melt forecast, ocean ‘deserts,’ and ozone hole’s impact on climate change

(Image if the Arctic summer ice melt from Flickr and Image Editor.)

Arctic ice will shrink to a record level this year because it is thinner and younger than ever, according to a climate researcher at the University of Colorado. Last year saw a record melt as well. Over the past 10 years ice in the Arctic has shrunk about 10% as temperatures warmed. Arctic ice acts as an air conditioner for the rest of the world as air currents pass over it. See Reuters.

As the ozone hole over the Antarctic closes, ice there may begin to melt faster, scientists warn. For the past 3 decades the North and South poles have been polar opposites, as ice melted in the Arctic and increased in most of the Antarctic. But as ozone-harmful gases have been curtailed and the hole begins to close, we now face the likelihood of melting at the South Pole too, according to a study published in Eos. The hole has strengthened westerly winds, which cut the Antartic off from areas to the north that were warming. Only the northernmost peninsula has been warming. (ClimateWire)

Oxygen-deprived ocean “deserts” are spreading as waters warm and circulation patterns change, according to a study published last week in Science. The increase is consistent with what climate models forecast as a result of increased greenhouse gases. As water warms it holds less oxygen and these deserts in the tropical Atlantic and Pacific are unable to support most marine life. The deserts are different from the “dead zones” in rivers, mainly caused by fertilizer run-off. See latimes.com

Energy conservation: Jimmy Carter did it, kids get it, and George W. Bush doesn’t have a clue

(Photo of President Carter from Flickr and Ping News. Uploaded by David Shapinsky.)

Weekly Angst: I remember the oil crisis back in the ‘70s. There wasn’t enough gasoline and people lined up for blocks to fill their tanks.

And I remember President Jimmy Carter, who catches a lot of flack these days for being a citizen of the world, sprang into action and asked the nation to conserve energy. He even put solar panels on the roof of the White House (Ronald Reagan reportedly took them down).

We responded to Carter’s pleas and were glad to be able to help our country, and at the same time ourselves – because who wanted to wait an hour to get a tank of gas and sometimes find the pump empty.

We responded
In short order we (my husband and I):
• Turned in our two American cars for smaller, lighter Japanese models.
• Turned down the temperature on our water heater and wrapped it in insulation.
• Taped huge sheets of plastic over our sliding glass doors and on windows for the colder months.
• Put a rolled up towel by the front door so heat didn’t escape under it.
• Turned down the thermostat and wore a sweater (if the president could do it, we could).
• Drove as little as possible and car-pooled.
• Observed the 55 mph speed limit. Nixon had lowered it during an earlier oil crisis and Carter demanded strict enforcement. His successor, Gerald Ford, continued it. (Now people in Western states are driving 80 and 90 mph.)

I remember too that when we went into the city, the lights in the office buildings were dimmed, as businesses turned out most of their lights at night. Today they’re all shining brightly -- a criminal waste of energy.

Conserving during WWII
Going back even further (much further), I recall some of the changes we made in our lives during World War II. Our family, like so many others, had a Victory Garden. We grew a lot of our own food in village plots, a concept many environmentalists are touting now as an alternative to having food sent over the world by planes and trucks spewing CO2.

Gasoline was rationed, so we couldn't spend the summer at my grandmother’s in the woods of Rhode Island because it required too much gas. Instead, for several years, we took the train and stayed at a beachfront hotel for a week.

Bush doesn’t get it
Today, we face a crisis of planetary proportions, and yet President Bush has not asked us to sacrifice – to save energy for the good of not only the nation but the planet. It may be because he’s not clear on the concept. He’s been handed everything on a silver platter – from a prep school and Ivy League education to an oil company, a baseball team, and then the presidency. The only people asked to sacrifice by this Administration are the families of the thousands of men and women being fed into the war machine. The rest of us have been asked to go out and spend money. (Maybe the “W” stands for “waste.”)

But kids get it
In stark contrast was an e-mail I got yesterday from my 10-year-old granddaughter, Sabrina. She’d gotten it from her friend Danielle, who got it from her friend Alexandra. It tells 20 Things You Can Do To Save the World. I don’t know where this list originated, but it was written by a 12-year-old named Shira, who said:

“The world is at big risk because of Global Warming and we need to do something to help – but fast we don’t have much time. The world’s average temperature is rising, important animals are becoming extinct and much more. You can make a difference. Read these 20 tips and you can change the world.
• Use compact florescent light bulbs
• Bring your own mug or thermos instead of a store’s paper cups for coffee, hot chocolate or tea
• Buy BIOTA water bottles, they are good for the environment
• Use Seventh Generation company for tissues, toilet paper, and paper towels
• Use paper goods that say “30% post consumer waste”
• Never use wrapping paper, old newspapers work just as well
• Use recycled paper
• If your water heater is more than five years old, replace it
• Use canvas/reusable bags at the grocery store or any other store that uses bags
• Take public transportation or carpool to get places
• When you are in a long line in your car, turn your car off
• Unplug plugs even when nothing is connected when you are not using it
• Plant trees
• Write on the back side of a piece of paper
• Email instead of sending a letter
• Don’t litter
• Never waste water
• Save energy
• Buy organic food
• And remember – Reduce Reuse Recycle and Respect."
It's a simple concept 10- and 12-year-olds can grasp. Why can’t you, Mr. President?

