Climate bill dead in the water; Next up, attack on EPA rules

(Photo of U.S. Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg)

You can kiss a climate bill goodbye, for 2010 and likely for the foreseeable future.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has read the tea leaves and seen the time and the votes aren’t there. So instead he is offering a pitiful oil spill response and energy efficiency bill. He thinks he can get 60 votes for that, but others aren’t even sure.

Gone is a price on carbon. Gone is a renewable electricity standard (RES) of 15%, which was scorned by enviros as far too weak when it passed out of Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) energy committee a year ago. Now it looks pretty good.

Without a price on carbon and an RES, clean energy won’t have the impetus needed to make a dent in the fossil fuel monopoly.

Reid’s bill, to be unveiled Monday, is expected to include:
• A spill response eliminating or raising the $75M liability cap, probably to $10B, plus some rig safety rules.
• HomeStar energy-efficiency retrofitting.
• Natural gas truck incentives.
• Funds for land and water conservation.

Now it’s up to the EPA
The only silver lining in this disastrous thunder cloud is that the EPA can begin regulating large sources of emissions, and states can continue their own programs.

But a new study by the World Resource Institute says those would only cut greenhouse gases 14% by 2020, instead of the 17% expected in the Kerry-Lieberman bill and promised by Obama at the world meeting in Copenhagen.

Republicans, and some Democratic Senators, are hoping to handcuff the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. If they succeed, emissions would be cut just 6-9%, the study says. And there’s no way – without additional measures – to come close to the 80% reduction needed by 2050.

Dem Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) has a bill, which Reid promised to bring up for a vote, which would delay EPA action for two years. (It’s not like we’re in any hurry here.) Six other Dems are co-sponsoring that bill. In case any of them are supposed to represent you, they are Dorgan and Conrad of N.D., McCaskill (Mo.) Webb (Va.), Johnson (S.C.) and Nelson (Neb.)

A companion bill in the House is likely to be blocked by Dem leadership. And there’s always an Obama veto. So in all likelihood the EPA will be able to proceed in January, requiring new plants to use the best available technology to cut GHG.

There’s a GOP energy bill too
Just in case you thought Reid’s bill is as low as we could go, Republicans will offer an energy bill of their own that focuses (of course) on offshore drilling, lifting the deepwater drilling moratorium for those that meet new inspection criteria, making 37.5% revenue sharing with states immediate rather than waiting till 2017, setting up a more industry-friendly liability program, and reorganizing the former Minerals Management Service.

Nothing here about energy efficiency or natural gas vehicles.

Who wins, who loses?
So, despite the catastrophic Gulf spill and the sweltering heat, which should remind us of what’s in store, Big Oil and Coal have handily won this round.

There are a lot of losers:

Too bad, House of Representatives, which passed a decent bill last summer, that will now die.

Too bad, Sens. Kerry and Lieberman, who spent much of the past year-and-a-half trying to gain support for a mild but comprehensive climate bill.

Too bad, corporations, that want some certainty about regulations in the future.

Too bad, environmental groups, for all the resources spent pleading our case.

Too bad, clean energy businesses that won’t get a level playing field.

And too bad, world, that is waiting for the United States to lead, or at least not to drag everyone else down.

Too bad, you and me and our children and grandchildren.

It’s really, really too bad.

(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, The Hill)

Kerry-Lieberman bill would create 200,000 jobs a year and cut greenhouse gases 22% by 2020, 42% by 2030

(Photo of Diablo nuclear power plant in California from Flickr and photographer Mike Baird)

The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill would spur a surge of 200,000 new jobs a year from 2011 to 2025 and would cut greenhouse gases 22% by 2020 and 42% by 2030, according to a new study by the non-partisan Peterson Institute of International Economics .

The jobs would be largely for construction of new power plants and increased use of biofuel. They would help with the recovery from recession, but would slow to business-as-usual after 2025, the study says.

This first analysis of the American Power Act was released Thursday. It forecasts what the U.S. energy picture will by 2030 if the bill is passed.

The changes will be significant, though not as much as some might hope.

