Tag Archives: clean energy

Congress set to muzzle EPA and defund clean energy, while protecting oil subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Amendments to the budget bill could block regulations for air pollution, mountaintop removal, and offshore drilling.

Cross-posted from RYSE.

If you keep track of politics, you’re probably aware that the budget debate in the House of Representatives is in full swing. The reinvigorated Republican Party is eager to push its agenda, while the Administration, concerned about re-election, seems willing to make some serious concessions.

Curious what’s on the table? You might not want to know, unless you’re an oil executive. When it comes to program-axing, clean energy and environmental spending is at the top of the GOP’s list. Among the proposals are a $1.6 billion slash in the EPA’s budget, a cancellation of the high-speed rail project, and a massive cut in the Energy Department’s efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Notably absent is any mention of reducing subsidies for fossil fuels. Apparently, taxpayers will keep donating $4 billion a year to oil and gas companies, in the form of deductions and tax loopholes. Last year, the New York Times reported that tax breaks are available “at virtually every stage” of the exploration and extraction process. For example, BP wrote off 70 percent of the Deepwater Horizon’s rent– more than $225,000 a day.

According to the Tea Party congressmen, clean energy and EPA funding must be cut to preserve the free market (never mind protecting people). In the words of Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, “You don’t subsidize different forms of power — you let the market run on its own.” Okay, so let’s stop subsidizing oil and coal. But no, it seems that funding fossil fuels is actuallygood for the economy because it safeguards American jobs. Meanwhile, the EPA’s greenhouse gas registry, which collects data on industrial emissions, is part of a “radical anti-jobs agenda.“

This type of logic is hardly surpising. Government is limited by the very thing that makes it work: compromise. Even with a Democratic Congress, Barack Obama can’t bring about the clean energy revolution; we have to do a lot of the work ourselves. But energy projects aren’t the only programs slated for execution. Just as dangerous (or even more so) are hundreds of amendments aimed at gutting the EPA’s authority.

According to the Appalachian advocacy group iLoveMountains,

  • Amendment 109 would remove the EPA’s ability to evaluate mountaintop removal permits and would reverse all of the actions taken by the administration over the past two years to safeguard Appalachian streams and communities.
  • Amendment 216 would remove EPA’s ability to veto “dredge and fill” permits that do not meet Clean Water Act standards. The Spruce No. 1 Mine permit was the first time the EPA used this authority in relation to a mountaintop removal site.

Mother Jones reported on eight other measures that spearhead the assault on environmental regulations. For example, one would prevent the EPA from tightening rules against air pollutants, while another would keep the Environmental Appeals Board from reviewing or rejecting offshore drilling permits. Meanwhile, Amendment 574 would ban any U.S. contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

These amendments will pass with the budget bill, even though they have a relatively small effect on the federal budget. The bill has to be passed to literally keep the government running, so the only thing we can do is ask our Representatives to oppose these add-ons. March 4 is the expected deadline for negotiations, and some amendments, such as one defunding the GHG registry, have already been approved.

The EPA itself is threatened by polluter-friendly politicians. Many Republicans and some Democrats want to revoke the agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions (a right it was granted by the Supreme Court in 2007), and Newt Gingrich, a favorite for the GOP presidential ticket, has plans to shut down the EPA altogether, replacing it with a business-friendly “environmental solutions agency.”

I’ll admit that the federal deficit is a problem Congress must address, and I know the task can’t be done without trimming some beneficial programs. But what’s happening this week is bigger than that. The entire Republican Party (and part of the Democratic) is poised to delete much of what the environmental movement has accomplished over four decades.

Trading away basic protections for clean air and clean water is not just an idiotic bargain. It’s irresponsible. We might not leave future generations with as heavy a debt. But if we leave them, instead, with poisoned water, polluted air, and an altered climate, will they thank us?

Prop 23 is Officially Dead – CA Voters Defeat Big Oil

Posted on by
Reply

If you watched the election last night, you know that Republicans swept the House, effectively cancelling the clean energy agenda for the time being. But in California, voters soundly defeated Proposition 23.

From Climate Progress:

California is the only place in the country where climate and clean energy activists aggressively pushed their message across the board in the face of strong, well-funded opposition by Big Oil….

Proposition 23 — “the first and largest public referendum in history on clean energy policy” — brought together an amazing bipartisan coalition to beat back Texas oil companies’ effort to kill California’s landmark climate bill, AB32.

If you aren’t up-to-date on your referendums, you can read the background on Prop 23 here.

We should not overlook the importance of the Prop 23 results, as they are a historic victory for voters over Big Oil. More of my thoughts on the election later (because I know the Internet is just dying to hear them ^_^).

 

What if Solar Were Subsidized Like Oil?

Posted on by
Reply

Not everyone is aware that prices of a variety of products are artificially lowered by government subsidies. However, these subsidies help preserve some institutions that quite a few people are opposed to (or at least concerned about). Two of the most egregious beneficiaries are the industrial farming and fossil fuel industries.

