62% in U.S. support environmental movement, but 48% say global warming is exaggerated -- Gallup Poll

Most Americans support the environmental movement, a new Gallup Poll says, but support has fallen in the past decade, especially where global warming is concerned. Some 48% said global warming is exaggerated.

More respondents put a priority on energy over environment for the first time since Gallup started these environmental surveys 10 years ago. Exactly half favored development of fossil fuels over environmental protection, while only 43% put environment first.

Political polarization over global warming is one reason for the loss of environmental support, with climate skeptics, fossil fuel industries and some elected officials beating the drums of doubt. The recession and loss of jobs factors in too. People have much to worry about and are more easily scared by those who make dire warnings about the economic effects of regulations.

Political party, not surprisingly, makes a difference in people’s opinions. Asked if the environmental movement in general had done more good than harm:
• 74% of Dems said yes (down from 77)
• 59% of Independents agreed (down from 70)
• 51% of Republicans agreed (down the most – 13 points – from 64)

There was agreement about energy conservation, however. Across the board, 52% saw consumer conservation as a way to solve the energy problem.

Other findings:
• 61% were active or supportive of the environment movement (down 10% since 2000); 19% were active participants, 42% were sympathetic, 28% were neutral and 10% unsympathetic.
• 19% (and more women that men) were actively involved.
• 53% said global warming is real and the impact has begun or will soon.
• 46% rated the quality of the environment as good or excellent (up from 39% a year ago). That seems to go in tandem with “we don’t have to do so much about it.”

What was surprising (and frankly I don’t believe it) was the number of people saying they personally take steps to protect the environment:
• 90% said they have recycled.
• 85% said they’ve taken steps to reduce home energy use.
• 81% have replaced incandescent light bulbs with condensed fluorescent bulbs.
• 76% have bought products specifically because they are better for the environment.
• 70% have used reusable shopping bags.

This sounds like a case of telling the pollster what she wants to hear.

The poll results clearly send a warning that we need to educate the public more about global warming in order neutralize what the naysayers are telling them. Too many still don’t understand the damage fossil fuels are doing.

(Sources: Greenwire via New York Times )

Boxer's power play: panel votes with GOP MIA -- but we don't have a climate bill yet

(Photo of mountain-top-removal coal mine from Flickr and Sierra Club


While the nation was fixated on whether the House would pass a health reform bill last week, a little drama of its own was playing out in Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Work committee.

The week started out with the committee’s 7 GOP members boycotting markup of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, otherwise known as the Kerry-Boxer bill, saying they needed yet more economic analysis by the EPA. As the boycott went into its third day, Boxer, backed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “Enough” and passed the bill, without any GOP amendments or votes. The Democrat-only vote was 11-1 (guess who? Max Baucus). Republicans were outraged. Too bad.

Boxer’s action re-emphasizes the importance of the thin Democratic majority in the Senate. If control swings back to Republicans, chairmanship of that committee will return to climate change denier and filibusterer James Inhofe (R-Okla.). (As an aside, Boxer is being challenged by Republican Carly Fiorina in 2010 and could use your help.)

Now what?
So what happens next? The House already passed a bill, HR 2454, in June, lest we forget. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to wrestle with both health and climate. And health is likely to get priority.

There’s plenty more work to do on a Senate climate bill, combining it with a more conservative energy bill (S 1462) from John Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) Energy and Natural Resources committee and giving others a chance to pile on: Agriculture, Foreign Relations and Finance. Despite the strong showing in committee, Democrats are divided on the plan. So leaders are looking for some Republican support.

Kerry is working with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to forge a bill that can get 60 votes. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has joined the duo. He championed climate legislation in the past, but who knows what he’ll do now.

It looks like more offshore drilling and nuclear power will have to be part of the trade-off. And there’s talk about lowering the cap on greenhouse gases to 17% (from 2005 levels) like the House-passed bill, rather than Kerry-Boxer’s 20% -- which already was far too modest, compared with what many other countries are doing. Both House and Senate bills give away most of the allowances for cap-and-trade at the start, making things easier on the polluters.

The importance of coal
The coal states are expected to hold major sway politically, so carbon capture and sequestration is likely to be a big item in any bill that can pass – as well as generous allowances to use until CCS is operational in about a decade.

A Columbia University study showed coal the No. 2 reason for opposition to climate legislation, after party affiliation (GOP). More than 30 states, from West Virginia to Montana, rely heavily on coal, which powers half the nation’s electricity. Some mine it, some transport it and most depend heavily on it for electric power.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is in a bind because his state is among the top 10 producers of coal and relies almost entirely on it for electricity. Sens. John Rockefeller and Robert Byrd’s (D-W.Va.) state is also both a producer and heavy consumer of coal. North Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming and Kentucky are all closely tied to coal.