• Fossil fuels will drop to 70% of the energy supply from 84% today.
• Renewable energy will rise to 14% from 8%, with wind growing the most, followed by biomass and then solar.
• Nuclear power will double to 16% from 8%.
• Nuclear and renewables will power about half the electricity.
• Carbon capture and sequestration will be a factor for both coal and natural gas.
• Oil use will drop 33-40% as transportation turns increasingly to ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. U.S. spending on foreign oil will fall to $93B from $144B per year.
• Homes will see about a 3% increase in electricity rates between 2011-2020, while gasoline will rise about 5%. Home heating oil will rise as well. But price increases will be mitigated by increased efficiency and the return to consumers of revenues from purchased allowances.

Two side benefits will be reduction of other pollutants, such as mercury and nitrogen oxides, plus a sizeable reduction in water use.

Download the study.

(Sources: Greenwire, Peterson Institute of International Economics)

Coal as energy source will grow, Arch exec testifies

(Photo of Arch Coal mine in West Virginia from Flickr and
Photograper Doc Searls )

Coal is the fuel of the future, three industry executives told a House committee this week, and the government needs to help clean it up.

“The world will continue to use coal, period,” Arch Coal CEO Steven Leer, told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Coal, which is cheap and plentiful, will grow rapidly as an energy source and the question is whether CO2 emissions will grow with it, Leer said.

Coal is irreplaceable both here and abroad, said execs from Arch, Peabody Energy and Rio Tinto, and they need federal support for carbon capture and sequestration.

Leer said CCS is needed “to stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere within the next 40 years.”

Because CCS will not be available for use on a commercial scale until the 2020s, Peabody CEO Greg Bryce said, government should wait until then to regulate carbon. The feds also have a responsibility to fund CCS and research, he said.

Bryce criticized the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last summer, because it put a price on carbon. Rio Tinto exec Preston Chiara took a softer stance. He’s a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which supported the House bill.

The coal execs warned against a “rush to gas” as an alternative energy, questioning estimates about its availability and noting price volatility in the past. And they warned that tens of thousands of jobs could be lost if coal emissions are overly regulated or utilities switch to gas.

Meanwhile oil and gas exec T. Boone Pickens, who sees natural gas as a bridge to renewable wind energy, was testifying on behalf of gas before the House Ways and Means Committee. He said growth of cleaner technologies (gas has fewer emissions than coal) are needed to “protect American jobs” in the global competition to lead in the energies of the future. He apparently doesn’t agree with the three coal execs that coal is the fuel of the future.

See Grist blog's take on the Select Committee hearing.

(Sources: Greenwire story picked up by NYT , E&E Daily)

Shale gas: energy game changer or pollution risk?

(Photo of hydraulic shale gas drilling from Flickr and photographer Melissa Peffs)

Shale gas is plentiful in the United States, and apparently all over the world. So the recent hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) and horizontal drilling that’s made it accessible and cheap could change not only the balance of energy sources but also geopolitical relationships – because most countries have it and could drastically reduce imports.

On the other hand, the process involves blasting shale rock with water, sand and chemicals like benzene, which some say is getting into the water table and contaminating it.

Shale gas was the talk of the CERAWeek forum in Houston last week. Now that it can be extracted from shale, natural gas reserves in the U.S. are sufficient to supply all our power for 100 years. It was called a “game changer” and an IHS CERA rep predicted the use of gas for power could nearly double by 2035. Three large reserves here are Marcellus in Pa., Barnett in Texas and Haynesville in La.

Companies that didn’t get in on the shale gas action here are rapidly looking for opportunities in Europe.
• Exxon Mobile is exploring in Germany and Poland.
• Chevron, Marathon and ConocoPhillips are also looking at Poland.
• Royal Dutch drilled its first well in Sweden and is looking in Ukraine.
• Paris-based Total is exploring in France and Denmark.
And there are others.

Natural gas emits about half the CO2 of coal, so many see it as a good bridge to renewable energy.

But there are concerns, serious ones.

There have been complaints of groundwater pollution. Investigations by the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of state regulators, has so far been unable to tie groundwater contamination directly to fracturing. But broken pipes and improper disposal of wastewater have caused problems, which suggests the need for closer monitoring.

