The Climate Community

Subscribe Form

My rants on Climate Legislation…and a draft of Obamas “Dear John” letter

 

 My vote may not have meant much per se - but to me it was important.  For me, much of 2008 was spent debating with myself, my friends, colleagues, and those poor saps stuck next to me on airplanes, as to whom to vote for in the 2008 presidential election. Should I choose the young, clearly inexperienced, but bright and energetic Senator from Illinois whose past seemed at least somewhat disconcerting (at least to a 50ish year old white guy), given his relationship with Reverend Wright, just for starters.  Or should I go with the older, absolutely heroic son-of-a-bitch - who devoted his life to his country - the maverick who almost got the boot from his own party for his support for Climate Change legislation among other things - the Senator from Arizona.  For me the debate went on and on.

At last - for a handful of personal reasons, I decided to vote for the young, charismatic Senator from Illinois.

And in the end so did most Americans.

It was glorious!  We could elect a black man to be President of the United States.  We were ready to move to a younger generation of leaders.  And we did seem to believe that our image in the world had been a bit scuffed up - and that this young, handsome, articulate fellow would  not only help fix that, but also  soften the hatred toward our nation felt by our enemies.

 For me and millions of “greenies” around the nation and the world - this was to be the defining moment in US policy with respect to Climate Change, Cap and Trade, Green Energy, Copenhagen and so on…..

Well - what a disappointment.

After a year in office, so much of the promise of last January is gone.  The President - no longer just a young Senator from Illinois - has clearly seen much of his agenda stall.  Most importantly, to me, is the absolute failure of Climate legislation and the resulting global failure in Copenhagen.

What happened? 

First - let us do a little background checking…

January 12, 2007  is an important date in US climate debate history.  It is the date that S.280 was introduced into the US Senate.  S.280 “Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007″ was a Cap and Trade Bill.  Senators Lieberman, McCain, Lincoln, Snowe, Obama, Collins, Durbin were the bill sponsors! No kidding - Senators McCain and Obama co-sponsored the same Climate Bill.  Further note that, for McCain, S.280 was merely the most recent effort he had been involved with to combat climate change - the first being his 2003 bill again with Senator Lieberman, which in many ways started the ball rolling in the Senate with regard to climate.

Fast forward to the middle of last year (2009).  Climate legislation passes in the House!

In the Senate - not only was John McCain suddenly AWOL, he ultimately decided to take shots at the bill and help ensure its demise.  This was basically his bill!  What happened?

Sore loser?  Really? Is that possible at this level - given the stakes?

Sad to say, but it seems to me that if the same set of facts were to be reconstructed on a grade school play ground - at least a few people would get set to the Principals office! 

Senator McCain has let the country down on this issue.  He and many Republicans were ready to move on this issue during the past several years and now they have jumped ship. This is truly the politics of No, and it is bad for our country.

Now - let’s probe into the “D” side of our nation. 

Did the leader of the House and the leader of the Senate really think that they could somehow just run the nation without serious input, consideration, and respect for the Republican Party? Really?  How foolish - and insulting, not just to their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but insulting to each and every one of us.

Did these old-timers think that somehow they were going to run the national agenda now - did they think that they had been elected President? 

Somewhere along the line both teams on Capitol Hill seemed to forget - they are on one team - they are on our team!  And, as the folks in Massachusetts showed - we make the picks - and the cuts.

Mr. President - you too have to grow up.  First, bowing to foreign leaders has to stop. More than one million Americans have died in our nation’s wars - in large part to ensure that as a people we do not have to bow.  Secondly, the bashing of former President Bush has to end. Frankly, I was not such a big fan of President Bush - but this first year of your presidency may well be seen as his best. So - enough with the blame game, you are now in the driver’s seat.  A growing concern in our nation is that maybe you are too young and inexperienced to lead our country.  If that becomes the prevailing view around the world, it could likely lead to a near term catastrophe (China…)  if one of our adversaries miscalculates and tries to push you too far.  Being seen as a weak leader and/or weakly supported is not good for our nation.

What to do?

Well, possibly last week’s Q&A with Republicans may have been a start - maybe.