While energy subsidies have been among the central green talking points for a while, I wasn’t aware just how big of an impact they could make — until I saw this infographic from One Block Off the Grid.

A few notes:

  • As one commenter on 1BOG points out, Germany does not just subsidize clean energy. Much of their success in solar is due to a feed-in tariff. When discussing clean energy, maybe support would be a more accurate term than subsidize.
  • The data for this chart is pre-stimulus. In the U.S., government support for solar and other forms of clean energy has increased over the last two of years.
  • The details are, of course, too complicated to be explained in an effective chart. I would say to take this graphic as an illustration (albeit an important and brilliant one), understanding that direct subsidization is not the only way to compare energy support.

Even considering these points, the fact still remains that American taxpayers are funding an industry that includes some of the world’s wealthiest corporations, most of which should be old enough to fend for themselves. Greens and progressives aside, I would think that voters who are uncomfortable with state-controlled economics in general would object to the government essentially choosing what kind of energy consumers can afford. Even if this country refuses to recognize the benefits of funding clean energy (in one way or another), surely there is an argument for, at least, leveling the playing field.

Via GOOD.

Quick fact check: Did Obama admit to high costs of cap and trade?

Posted on by
1

Whenever carbon market opponents talk about the costs of the system, they like to point that Obama himself admitted that a cap-and-trade would cause electricity bills to increase.  Sarah Palin(‘s ghostwriter) touts it in her book, and many articles quote it as well.  Interestingly, this statement rings to true to many people who usually call Obama a liar.  So did the President really undermine his own plan?

Well, he did say that, with a certain cap-and-trade proposal, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” but he wasn’t talking about the one Congress is considering now.  As Media Matters explains,

Obama was talking about a different plan causing energy costs to “skyrocket.” As the Associated Press noted in fact-checking Palin’s book, Obama was not talking about the cap-and-trade legislation that has since passed in the House when he referred to energy costs “necessarily skyrocket[ting].” When Obama made that statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January 2008, he was describing a cap-and-trade proposal that would auction off 100 percent of available carbon allowances, and he made no mention at the time of a plan to compensate consumers for potential cost increases. But as PolitiFact.com noted, the Waxman-Markey bill initially would distribute most of the carbon allocations for free and contains substantial provisions to offset costs to consumers, and thus “should reduce costs to consumers.”

There’s still a lot of disagreement about the exact cost of cap-and-trade.  While the system itself would naturally have some cost to consumers at some point, the actual legislation includes measures to lessen the impact.  The often-quoted “postage stamp a day” price comes from a Congressional Budget Office report on the Waxman-Markey bill.  The CBO actually predicted a net yearly savings for low-income families.  There are lower and higher estimates out there, as well.

We do know that “$3,128 per household” claim is false.  It was based on an MIT study, which some House Republicans blatantly misinterpreted (read the full story at PolitiFact).  In general, the most dramatic figures are produced by ignoring the features that save money.  Obviously, if you leave out the cost-cutting measures, you’re going to end up with a higher cost.

An effective energy solution that could also boost the economy

Posted on by
Reply

It is clear that we need to transition from dirty coal power to clean, renewable energy sources in order to curb GHG emissions and make our nation more secure.  Although a movement away from the focus on profit and development would be best, the beginnings of our energy revolution will have to form in the private sector, with a certain amount of trust in the invisible hand of the market.

In order to cut emissions, different leaders have proposed carbon caps, carbon taxes, and carbon offsets.  But these are difficult to pass, and states such as California are struggling to meet their goals for renewable energy.

One approach that is not discussed as often is the feed-in tariff.  The March-April 2009 issue of Audubon has a good explanation of how this system works:

climateChange-tariffs-1

(Click here to download the PDF)

So anyone — a corporation or an individual — can produce clean energy, and they are guaranteed a profit when they sell the energy to the grid, because the utilities are required to pay a fair price.  Banks can make safe loans to producers, which would help them through these tough economic times.

So, does it work?  Well, Germany has been using the feed-in tariff since 1991, and total installed power cas quadrupled since 2004.  Germany now has a booming energy sector, producing 55% of the world’s solar capacity.  The cost of electricity to German families has increased just $4 per month — much cheaper than other options.

The feed-in tariff could be very successful in the U.S.  Minnesota alone gets more sunlight than all of germany.

Six states (Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island, and California) have introduced feed-in tariff bills, and similar laws are being considered in eight other states.  This legislation could potentially take effect sooner than a national plan, such as Waxman-Markey, since it would not have to be passed by Congress.

So far, feed-in tariffs are one of the only policies that could work swiftly enough to reduce GHG emissions as drastically as scientists say we must.  And it could boost the economy at the same time.  I’m neither a scientist nor an economist, but it sounds like a good idea to me.