GWPC has contracted with the Department of Energy to come up with a risk assessment of hydraulic fracturing. They also asked Congress, other federal agencies and state regulators to work with them to identify risks. The EPA will also conduct a study.

Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, Reuters, NPR

No new coal plants in 2009; reason to celebrate!

(Photo of defunct Seaholm power plant in Austin, Texas, being turned into civic center, from Flickr and photographer Craig Allen.)

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk, Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

How do enviro groups and clean tech stack up against oil and gas for lobbying money?

(Photo of oil rig from Flickr and photographer crashworks/Elan Ruskin.)

In Washington, D.C., it was raining lobbying dollars this summer. Both sides were trying to influence all-important climate legislation.

The oil and gas industry spent $38.4 million in Q3 (July-September), while environmental groups spent a fraction of that -- $6.1M and renewable energy just 6.6M. Exxon alone matched each of the latter and then some with it $7.2M.

Electric utilities spent almost as much as oil and gas -- $37.4M. And they're doing it with our rate money. Their argument is they don't want our rates to go up. So concerned about the consumer are they. Lesser amounts fueled lobbying from coal mining ($3.6M), natural gas ($3.1M) and forestry/forest products ($2.9.)

Industry groups were largely trying to get more allowances in a cap-and-trade system, but some were trying to block a climate bill entirely.

The summer quarter roughly matched the time between when the House bill was passed at the end of June and the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill was released in the fall.

Environmental groups went all out with spending to keep the momentum going for a bill they wanted to see passed by the Senate before the December international meeting in Copenhagen.

The World Wildlife Fund spent $1 million, way up from $45,000 last summer. They ran ads targeted senators from the swing states of Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Montana and North Dakota.

Environmental Defense was second with $430,000, nearly double what it spent last year. Overall, enviro group lobbying money was up 33% from $4.6M last summer.

Their money, of course, came from concerned citizens like you. Keep the donations flowing.

(Source: Greenwire. E&E analysis based on data from the Center from Responsive Politics.)

Will Kerry-Graham pact weaken climate bill?

(Photo of Capitol lost in smoke from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action)

Is the Kerry-Graham alliance a “game changer” in the hunt for 60 votes to pass a climate bill, or does it mean a watered-down bill that will have little impact on climate change?

In case you missed it, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, touted cap-and-trade along with more nuclear power, offshore drilling and “low-carbon coal,” as if there is such a thing.

I know we may have to toss a bone to the fence-sitters to get anything passed, but do we have to give them the whole cow?

I’m conflicted about nuclear power in the climate change debate. The fact that I’ve lived with it uneventfully in Illinois for decades may have something to do with it. But mainly, it doesn’t emit CO2. So I see it as the lesser of evils, compared with fossil fuels.

I know there are fearsome environmental concerns. But so are there with coal (ash, air and water pollutants, mountain-top removal) and with off-shore drilling (spills endangering coasts and wildlife). And sequestered CO2 from coal, if it’s feasible, has the risk of bubbling up and killing people.

Natural gas isn’t half bad (literally – it produces 50% of the CO2 in coal) and so is preferable among the fossil fuels.

Future is solar and wind
But we must keep our eye on the future, which is wind and solar (and things not yet in play). We need to get there as quickly as possible.

Nuclear should not be classified as a “renewable energy” as some moderates Dems want, and included in a renewable electricity standard (RES). If the final bill tosses a bone to the oil patch and coal interests to get passed, it should be insignificant compared with curbs on GHG, efficiency and incentives for true renewable energy.

Why do we need more oil anyway, if demand in the industrialize world peaked 4 years ago, as a research report revealed this week? The oil companies want to sell it to developing countries where the need is growing. But that means the U.S. public won’t benefit, just the multinational oil firms. Besides, Boxer notes, oil companies have leases they aren’t even using.

And lest we forget, a 2006 law already expanded drilling off 4 gulf states.

Hearings to begin
Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, begins hearings Oct. 27 on the Kerry-Boxer bill (not to be confused with the more conservative Kerry-Graham non-bill). That bill can probably pass out of committee with no drilling provision because it is heavily Democrat. We need to let Sen. Kerry know we much prefer Kerry-Boxer. He seems to have abandoned it already.