But, more importantly - as you are the President, the Winner, the Man, the Boss, our Leader… I think you need to sit down and draft a “Dear John” letter to the senior Senator from Arizona.  And, as I’m sure not many around the White House would want the task of drafting such a  letter (as it would be deemed conciliatory), I am going to take the liberty of providing you with a rough draft that you can work from…

 

Dear John,

Michelle and I, along with the girls, have decided to move back to Chicago - you will find the keys under the White House door mat - good luck!

(ha-ha - just kidding……)

Ok -

Dear John,

I hope this finds you well.  This has been one hell of a year.  I can honestly say that like most, if not all, before me, nothing in my life could have prepared me for the vast complexities of this office.

Do not get me wrong - I love the challenge - I love the nation, and like you I deeply love the American people, who we both work for and answer to.

John - I could really use your help.  The campaign was hard and, in many ways, it feels as if it is not over, and that I believe is bad for our country.

There are many areas that you and I fundamentally agree.  We agree on much that has to do with national defense, and we historically have agreed on much pertaining to Climate Change and the environment.

I feel that the partisan divide has grown wider not narrower over the past year.  That is just the opposite of what I had hoped for.

The reasons for this are many but the blame must rest largely with me.  It has been difficult to reach this conclusion, but it is the truth.  With that in mind, I would like to invite you and Cindy to join me and Michelle for a weekend at Camp David.  Just the four of us - no aides, no note takers.

I am asking you to spend a day or two talking as leaders of our nation and talking as friends.  Let us find the areas upon which we agree - climate at the top of the list - and then jointly  announce a true partnership between us, one that can lead our parties away from useless rhetoric and towards the type of cooperation that allows us to move the nation in the right direction - a direction that both of us believe in.

 

Sincerely,

 

Your President

 

 

That is it.

Good luck.

As one who cares very much about our nation and about climate, I believe that we cannot push this off forever, and we cannot keep the finger pointing and mean-spirited screeching in Washington going for much longer - “we the people” are sick of it.

  • 0 Comments

Green Police - now that is funny…

Direct from the Saints Super Bowl - Green Police, not a bad idea…

  • 3 Comments

John McCain…where have you gone?

The climate movement had a friend, one could say a leader in the US Senate, and that person was John McCain.

For the past 5 to 8 years it was McCain who drove legislation to create a Cap and Trade plan within the US to help curb CO2 emissions.  In fact several bills have had his name on them, including S.280 in 2007 which included not only Senator McCain as a sponsor, but also Senator Obama.  Yes McCain and Obama helped sponsor the same Cap and Trade bill.

main_mccain_09291

Image from ZUMA Press

Yet last summer, after the House had passed its climate legislation and the debate was to be picked up in the Senate, John McCain was nowhere to be seen.  In fact it seemed as if on the climate bill McCain was awol.   How could this be?   After being a leader on the topic, why would McCain hide from the discussion and then in the end come out against a bill that he had personally worked so hard on for years?

There is not a real answer - other than maybe what we would call in grade school - being a spoiled sport, you know,  a sore looser.  Even with all of the ups and downs of last year, and the many mistakes made by the Senate and House leadership in excluding republicans from serious engagement, Senator McCain alone could have made a real impact if he had stood by the cause on climate legislation.  He did not, and it is a shame.  It feels as if  dislike for the other party - be it D or R is so great right now in our nations capitol that bad and dangerous consequences are already upon us.

  • 0 Comments

Hawaiian Green More than Just Palm Trees

On one parcel of a government-created energy laboratory, rows of mirrors shine white-hot in the sun, turning heat into energy. On another, brown water tanks harbor strands of algae that will be made into fuel. Nearby is a wind turbine whose blades spin parallel to the ground, nurtured by 42 green private-sector businesses on 877 acres of land in Kona.

California should take note. As the acknowledged leader nationally on things green, California, as Goliath, is being challenged by tiny Hawaii, as David, in the quest for green dominance. Its 2020 plan is to produce 70% of its energy from renewables, (which blows away California’s goal of 33%, over the same period)!

But for the Hawaiian state, they may have little choice. The otherwise tropical paradise relies almost exclusively on imported oil (more than 50 million barrels annually) to fuel its vehicles and power plants, rendering the state vulnerable to spills, price swings and geopolitics. Hawaii residents already pay the highest pump prices and electricity rates in the country. This makes Hawaii a harbinger of things to come to the rest of the U.S.

