Obama Must Join Energy Independence And Climate Change

If there was a trend on Twitter of "Your top 5 things to watch Obama talk about", Energy would be number one for me. It's exciting to me because if the man-in-charge, AKA the President, is talking about it, then so will the media. And then hopefully that information trickles down to some more people. (My denial of Reaganomics ultimately makes that argument hypocritical, but I will defend that if need be)

Today Obama spoke about his plan to "Protect American Security". So how does the plan look?

First, it is an updated version of his plan outlined in the State of the Union, but only in the fact that it seems to be addressing the major concerns that have come from Japan (nuclear energy) and the Middle East (dirty oil). The emphasis on drilling seems to be more profound, which is obviously an appeaser to those that claim we aren't drilling enough. And Obama has reassured the country he doesn't believe in taking further nuclear investment off the table. 

So here is a breakdown of what he wants to see:

• Expansion of drilling offshore and on-land, increasing our domestic supply

• Development of biofuels and natural gas to increasingly replace petroleum in our cars

• Increasing fuel efficiency standards for our cars

• Goal of 80% of our energy coming from "clean" energy (I use quotes because Obama has defined what his administration believes is clean energy - nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, and renewables)

• Increasing the energy efficiency of our homes and businesses

• Increasing funding for ARPA-E (Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy) which is the "hubs" that should create the innovation and technology we are seeking for our energy future

• Goal of 1 million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2015, in conjunction with increasing charge stations across the country

• Providing government funded incentives for ALL OF THE ABOVE

Sounds great, but this can be picked apart politically to easily increase our domestic supply without securing the other points that are much needed. And Obama made it clear that increasing our domestic supply cannot solve our problem. He pointed out his favorite statistic: that we consume 25% of the world's oil while only holding 2% of the world's oil reserves.

Research and development will be crucial for our future. Obama said today, "The number one renewable resource we have the most of in the world, is American ingenuity." That is a point that needs to be hammered home. We need to invest and create, and my worry is that that his plan is too politically volatile. We couldn't even get one Republican to vote against continuing to give billions of taxpayer dollars to the richest companies in the world, the oil companies. 

I think Obama is saying the right thing though. He has the right ideas for the most part. He has to be careful politically because if he doesn't play the "increase domestic oil supply" card, he will be up for attack and nothing he really cares about will be accomplished. He's already treading into deep water, and we don't want to see him drown. 

BUT. Beyond the political balance beam, a major worry I have with this plan is its lack of emphasis on cutting carbon emissions. That idea should be inseparable from the idea of decreasing foreign dependence on oil. 

Why do we need more emphasis on reducing carbon emissions? Because there can be a likely scenario that we meet our clean energy standard, but with major reliance on energy sources like "clean-coal" and natural gas, which will give us a false sense of accomplishment while we're not lowering our emissions that much. We need to push cleaner technologies that emit less carbon to the top of the market, for our own health and the planet's sake.

Bottom line: I'm happy with Obama's goals and ideas. But as ambitious as they are, they still need to be a stepping stone to a much more emissions-conscious energy plan that addresses climate change, not just reducing oil dependence.

Watching Foreign Policy Meet Domestic Policy

With more and more happening in the Middle East, the worry about U.S. oil supply there is a valid one. Many have responded with chants to increase domestic drilling, others (like myself) see an opportunity to identify a major problem with the dirty energy we are so reliant on; it's funding ancient and oppressed societies ruled by dictators. It's natural to seek more domestic supply of oil, but the underlying assumption is that we can do so to replace or significantly reduce our use of foreign oil; which is not true.  Dean Baker at Beat the Press makes this clear:

"There are zero, nada, no projections that show that oil and gas reserves in the United States are large enough to allow the country to replace the fossil fuels that it imports. It currently imports about 11.5 million barrels a day, down from its pre-recession level of 13 million. Its domestic production is about 5.6 million barrels a day, and dropping. (It had been around 10 million a day thirty years ago.)