One bone of contention will be the so-called “border tax” – a tariff on imported items made under less stringent environmental conditions. Several Midwest senators, led by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), are intent on protecting the manufacturing base in their states, and jobs. That’s a bloc of about 10 votes, Brown says. He also wants help for manufacturers to retool, as the House bill has.

On the opposite side of the trade issue is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who says he won’t accept a bill with a border-tax.

This battle is far from over. It's just beginning.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&E New PM)

Today is Blog Action Day for climate change.

Pollution is bad; cap-and-trade is ... confusing

(Photo of Wyoming power plant from Flickr and photographer Kenneth Hynek.)

In a stroke of genius Sen. Kerry (that’s John, D-Mass.) switched out the term “cap-and-trade” for “pollution” in the Senate climate bill unveiled this week.

Everyone recognizes pollution is bad (except maybe some who produce it). You can see pollution and smell it – though maybe not the kind of pollution we’re talking about. But the association is there in most minds – pollution casts a cloud over cities, causes asthma and heart attacks, makes water undrinkable and unswimmable.

Greenhouse gases are as dangerous as other types of pollution, but you can’t see, smell or taste them and that’s a problem. Plus, who but the financial traders really understand cap-and-trade?

We need to forget "global warming" and "climate change" and call it what it is – pollution – so that people will care. Because we’ll need a lot of public support to balance out the special interests whose oxen are being gored.

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
Kerry and Senate Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) unveiled their bill Wednesday to start Senate debate. It’s a little different from the House-passed bill in several respects:
• It calls for 20% reduction in GHG in 2020 (as opposed to 17%).
• It offers incentives for natural gas, the least hazardous of the fossil fuels, and more loan guarantees for nuclear.
• It allows states and regions to continue their own cap-and-trade until after the federal law is implemented.
• It doesn’t interfere with the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide in power plants and heavy industry, as the House bill did. But Kerry has already admitted that might be used to get fence-sitters to fall on their side.

On the fence
Speaking of fence-sitters, there are about 21. They include Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has gone all mavericky on what he used to espouse. His pal and former climate co-sponsor Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said this bill has to be changed (read: weakened) to get 60 votes. (60 is the new 51.)

The Kerry-Boxer bill isn’t going anywhere fast, which is more than too bad. That will hurt the possibility of reaching international agreement in Copenhagen. Which means we are stopping the whole world from fighting GHG pollution.

Maddening Max and Blanche
The bill now has to wait for the Finance Committee to figure out how to dole out allowances. (Unlike the House, the Senate bill left that part blank.) And we all know Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) knows how to drag his feet. He’s already said this is likely to wait till next year.

And then there’s new Agriculture Chair Blanche Lincoln (R-Ark.), who will have at it too. She doesn’t have very nice things to say about cap-and-trade and is the one of the bluest of the Blue Dog Democrats. In the House, the Ag chairman was able to hold up that bill and almost kill it getting concessions his rural constituents wanted. How did Lincoln get to be Ag chair anyway? When Ted Kennedy died, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) moved over to head the Health committee and I guess Lincoln was next in line. Too bad.

We’re still embroiled in health care reform and, unlike the president, the Congress – especially the Senate – doesn’t seem able to walk and chew gum and the same time. So it’s likely that the bill will be slow walked until the year is ended, Copenhagen over, and 2010 elections on the horizon.

We need to push hard now. Call your senators. Tell them to fight pollution by passing a strong climate bill by the end of the year.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Sierra Club, Reuters Planet Ark, League of Conservation Voters)

Can natural gas from shale save climate bill?

(Photo of natural gas rig in Louisiana from Flickr and photographer Daniel Foster)

Some Senators see incentives for natural gas from shale as a way to win more support for a climate change bill in their chamber. Leading the way to add those incentives are Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, the latter a swing vote himself.

New discoveries of shale gas (not to be confused with dirty shale oil) reserves, plus the technology to drill for it, have made shale gas a cleaner replacement for coal to make electricity, as well as a potential backup for wind and solar. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal. And wind and solar will need a backup, at least at the start, because of their dependence on the weather. Natural gas generators can be fired up quickly to serve that purpose.

New discoveries have increased natural gas reserves in the past couple of years, from 1,300 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 1,800 tcf in 2008, mostly in shale, according to a report by the Potential Gas Committee.