Voinovich says wait 22 years for cap-and-trade, touts alternative to global warming bill

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Jonathon D. Colman.)

Washington Report: As proponents for the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act meet behind closed doors with various Senators to gauge what tweaking would be needed to get the requisite 60 votes for their cap-and-trade bill, Sen. John Voinovich (R-Ohio) has drafted a bill of his own. It drops cap-and-trade in favor of incentives for new technologies, including for “clean coal” and nuclear energy. Cap-and-trade would not be enacted until 2030, so that carbon-capture technology could be operational. (What’s another 22 years' wait?) Voinovich claims Lieberman-Warner would disastrous for the economy. Lobbyists and the White House helped him draft his bill, which should be unveiled soon – except that so far he can’t find a Democrat to co-sponsor. Meanwhile, a coalition of major coal companies and the National Mining Assn. have 14 amendments that would provide incentives for carbon capture and storage, give away more free carbon credits to polluting industry, pre-empt state and regional global warming bills, and create a “safety valve” in case carbon prices get too high. So far, they’ve found no sponsors for their amendments. I don't think any of this will go anywhere, but don't look for Voinovich to vote for Lieberman-Warner. Environmental Defense tell us 10 key senators to watch during the debate in the Senate. Senators will be home the last week in May, before the June debate, so it would be a good time to call their office or go see them and urge them to strengthen, not weaken the Lieberman-Warner bill (S 2191). (Sources: E&E Daily, Environmental Defense)

Environmental groups target 3 Senate races to elect champions to fight global warming

(Photo of Jeanne Shaheen at 2007 Step It Up rally from Flickr and Step It Up 2007.)

Washington Report: A coalition of 5 environmental groups said last week they will work together to elect 3 Senators they believe will be leaders for the environment and against global warming. The three they will support are cousin congressmen Mark Udall (D-Co) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and ex-Gov. of New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen. Working together will be the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Environment America, Clean Water Action and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. The Udalls are running for vacant seats and Shaheen is opposing incumbent John Sununu. All 3 seats have been held by Republicans, but the Democrats are leading in polls. The Udalls have a strong pedigree. Mark is the son of "Mo" Udall, who was in Congress 30 years and ran for president. Tom is the son of Stewart Udall, Mo's brother, who served as Interior Secretary under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The 5 environmental groups collaborated to help oust former House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) in 2004.

Methane, a greenhouse gas, rises ‘sharply’ for the first time in a decade; CO2 is up too

(Photo of Arctic marshes and tundra from Flickr and photographer Royal Olive/G. Oliviera)

News Update: Methane in the atmosphere rose last year for the first time since 1998, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors such things. Methane is a concern because it’s 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas, though there’s much less of it in the atmosphere. The increase last year was 27 million tons. NOAA speculated that it’s probably coming from the economic boom in Asia and from wetlands uncovered by melting ice in the Arctic and also in the tropics. The main worry about methane is that thawing permafrost in the Arctic will release huge amounts of it. NOAA also announced that CO2 rose 2.4 parts per million last year, to 385 ppm. That compares with 280 until the mid-19th century. A safe level is between 350-450 ppm, depending on who you ask. In the ’60s the annual increase was 1 ppm, in the ‘80s 1.5 ppm, and since 2000 about 2 ppm each year. So last year’s jump may show it’s going to another level. CO2, we know, comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. For more, and a chart of recent annual CO2 growth, see Science Daily.)

Wind farm developers eyeing Lake Michigan

(Photo of wind farm way offshore in Britain. You can hardly see it from shore. Photo from Flickr and photographer dpicker/David P)

News Update 2: Three wind developers are considering building hundreds of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. One would like to put up 390 turbines 18 miles off Milwaukee, where the water is relatively shallow. The U.S. has no offshore or water-based wind turbines to date, though they have been proposed for Nantucket Sound and Lake Erie. In Europe, Denmark and the U.K. have offshore turbines. I saw the ones off Denmark while cruising the Baltic Sea a few years back and thought they looked quite graceful. Talks are at the preliminary stage in Wisconsin, where state agencies have been studying the feasibility of turbines in both Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. (Sources: Greenwire and jsonline.com.)

Moose, wolves feeling the heat at Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior

(Photo of young moose at Isle Royale from Flickr and photographer Templarion/Paul Huber.)

News Update 3: In other Great Lakes news, scientists at Michigan Technological University are concerned global warming is causing stress on moose and wolves at Isle Royale National Park. The moose have been there more than a century, after several swam to the island from the mainland in 1900. The wolves followed later, crossing a rare ice bridge around mid-century. The wolves feed on the moose, but the moose have been thinner of late and both populations seem to be down. (Sources: Greenwire and mlive.com.)