Projections from the Energy Information Agency show that if we drill everything in sight, we may be able to increase domestic production by 1-2 million barrels a day (it would take a decade to get this gain). That would mean that we would be very lucky to reduce dependence of foreign oil by even 20 percent."

It will take ten years to make the biggest effect, and it will only reduce our foreign dependence by 20 percent? A righteous goal, but not as quick and effective as many believe it to be.

President Obama is going to speak about future energy initiatives today, repeating some of what he said in his State of the Union and outlining other ideas. He will hopefully address the domestic oil production worry. His administration has already pointed out that many leases are not being used that have been given by his administration to oil companies, while Republicans claim the administration just isn't giving enough leases. Does this make a question mark appear above your head? Yeah, mine too.

I'll respond to Obama's energy initiatives later, for now I just want to make the point that we have an outdated mind frame when it comes to energy. Oil is all we think about. We need to think about natural gas (big asterisk* here) and electric vehicles. We need to think about energy efficiency. We need to think about lower emissions. And we need to begin the conversation about how we make those work for us rather than exhausting the already exhausted option - "Drill, baby, drill".

Bottom line: You want to see gas prices fall? Then get an electric car charge station next to the gas station. But don't expect the gas price to go below the charge station price. (But that's our little secret)

One Step Forward, One Step Backward

First, Happy St. Patrick's Day from your environmentally savvy Irishman. 

Now onto the slight paradox of today's news...

A step forward is being made today by the E.P.A.'s announcement of new regulation and emissions standards for mercury and various pollutants from coal-firing power plants. This, of course, isn't the end of this conversation about the role of the E.P.A. and its ability to make these kinds of decisions. But, this will be the start of a movement toward cleaner production and the development of new technology to meet that goal. 

According to the New York Times article (I have linked above), Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said the cost of compliance may be around $10 billion a year but the health and environmental benefits may amount to $100 billion a year. Along with this we will see strategic business strategies that force companies to change the way they do business to comply with these standards, and in ways that don't have to be in the form of layoffs.

Paul Allen, the vice president and chief environmental officer of Constellation Energy, a utility company, said, "We know from experience that constructing this technology can be done in a reasonable time frame, especially with good advance planning. And there is meaningful job creation with these projects."

Don't you think companies that will supply the technology to help these plants meet these standards will be hiring workers?

Most of the nation has standards that limit mercury and other pollutants, but this is the first national standard that will force the entire country's industries to clean up.

So what's the step backward?

When Democrats took over the house in 2008, they "greened up" the Hill. They made their cafeteria much more environmentally friendly, such as the necessity for biodegradable cups. But the Republicans have decided to get rid of those rules and bring back the styrofoam. A clear step backward. The argument is that the plan wasn't cost effective. They couldn't become more environmentally sound without undue cost. So the Republicans have done what they usually do, they just get rid of the Democrats plan instead of meeting them halfway. 

Why not put out a bid for a company that CAN be cost effective with the same services. I'm sure there's a company in America that can provide spoons and forks that are biodegradable and don't melt in soup. If not, we're in trouble.

Because I work in a cafeteria as well, I understand this argument a bit. I am glad to see that they will look for more reusable eating utensils. Where I work, we did the same thing. We now offer plastic and washable silverware.

Bottom line: Even with this obvious misstep, we're stilling making a farther step forward.

Pennsyl-DRAIN-ia

After Gov. Tom Corbett, R-PA, put forth his budget proposal for 2011-2012, the local Scranton newspaper -The Times-Tribune - covers the front page with "Governor Takes Ax to State Budget." I agree with this assessment, but I think "Draining the State Budget" may be more accurate, for pun reasons of course.

Beyond draining the funding for vital programs, services and institutions dealing with PA education (50% reduction in state-owned universities - notably Penn State University), he is smiling away as he watches gas-drilling wastewater and radioactive elements drain into PA's water. 