The political potential
Lo and behold, many of the gas reserves in shale are in the homes states of uncommitted Democratic senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio.

When the House version – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – narrowly passed, the majority of reps from Ark. Ohio, La. and Penn. voted against it (as well as Texas. Okla. and Ky.) and the W. Va. delegation was evenly split.

Natural gas vs. coal
Incentives for natural gas would pit the gas industry against the coal business. Natural gas would benefit from the proposed cap on emissions because it will lead to a quicker changeover from coal. And the gas industry favors fewer offsets, which would allow coal-fired utilities to stall in making changes by contributing to forests and other projects.

The coal business, not surprisingly, is worried about losing out to natural gas under climate legislation and opposes incentives that could speed that transition. The American Mining Association is running ads pointing to the volatility of natural gas prices and warning of spiking electricity costs. They’re not going to give up without a fight, so it remains to be seen which is strongest in vying for these senators’ loyalty.

But natural gas from shale, though not clean enough in the long run, just might help us over two humps – the transition to totally renewable, clean energy and the passage of a climate bill by both houses of Congress this year.

(Source: E&E Daily)

Follow us at Twitter.

Guess who will be selling natural gas to the U.S.?

(Photo of Gazprom sign in Moscow from Flickr and photographer Martin Griffiths)

News Update: When T. Boone Pickens came up with his plan for natural gas to fuel U.S. cars, the idea was that gas would be local. Now, look who’s getting into the act – Russia. Gazprom, the Russian company that supplies 85% of Russia’s natural gas and 25% of Europe’s, is eyeing the North American market as a customer for its offshore gas fields. The company plans to buy a small, unidentified, natural gas marketing and trading company in the U.S., Jack Hattenberger, Gazprom president for U.S. marketing and trading told a U.S.-Russian business group last week. “Long-term our goal is to develop a leading marketing and trading organization in North America, using LNG [liquid natural gas] as our foundation supply." The company plans to ship 500 million to a billion cubic feet a day here starting in 2014 and ramp up to 4-10 billion cubic feet. (The U.S. Department of Energy expects our consumption of natural gas to be about 24 trillion cubic feet by 2016.) Gazprom execs, including 2 who are close to Putin, also visited Alaska last week to pitch help in extracting its gas. They have experience in the far north, they said. I don’t mean to sound protectionist here, but what happened to independence from foreign oil. Doesn’t that apply to gas too? And didn’t Russia turn off the pipeline to Eastern Europe to put political pressure on them. T. Boone, I don’t think this is what you had in mind. (Source: E&E News PM)

Is natural gas the right solution to getting off oil? See EarthlingAngst's answer to Pickens' plan

(Photo of metro bus in Washington, D.C., running on natural gas from Flickr and photographer Kathy Doucette)

Weekly Angst: You’ve no doubt heard a lot about natural gas lately. There’s a rush to drill in shale and T. Boone Pickens’ much publicized plan recommends wind energy to power 20% of electricity plants, freeing up the natural gas that runs them and using that gas to replace some gasoline. His goal is to cut oil imports by a third in 10 years (and to make some money in the process). Sounds good, but it's not the answer to global warming.

Natural gas does have several advantages, as Pickens points out:
* It’s plentiful
* It’s cheaper than gasoline
* It’s cleaner than oil or coal
* And it’s American.

Natural gas now powers 20% of the nation’s electricity. It’s also used for cooking, heating and the chemical industry. And some motor vehicles are beginning to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel.

It’s plentiful
Natural gas production peaked here in 1973. Reserves began to dry up in the ‘90s, and production declined until 2005. By then new technology allowed horizontal drilling into shale, and there are plentiful shale gas reserves in 33 states. Some reports say there are enough in North America to last a century.

A rush to drill has ensued. Pennsylvania, for example, is on its way to issuing 7,000 gas and oil drilling permits this year. Louisiana just had a record natural gas lease sale of $93.8 million. More than 4,400 miles of gas pipeline have been laid in the U.S. this year and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin just signed a bill to award TransCanada Corp. a license to build and operate a gas pipeline to run from the North Slope to a hub in Canada. Most of the reserves on the North Slope are leased by BP, Exxon and ConocoPhillips. So the oil companies are hedging their bets with gas.