Their ambitious goal is to transform the nation’s most energy-dependent state into its cleanest and most sustainable. This year, Hawaii began requiring that all new homes be built with solar water heaters and is working to build a network of recharging stations to jump-start mass use of electric vehicles on the islands. Meanwhile, the state’s public utilities commission is devising a compensation system to encourage homeowners and businesses to go solar by paying them to generate green electricity.

The policies stem from an agreement called the “Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative,” signed with the Department of Energy in 2008, in which the state pledged to produce 70% of its total energy needs by 2030 — 40% from renewable electricity generation and the remaining 30% from energy efficiency.

About 6.5% of Hawaii’s electricity came from renewable sources other than hydroelectric power in 2007 — about half what California, the nation’s solar champion and a major player in wind and geothermal energy, has achieved. But experts said Hawaii’s small size and unique geography could prove advantageous in the race for energy independence. With just 1.3 million inhabitants, its energy consumption is small. The islands have abundant solar, wind, geothermal and wave resources. And Hawaiians are less likely to object to the cost of renewables since they already pay high energy prices.

Some of Hawaii’s projects might sound like the stuff of science fiction. The state is exploring building a 30-mile undersea cable to link proposed wind farms on Lanai and Molokai into the electric grids on Oahu and Maui. A local company is working to provide air conditioning in 40 downtown Honolulu buildings using chilly sea water pumped from three miles out in the ocean. And Hawaii’s own Gas Co. is using municipal solid waste and animal fat to make synthetic natural gas to supply energy to its customers.

The Big Island’s grid already obtains about one-third of its power from renewables, including solar, wind and geothermal. It’s also at the forefront of some of Hawaii’s biggest experiments, thanks in part to the Natural Energy Research Laboratory of Hawaii Authority.

In addition to its role as a green business incubator, the lab is a leading center for research on generating electricity by exploiting temperature differences between deep and shallow layers of seawater, a process known as ocean thermal energy conversion.

  • 0 Comments

Weekly Mulch: What’s Missing from the New Clean Energy Agenda?

By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger

Nuclear power, biofuels, clean coal: These are the Obama administration’s answers to climate change. The 2011 budget, released this week, promised new loans for the construction of nuclear power plants, and on Wednesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), White House, and other departments detailed steps to encourage ethanol and clean coal production.

These initiatives may garner support from conservatives, but their ascendancy comes at a price. Support for renewable fuel sources, like wind and solar, has dwindled. President Barack Obama did encourage Senate Democrats to pass a climate change bill, but some moderates are bucking the cap-and-trade provisions that could tamp down carbon emissions. Those moderates are pushing for legislation that leaves carbon caps out entirely.

It hasn’t been a good week for climate advocates. On top of the Obama administration’s overtures to crusty, old energy industries, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has had to fend off pressure to resign. The IPCC published a report with a badly sourced fact about the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting, and when scientists pointed out the error, Pachauri would not cop to the mistake. (If you missed the beginning of this to-do, Mother Jones‘ Kate Sheppard covered the controversy back in January.)

Given this country’s weak efforts to tamp down carbon emissions, though, perhaps the IPCC’s prediction that those glaciers likely will disappeared by 2035 will turn out to be accurate.

New nuclear plants—but at what cost?

Obama’s budget, as Sheppard reports at Mother Jones, is upping funding for nuclear plant development, even though previous nuclear projects have run wildly over budget. The president has always supported increased nuclear production. As an Illinois Senator, Obama had Exelon Corporation, the country’s largest nuclear operator, in his constituency. The company continued to support him as a presidential candidate. The proposed funding runs in the neighborhood of $54.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear projects. That’s good news for an industry that’s in need of cash. As Sheppard explains, without governmental backing, these plants would have little chance of being built.

“Even as public opinion toward nuclear power has warmed, projected construction costs for new plants have soared, with a single reactor now estimated to cost as much as $12 billion,” she writes. “In fact, the outlook for nuclear plants looks so dire that even Wall Street banks have balked at financing them unless the government underwrites the deal.”

The Obama administration is also backing research into nuclear waste disposal, a prerequisite for nuclear expansion. No matter how “green” nuclear energy production might be, so far there’s no safe, sustainable way to deal with its by-products. Finding a long-term solution for nuclear waste disposal will not come cheaply.