As Kerry, Graham and Lieberman try to work their magic to pull 60 votes out of the air, agriculture and other interests will weigh in. What the Senate comes up with and when isn’t exactly what progressives had hoped for. We’ll no doubt miss the deadline for international negotiations in Copenhagen a month from now, reducing America’s influence there. And the final bill will be a patchwork that won’t come close to what scientists (and other countries) say is necessary to curb global warming. The best that can be said is it would be a start.

(Sources: ClimateWire, washingtonpost.com, E&E Daily, E&E News PM))

Follow the $$ that influenced climate change bill

(Picture of money from Flickr and photographer Tracy O.)

There are 2 ways for industry to gain access to congressman considering global warming (or any other) legislation. Both involve money. There are paid lobbyists and contributions to campaign funds.

And Big Energy was busy trying both ways in the House this spring as the American Clean and Energy Security Act (ACES) was heatedly debated and narrowly passed with some concessions to electric utilities and coal.

As Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen told Greenwire, “The more you spend the better chance you’ve got at influencing legislation.”

Lobbyists
In the second quarter alone (April-June, when the bill was debated in committee), the 10 industries with the biggest stake in the results spent $122 million. Oil and gas spent the most, at $37.7 million. Chevron alone spent $6 million. Environmental groups spent just $5.2M.

In the whole first half of 2009, oil and gas spent $82.2M and electric utilities spent $35.9 million on lobbyists, while Exxon Mobil by itself spent $15M, slightly more than all clean energy combined.

Campaign contributions
In the same quarter, coal-fired electric utilities, with potentially the most to lose, were busy contributing to Congressmen’s campaign funds. Especially those on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which was debating the climate change bill.

Employee PACS at American Electric Power, Southern Co. and Duke Energy together donated $165,000 to 70 house members, many on the Energy Committee. The largest donation, $11,500, went to Minority Leader John Boener (R-Ohio).

Those who received these contributions voted 2-1 against the bill. This despite the fact that the three companies ended up supported it – and why not? They got a pretty good deal, with 35% of the free credits allocated to electric utilities. Plus the EPA lost some of is power to regulate coal-fired utility plants under the Clean Air Act. And research money for carbon capture and sequestration was included.

Eight Republicans ended up voting for the bill. Of those, 7 got little or no money from the utilities. An industry rep explained to E&E Daily they only contribute to those with whom they see eye-to-eye on issues. The wavering Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who ended up voting for the bill, was wooed with contributions by both sides.

More money for Democrats
Because they now have the majority (and some hail from oil patch and coal states), Democrats in the House and Senate got a bigger share of energy money than before. In the first half of the 2009 utilities gave 59% of their cash to Democrats, and the nuclear industry gave 65% of theirs.

But oil and gas, and coal, continued to favor the GOP. Oil and gas gave less than 25% to Dems, among them Sens. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), while the National Mining Assn. gave 40%. Exxon Mobil gave just 17% to Democrats.

Both sides (corporations and lawmakers), of course, deny this money buys votes. Industry sources say they tend to give money to those who see issues as they do. They said they donate when lawmakers hold fundraisers, not when a key bill is being considered.

Senators must not have been holding as many fund-raisers this spring, because they got considerably less from the electric utilities than House members.

As action on the climate bill moves to the Senate, look for a rise in “fund raising” there this fall.

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Who will sell clean energy to the rest of the world?

(Photo of photo cell production in Urumqi, China, from Flickr and Bert van Dijk

Clean energy is a major economic engine of the future, Barack Obama says. “The only question is: Which country will create these jobs and these industries? And I want that answer to be the United States of America.”

He really wants to curb global warming, but since a lot of people aren’t concerned about that, he’s making a big deal about “jobs” and “economy.” Right?

Only partially. It is a big deal and we're being dealt out. Asia is looking to take the lead in green tech, just as it did in automobiles. And we’d better watch out. As the oil and coal interests try to put the skids on change here, Asian countries are getting ready to clean our clock again. In 2008 China was the largest producer of photovoltaic (solar) cells and virtually all of them were sold abroad. With the global economic slump, main customers Spain, Germany and Japan have cut back orders, so now China is re-gearing to use the product itself – at least for now, until exports pick up again.

In the face of recession, some of Asia’s biggest economies are beginning to pour large amounts of stimulus money into solar, wind and other alternative energy sources. They know it’s where the future growth is.

China, India, South Korea and Taiwan are planning to spend hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, on renewable energy, partly for themselves and partly to export abroad.

In China, $30 billion is targeted for clean energy, including wind, solar and hydropower. The goal for solar power in that country is to grow to 20 gigawatts by 2020 (equal to 20 nuclear power plants), from less than 2 gigs now.

In South Korea, the government plans to invest 2% of its GDP in clean energy industries like solar batteries, hybrid cars and LED lights over the next 5 years.

And neighboring Australia is spending $1.35 billion on solar projects, $270 million on home solar systems and $100 million for next-generation solar technologies.

Are we really going to stick with oil and coal? How 20th century is that?

(Sources: Greenwire, Climate Wire, Renewableenergyworld.com)