Price encourages drilling but it’s cheap for autos
Another incentive to drill was the rising price. In 1999 natural gas was less than $2/thousand cubic feet. This summer it hit $13 before a sharp decline. Yet the end product, for automobiles, is much cheaper than gasoline derived from oil. In Utah, where compressed natural gas is plentiful and there is an infrastructure of filling stations, people with cars converted for CNG are paying less than $1 a gallon. To see prices and where CNG pumps are, go to cngprices.com.)

It emits less CO2
Natural gas emits 30% less carbon dioxide than gasoline, 23% less than diesel and 50% less than coal. It’s also more efficient than coal for power plants, as it loses less energy in the process.

It’s local
Nearly all (98%) of the natural gas used in the U.S. comes from North America. Very little needs to be imported, as long as supply here can keep up with demand.

The arguments against natural gas
Although natural gas is cleaner than oil and coal, it still emits 70% of the CO2 gasoline does and half what coal does. Pickens' plan, which shifts gas over to replace some oil but leaves most power plants running on coal is not going to get us to the needed reduction of greenhouse gases. And too much focus on natural gas will only delay progress in that direction.

Pickens touts natural gas as a “temporary” solution, a transition until everyone can drive electric cars in what he sees as 20-30 years. Well we're going to be driving plug-in cars way before that unless, of course, subsidies and infrastructure send auto companies in the direction of CNG instead of electric cars. And then we'll just be replacing oil with another -- though somewhat cleaner -- fossil fuel.

Some environmental leaders endorse Pickens' plan, in large part because it pushes a huge increase in wind power, from less than 2% to 20% in a decade. With "drill, baby, drill" ringing in our ears, that sounds like a pretty good program. Until you stop and think how close it will get us to our goal of stopping global warming. Not very. Not very at all.

EarthlingAngst’s plan
Pickens’ plan says nothing about solar energy, which is abundant in the West, or wave power or geothermal energy. Why not aim for 20% solar in 10 years as well? And instead of replacing natural gas, let wind, solar and geothermal replace the dirtier coal in producing electricity, and use cellulosic ethanol and electric cars or plug-in hybrids for transportation – and more mass transit. Also put a serious focus on efficiency. We waste as much energy as we use. Then perhaps we really could put a dent in both oil and coal in 10 years.

What a tragedy we have wasted so many crucial years arguing about this stuff. We need to take giant steps, not baby steps, to shift away from fossil fuels (not just foreign oil) to renewable energy sources, and we need an administration and Congress that realizes that.

Take action
Meanwhile, you can call your Senators and Congressman (212-224-3121) Tuesday during National Call-in Day and tell them to vote for renewable energy, green jobs and efficiency, not for more drilling. That’s the way to get more energy more quickly and help the economy and planet as well.
(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Greenwire, pickensplan.com, PlanetArk, American Gas Assn., New York Times)

… as oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens plans largest wind farm ever

(Photo of Texas wind farm from Flickr and and photographer fieldsbh)

News Update 4: Texas mogul T. Boone Pickens is expecting a windfall. As you no doubt have seen, he plans to construct the world’s largest wind farm, in the Texas Panhandle, and make a(nother) fortune while cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Pickens’ much publicized Pickens Plan is to put up 2,700 wind turbines over the next 4 years and generate enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes. The 80-year-old Pickens has convinced neighboring ranchers to put the turbines on their land for $10,000-$20,000 each. He, himself, isn’t going to have any – saying they’re ugly – but he’s worth $3 billion and doesn’t need the money. The Texas conservative hopes to pressure Congress to do more about clean energy. Oil peaked in Texas in 1973, so now he’s on to something new. He says it’s ridiculous for the U.S. to import 70% of its oil at a cost of $700 billion a year. His plan is to use wind and solar for power, and then shift natural gas to replace gasoline for fuel. No doubt he’ll make some money at that end too. While environmentalists love his big push for wind, most don’t like the natural gas bit, since it’s only about 30% lower in carbon than gasoline. (Sources: The Guardian, Huffington Post, pickensplan.com)