Biofuels move us backwards

The administration’s support for biofuels was bigger slap in the face to environmentalists, though. Just a few years ago, ethanol made from corn or switchgrass ranked high on the list of renewable fuels that could spring America from its Middle East oil addiction. In practice, however, biofuels have proven more environmentally destructive and less efficient than advocates had hoped. With farmers in the Midwest knee-deep in corn marked for ethanol production, though, backing away from biofuels is politically dicey.

The consequences are more than political, however. At Grist, Tom Philpott argues that support for biofuels will ultimately drive global carbon emission up, rather than down.

“As ethanol factories continue sucking in more and more corn, plantation owners in places like Brazil and Argentina will put more grassland and even rainforest under the plow to make up for the shortfall, resulting in huge carbon emissions,” Philpott writes. “That dire effect of our ethanol program, known as indirect land-use change, likely nullifies any scant climate benefits from ethanol.”

It’s not just corn and switchgrass that pose a problem, either. As Gina Marie Cheeseman reports at Care2, algae farms, another potential source of biofuel, face their own challenges. Algae demands high energy input and could release more carbon dioxide emissions that it would save, according to a new report from the University of Virginia.

There’s more research to be done before writing algae energy production off, however. In January, the Department of Energy said it would sink $44 million into work on algae pools. Industry players like ExxonMobile are also underwriting research on the subject, Cheeseman writes.

No room for innovation

Moving towards energy sources like nuclear power and ethanol does take the country a step closer to responsible energy production. But right now, the Obama administration is not leaving room for new or ambitious ideas that could do more. Wind and solar, which would form the best foundation for a sustainable energy future, have few advocates in Congress. They also seem to have no role in the near-term energy plan.

Ethanol was the Midwest’s first green industry, for instance, but there are other possibilities for juicing up the region’s clean energy production. In The Nation, Lisa Margonelli lays out the case for “gray power,” which is recycled energy produced by the old, dirty smokestacks that ring cities like Cleveland.

In this vision, twentieth century industry can produce twenty-first century energy. Waste energy, Margonelli argues,  “can be profitably “recycled” onto the grid to create power as clean as that from solar and wind but far cheaper.”

“In fact, energy now lost as steam and gases by the region’s manufacturing plants, as well as municipal and agricultural waste, could create as much energy as sixty-nine nuclear power plants, according to figures commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency,” she says. “This power could strengthen the region’s electrical grid and preserve jobs by making local manufacturing plants more economically stable, while making the region a leader in greener technology.”

A project like Margonelli imagines, however, would require significant commitment and vision from the federal government, both of which are lacking right now.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

  • 0 Comments

Leonardo DiCaprio for NRDC

  • 0 Comments

Climate Community Citizen of the Week - Joe Magee

Congratulations to Joe Magee this weeks Climate Community Citizen of the Week!
Joe Magee is a co-founder of  PineMark, the first green lifestyle certification. A life long nature lover and avid surfer, Joe has had an appreciation of the environment since he was very young. After finishing his MBA and quitting a job at a Fortune 500 company, he helped create PineMark to educate and reward individuals for reducing their ecological impact. Joe describers our environmental problems,  According to Joe -  ”We do not need lots of little steps, our situation is dire. We need millions of HUGE steps immediately!”

img_1120-1

We really like what Joe and PineMark are trying to do and what they stand for - living a cleaner - greener lifestyle and doing so in a manor that can be measured!

pm_logo1

PineMark from Mike Mallen on Vimeo.

Congratulations again to Joe - and PineMark - keep up the great work!

  • 0 Comments

Creating a Sustainable Community with the STAR Community Index

We are watching a renaissance of the American city powered by sustainability. New city buildings are cleaner, more efficient and healthier. Cities are scaling up building retrofit programs, yielding significant energy and water reductions. Improvements in transportation are better supporting walkability and green neighborhoods. Local food markets are sprouting up all across the country. And by responding to these myriad sustainability challenges, our cities are not only creating better places to live, but driving a clean energy economy, helping to save residents money and creating new green jobs. The U.S. Green Building Council is facilitating the work of cities through the creation of the STAR Community Index, a partnership with ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability and the Center for American progress. STAR, still in development, relies on the participation of a vast array of federal, state and local governments as well as member organizations and NGOs to develop a benchmarking tool to give these cities a path forward towards a more sustainable future.

