Obama needs credit for environmental successes

(Photo of Obama from Flickr and jmtimages)

Despite the failure so far to pass a climate bill in the Senate, or to help forge a final international agreement in Copenhagen, the Obama Administration has, without much fanfare, quietly reversed destructive Bush environmental policy and ramped up green jobs development as it sets a course for a cleaner energy future.

Carl Pope, outgoing executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Mercury News, “This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history.” In just one year, he said, the president reversed most of Bush’s anti-environment actions over eight years.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a B+ for is first year.

Among the accomplishments::

Reversing Bush policies
Fuel efficiency: Instead of fighting California’s request to the EPA to let the state restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (something many other states wanted too), Obama’s EPA granted permission and then the president announced new federal rules increasing fuel efficiency 40%, from the current average of 25 mph to 35 mph in 2016.

Regulating GHG: Bush avoided taking action on the Supreme Court decision giving the EPA power to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. This EPA is now finalizing a Big Polluter Rule, under which is would be able to restrict emissions from sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year.

Oil and gas drilling: This Administration blocked Bush’s rule to open the California coast and 77 sites near Arches and Canyonlands national parks to drilling. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar also announced major reforms for oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Bisphenol: The Food & Drug Administration said bisphenol-A in plastics poses a significant danger to babies and young children.

Ozone: The EPA announced new health-based ozone standards.

Yellowstone: The Administration negated a Bush rule allowing more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding clean tech through ARRA
Green technologies will get a strong shot in the arm from stimulus funds, with an estimated $80 billion targeted for everything from weatherization and other efficiency measures to public transit and high speed trains to hybrid and electric cars to electrical grid improvements and renewable sources like wind and solar. Only $5B of that money has been released to date, with another $26B committed. The DOE says the delay was needed to establish rules about how the funds could be spent.

Obama is emphasizing the importance of creating jobs for the energies of the future, but the results will also to cut GHG emissions.

Additional actions
In the first year, the Administration also:
• Said it would catalog GHG emissions from large sources.
• Ordered that 500,000 federal buildings and 600,000 federal vehicles cut GHG emissions.
• Began developing standards for more efficient appliances.
• Required federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews.
• Broadened guidelines for mass transit projects to receive federal funds.
• Signed into law a bill to create 2 million acres of new wilderness that bans logging, mining and new roads in federal forests and deserts in 9 states, including Joshua Tree and Sequoia national parks.

The president doesn’t get a lot of credit for all this – and more – because things were so bad in the Bush years, and the news focus has been on the economy and health care. But we are slowly moving forward despite Congress and the big lobbies. That’s why it is so important to defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Tell your senators to vote no.

(Sources: Sierra Club, mercurynews.com, Center for American Progress, White House blog)

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)

Sarah Palin gets numbers wrong on Alaska’s share of U.S. energy supply

(Photo of Sarah Palin from Flickr and photographer sloomis08.)

News Update: Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin told ABC’s Charles Gibson that Alaska is responsible for 20% of the U.S. energy supply. But according to the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column, Alaska is only the 9th largest energy supplier in the U.S., with just 3.5%, and has relatively little natural gas, very little coal and no nuclear power -- not to mention wind or solar. Palin later amended her statement at a campaign appearance, to say as governor she oversaw “nearly 20% of the U.S. domestic supply of oil." Data from the Energy Information Administration show Alaska accounted for just 7.4% of the country’s U.S. oil and gas production in 2005, and oil output has fallen since then. Today Alaska produces about 13% of domestic oil (though it was 18% back in 2005, before she was governor). GOP presidential candidate John McCain has touted Palin as the most knowledgeable person in the U.S. on energy issues and she says energy would be one of her responsibilities as vice president. (Sources: ClimateWire, Washington Post)

Bush budget favors nuclear and coal

Weekly Angst: President Bush’s 2009 budget puts a priority on nuclear and coal, while cutting renewable energy and efficiency. No surprise here.

Coal funding is up 25%, and nuclear 37%, while renewables are down nearly 30%, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who promised a fight in Congress.

The budget makes no mention of extending the tax credits for renewables due to expire at the end of the year. And the weatherization program for low-income residents is eliminated.

The Energy Department budget is up, but mainly for nukes and coal:
• $1.4B to promote nuclear power
• $1.1B to research technology to reduce GHG from coal plants
• $0.5B for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.

Solar R&D is cut about $12 million from last year, while wind technology is up $3 million. There’s an additional $10 million for geothermal development.

“We should stop propping up the nuclear industry and use this money to develop truly clean and cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels,” Environment America said.

Other environmental cuts and increases include:
• Pacific Salmon Recovery cut in half,
• No money for the Greenhouse Gas Registry authorized by Congress,
• EPA budget cut $300 million,
• Fish & Wildlife cut $65M, including $3.6M for endangered species,
• Increase of $22M for oil and gas drilling on public lands, including the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
• $8.5M more for offshore oil and gas drilling; $1M increase for offshore renewable leases,
• $200M increase each for the environmental satellite program and National Weather Service.

The Senate and House will now each produce a budget, then reconcile them to create one budget to give the president. Reid did not rule out waiting till January to give the budget to the next president.

For more on the Bush budget and climate change see Hill Heat.
(Sources: E&E Daily, PlanetArk, Las Vegas Sun) (Photo of decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant (1975-89) courtesy of Fickr and TahoeSunsets.)