He has proposed a 4.5% reduction in funding for PA's Department of Environmental Protection and a whopping 29.3% reduction to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. AKA he has proposed draining the regulation, enforcement and power behind the entities that are supposed to keep gas drillers and polluters in check. I wonder if this has anything to do with the $835,720 in campaign contributions he received from gas-and-oil interests? Of course not. He's just making "tough choices". 

But those tough choices aren't hitting those out-of-town drilling companies that are coming to PA, drilling for natural gas, destroying the land, leaving, and letting city and local taxpayers foot the bill for clean up. No no no, they can't be asked to pay a severance tax. That would mean PA would lose those businesses. But what are we gaining from them being here anyways?

I received a very simple and honest text from a friend, "What is the argument against a severance tax?" The answer is: It would inhibit businesses from coming to PA and drilling for gas, and we already get enough revenue from the workers paying to live, eat and shop here. If that argument makes you laugh, you should feel safety in numbers. 

The truth is that PA sits on a gold mine of natural gas and any business that is here now, would stay here even if they had to pay a severance tax. The reason: because the profits they make are so big, and because every other state that has this type of drilling, taxes the drilling companies. 

Bottom line: Tom Corbett has reassured many Pennsylvanians that he will do what he campaigned to do: Be a horrible governor and put the interests of big business ahead of them all.

Rand Paul Likes His Hot Air Clean.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, is a member of the freshmen class in Congress this year and he's also a major figure in the Tea Party Caucus in the Senate (He's doing the best he can in order to not simply be "Ron Paul's Son"). In effort to promote his new book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, Mr. Paul stopped by Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" Monday. 

While discussing the proper role and size of government, Mr. Stewart challenged Mr. Paul's strict view. Mr. Paul's view if very clear - small, limited government that lets the free market run the show in places the government now does. Mr. Stewart doesn't promote big government, his goal is to stop the constant demonizing of an institution that has some merit. For example, the free market probably wouldn't have forced coal or oil industries to make large investments to clean up their act - they fought against them whenever they came up.

During this discussion, Mr. Stewart points to legislation passed by our government (the Clean Air Act for one) that has cleaned up our air, water and food. Those programs are precisely the target of many Republicans now. The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) is a primary target and more regulations for Food Safety, passed late last year, were seen as just more big government. Coincidentally, Mr. Paul found himself agreeing with Mr. Stewart.

After Mr. Paul said, "coal is cleaner than it was thirty years ago", this exchange occurred:

JS: But don't you think it's cleaner because of the government? And certainly they [the coal industry] didn't do it on their own, and there's a reason why electricity isn't just privately owned all the time.

RP: Certainly government had a role in it. But we do have to acknowledge we are much better off than we were thirty years ago and much better than we were eighty years ago...

JS interrupted: I think you just made my point?

RP: You and I may have been on the same side? We're on the same side.

Finally. The undeniable isn't denied. Mr. Paul is forced to make a better argument that sounds much more plausible, that the E.P.A. has just gone too far. Not as harsh and not as brandishing. 

Bottom line: The E.P.A. and other government entities that have worked to clean up our earth are not the devil. They have made us healthier and safer. Looking to decrease their grip on things can be a very rational approach - but that doesn't mean you need to bring a hammer to the table.

Blog Becoming a Blog/Climate Science in Congress

Round 1 - Maintaing my blog is fun, but I've come to realize that I really treat it more like a vehicle to write more column-like entries. Bottom line: I want to be more blog-like. What does that entail? More entries, and ones that don't need to be so long. It's time for some short and sweet entries. I think this attempt may be more informative and seem more accessible to a wider group. Let's see how this goes.

Round 2 - When it comes to the discussion of climate change in the political arena right now, there is a clear divide. Democrats are the believers - Republicans are the nonbelievers (deniers). This means we have politicians deciding whether scientists are telling the truth now.  This is a dangerous development, but tomorrow (March 8th) we will see something different. We will see a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel (Energy and Power subcommittee), for the first time this session, bring in competing scientists to discuss climate science and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules.