STAR identifies the key components of urban sustainability, providing cities a way to measure their own progress in those areas. In doing so, STAR can serve as a planning tool for local governments and their citizens to take steps to become more sustainable while providing a mechanism to assess how successful cities are in their efforts. Rather than continuing to talk about the concept of urban sustainability in inconsistent terms, STAR will anchor the discussion with broad consensus and allow both public officials and their constituents to identify and work towards specific goals that contribute to the overall sustainability of a community.

While STAR will continue to develop and undergo changes in the next year, a draft list of components that STAR will look to measure will be available soon, allowing local governments to incorporate them into future plans. Information about these draft goals and the entire STAR program can be found at Star Community Index. Please take time to review these goals and share them with your local government officials if they are not already aware of this effort. Our nation’s cities are moving towards sustainability and STAR will help lead the way.

About the Author
aaron is - one of our weekly winners - and he spends his days working at The US Green Building Council. He is an expert in the greening of cities and works across the nation on this critical issue...

  • 0 Comments

Green Office Building Wall…your kidding - right?

This has to take the cake…

An office building in Portland Or. that is planning to have an entire wall built as a vertical garden.  We first heard about this when one of our friends sent us a recent NYT article - “In Portland, Growing Vertical”

 

4323097646_4ceb1f86be1

Now the truth is - I am not a green wall expert.  (I bet no one is….)  But I can say a few things off the top - (or side as the case may be…).  Green Building is an important notion.  Energy Efficiency as we all recognize is clearly a vastly under utilized tool in the fight against climate change.  Stopping the waste of energy and doing so in an economically responsible manor is a major goal of the Green building movement.  In our opinion - extreme - edge concepts are not helpful.  In fact they can have negative impacts never imagined by the folks (generally of good intent…) who start and promote them.  I am not sure of the cost for the green wall - or the up keep - but it will be far more then a conventional wall.  I am not sure how many homes in Portland could be put through a serious energy efficiency upgrade - for the same federal money - 5,000, 10,000 a lot.  I wonder what the actual energy cost savings is of the green wall vs alternative projects - homes or commercial energy retrofits.

It is hard enough to keep a horizonta lgarden healthy.  A wall on a large office building is not a single season exercise - it is 30 years, 50 years or more…

As a long time supporter of Green Buildings and the green movement - this seems like a bad idea.  And - especially if funded with tax payer money.  Should a commercial developer want to build green walls - Go For It!  But with tax dollars - please - no.

  • 4 Comments

Leading by example? Let’s hope so…

President Obama appears to be taking initiative in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, setting a reduction target for the Federal Government of 28% by 2020. “As the largest energy consumer in the United Sates,” Obama said, “we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient.”

It is encouraging to have a leader in Washington willing to lead by example and to take responsibility in addressing the Federal Government’s energy use. I was heartened by Obama’s 2010 state of the union address in which he acknowledged the need for a comprehensive energy and climate bill and stated “even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future…” But do these statements promise action? Are these reduction targets going to stand the test of “political time,” which is notoriously shortsighted and subject to personal agendas?

I want to be optimistic, but can’t help but a be a bit skeptical. What sorts of incentives will be provided? Will there be federal mandates for energy efficiency? Are there concrete, specific steps to achieve reduction targets?

According to the White House website, Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve GHG pollution reductions by measuring their current energy/fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources. Agencies are to set sustainability plans, to be validated and scored by the Office of Management and Budget, and progress, to be measured and reported online to the public annually, will ensure accountability.

I’d be interested to hear what other people think about this federal initiative. As with anything requiring a shift from business-as-usual to business-as-necessary, sustained commitment to meaningful action is key. My hope is that this federal target, the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets, is more than mere greenwashing. I agree with President Obama; the Federal Government does have a responsibility to cut its own emissions if it expects all other players to follow suit. And hopefully all other players can move forward, doing as Washington does, not just as Washington says.

You can find examples of energy actions currently underway at , www.whitehouse.gov/ceq, the White House Council on Environmental Quality website.

 

About the Author
megan is a recent graduate from Lawrence University in Appleton Wisconsin. She is a dedicated environmentalist and while at school was responsible for the organic garden, she is also one of our weekly winners....

  • 0 Comments