To put this into context, the Republicans have been making legislative attacks on the EPA - attempting to curb their ability to monitor greenhouse gases. Democrats have been unsuccessful, until now, in getting Republicans in this session to address climate science. So this is a major step, but hopefully not a stumbling bloc. It would become such a bloc if this just causes more uncertainty about climate science's validity. All eyes on this committee.

Predictably, Democrats have invited a scientist who has been published as recent as last year  claiming, "human activity is the main cause" for the worries stemming from climate change. And Republicans have invited a scientist that claims much of the climate data is "off-base".

While I was excited to hear we will see climate science brought to Congress, I'd be more excited to see a real faceoff between scientists. Wouldn't it be great to witness a real debate between 3 or 4 top scientists on both sides of this issue? This way we could let scientists question each other instead of politicians with obvious agendas and interests to cater to. While the language going back and forth in a debate like that may force some of us to become a bit confused, it would surely make this issue appeal to a wider audience. "This Sunday after your favorite sitcom, witness the Climate Change Clash!" I'm sure some younger minds would turn it into a drinking game, but maybe they would learn something in the process. 

Bottom line: Let's hope scientists aren't prepped with talking points, but rather with science that will force Republicans to open their eyes a bit wider.

Does It Have To Be Clean Air or Jobs?

Lisa Jackson, who was appointed by President Obama to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was questioned in Congress yesterday in front of the energy and power subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. By questioned, I mean she was hit with the first wave of anti-EPA rhetoric that will unfortunately pollute any legislative efforts to confront climate change. No pun intended.

“The E.P.A. and the Obama administration have decided that they want to put the American economy in a straitjacket, costing us millions of jobs and billions of dollars a year,” said Rep. Joe L. Barton, R-TX.

What’s scary isn’t just the growing number of Republicans that blatantly disregard climate science, but what Mrs. Jackson pointed out in reference to the legislation being pursued that will strip the EPA of its powers to regulate through the Clean Air Act. “Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question - that would become part of this committee's legacy” if the legislation passes, she said. Now that’s scary.

With jobs obviously a mainstream issue in today’s economy, it is no surprise any objective that Republicans seek to destroy will be labeled as job killers. The health care law was the first victim, as the repeal was titled “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law”, and now the EPA’s actions to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act are the Republicans next targets to receive the title of job killers.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee have pointed out that the EPA’s decisions will actually create jobs:

“Updated standards for cutting harmful air pollution at American facilities spur investments in the design, manufacture, installation, and operation of pollution-reducing technologies.  Those activities create jobs for Americans across a wide range of industrial professions and crafts.”

But forget that. That doesn’t really matter. What really matters is the businesses that claim it is going to cost them money to cut down on their emissions. Forget the health care costs of dirty air, forget the benefits we’ve seen since the introduction of the Clean Air Act (smog pollution down 40%, air pollution down almost 60%), and forget the amount of climate science that is being deemed “unequivocal”. Let’s listen to the businesses that sit on cash because they don’t see reasons to hire workers now, but then say that investing in technologies to clean up their act will halt them from hiring workers. Is your head spinning too?

Mrs. Jackson has repeatedly pointed to the source of her authority to regulate greenhouse gases from a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that allows the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act. But that still isn’t enough.

“It was good enough for a 5-4 decision in Bush vs. Gore to be settled law. A 5-4 decision, Citizens United, was good enough for corporations to run America. But all of a sudden a 5-4 decision in Supreme Court and you expect the EPA and us to just ignore it,” said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-WA.

Bottom line: Worrying about jobs is valid, but using that to scare people out of legitimate regulations is not. I recommend looking at a previous post of mine that stated how a strong decrease in emissions from the Clean Air Act's previous regulations hasn't stalled GDP. 

But wait, this time it HAS to be different. Oh, how could I forget?