photo: Monique

Just in case anyone thinks that I might be just an Obama fanboy and won’t call him out on energy policy when he deserves it, this one’s for you. Bloomberg.com is reporting comments which they are spinning as indicating as Obama being willing to continue similar levels of support for ethanol as the Bush administration.

Here’s the quote from the Obama campaign’s senior energy advisor Heather Zichal which got Bloomberg.com to say that Obama will follow failed Bush policy,…

Continue reading " Obama Commitment on Second Gen Biofuels Good, Let’s Hold Him To It "

By Brad Johnson

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

—–

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), the coal industry’s propaganda front group, is upbeat about this election day, as indicated by their press release today. ACCCE VP Joe Lucas claimed:

If “support for the use of coal for generating electricity” were on the ballot today, it would win by a landslide.

His choice of words is unfortunate, as landslides are only one of the many deadly hazards of coal mining, especially under the lax safety enforcement of the Bush administration.

ACCCE is celebrating a poll that showed their $50 million propaganda campaign influenced “adults with $80,000 or more in household income and a four-year college degree or more and a professional or managerial job title or a business owner and a high degree of involvement in politics and policy matters.”

However, all the PR spin in the world can’t affect scientific reality. America’s coal plants produce about 49 percent of U.S. electricity but account for 83 percent of power-sector emissions. And we need to reduce net emissions to zero as fast as humanly possible to preserve our civilization from catastrophic global warming.

The tobacco industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars to obscure the scientific fact that their product is an addictive, deadly drug. After decades of debate, after millions of Americans had their lives unnecessarily shortened, our government crafted policies that protected tobacco farmers and reduced the tobacco industry’s grip. Even so, the needless deaths continue, all to protect the profits of a very powerful few.

Our current situation with the coal industry is similar, but the stakes are even more grave. No matter what actions Washington, D.C. takes, the 80,000 people in the coal mining industry — 0.02 percent of the U.S. population — should be taken care of. These workers deserve better than they are getting today, as the union-busting coal barons ignore safety regulations and cut benefits. But make no mistake — the burning of coal is burning up the planet.

The world is not going to stop using coal for decades, even if the United States were to move entirely to a fossil-free power grid. If we can develop the technology needed to economically capture the emissions of coal plants, and I hope we can, then the coal industry will have the opportunity to rake in billions of dollars in profits for a few more generations.

The saddest thing about the ACCCE campaign is not its facile dishonesty, but that we continue to have a political discourse that places more weight on perception than reality.

Continue reading " Shilled to pieces "

By Glenn Hurowitz

For a generation, Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign was cited as an example of how not to run for the White House as a Democrat: Not only did Mondale run on a liberal platform, but he also went so far as to promise to raise Americans’ taxes — a promise that was widely blamed for his defeat.

But Barack Obama’s victory shows that after eight years of Republican failure, the rules have changed.

For all of Obama’s rhetorical efforts to portray himself as a tax-cutting, business-friendly moderate whose highest aspiration was to “bring people together,” he ran on a very progressive agenda, was characterized as a closet socialist “Redistributionist-in-Chief” by McCain and Palin, and above all represented a radically different approach from the conservative ideology that has mostly defined the national agenda since 1981.

For instance, despite Obama’s promises not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000 a year, his platform includes an increase in the capital gains and estate taxes. And, as McCain, Palin, and much of the Republican attack machine pointed out in the last days of the election, Obama himself said his global warming plan would cause electricity rates to “skyrocket.”

But voters didn’t care. Even though 70 percent of voters in the MSNBC exit poll said they thought their taxes will go up under Barack Obama, they still went for him. And in an October poll by the Pew Research Center, voters said they preferred Obama’s approach on the environment and energy by 57-27 and 53-34 margins, respectively. Voters apparently want to free America from reliance on fossil fuels, even if it’s going to cost them.

Obama’s embrace of progressive values went into the social arena as well. Even though he was trying to win swing states that are traditionally regarded as socially conservative, Obama upended conventional Democratic wisdom by running a very explicit pro-choice campaign, featuring unvarnished pro-choice messages in many ads.

The polls provide some evidence why Obama’s decision to run as a mostly unabashed progressive worked. For all of Democrats’ fears about taking liberal stances on social issues, defending choice is still really popular: Recent polls show that about 6 in 10 voters want it to be mostly or always legal.

But the polls don’t tell the whole story. On most issues, voters have favored Democratic policies for decades. The difference is that in the past, Democrats were wary of defending their own most deeply-held values. When Republicans attacked, they hedged or even abandoned their support for the environment, for a fair tax system, or for progressive social values.

When that happened, they left their supporters feeling betrayed and unmotivated and their enemies emboldened. And they alienated swing voters for whom policy positions matter less than personal characteristics like strong leadership and integrity. Because Democratic candidates weren’t willing to stand up for themselves, voters lost faith that they would stand up for them either.

Obama wasn’t perfect on these counts. For instance, he jettisoned his opposition to offshore drilling in the face of Republican attacks this summer. But by in large, he was willing to stick to his guns even when his positions were somewhat unpopular, like when he pledged to take down the Bush administration’s U.S.-Mexico border wall because it is an environmental and human travesty.

To be sure, the failing economy provided Democrats the context they needed. But a candidate with a little backbone gave them the ability to take advantage of that context and convince voters to take a chance on change.

—–

Glenn Hurowitz is the author of Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party.

Continue reading " Mondale’s revenge "

By David Roberts

Holy sh*t:

President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico.

I must say, I don’t see this:

The selection of Kennedy would be a shrewd early move for the new presidential team. Obama advisers said the nomination would please both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

It might please Clinton and Kennedy, but by my count it will piss off just about everyone else. Enviros are still pissed about his opposition to Cape Wind. Sensible people are pissed about his naive acceptance of the phantom vaccine-autism connection. Many journalists are pissed that his overheated work on Republican vote theft in 2004 served to discredit more modest but verifiable theories. He’s also, to put it bluntly, widely considered considered kind of an arrogant jerk — which makes me like him more, but I don’t know how it will play in a delicate and highly constrained bureaucratic position.

Also, the guy’s run Waterkeeper, which is a great group, but not exactly training for running a huge government agency.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of RFK Jr.’s environmental work, but he strikes me as more of a strident activist voice than a careful, detail-oriented managerial type. His appointment would sure send an unmistakable message, though! I suppose I’m ambivalent and should give it more thought.

What do y’all think?

Postscript: Huffington Post got him on the phone, where he said he would happily serve if asked. He also said:

“I think that Barack Obama understands that energy must be the centerpiece for his administration. That there really are two big issues, one is health care and the other is energy,” he said. “And energy is intertwined with all other issues. If we can get off of foreign oil, for instance, we can save 700 billion a year. We can pay back the Wall Street debt we just ran up in just one year.”

“That whole dark cloud of the Bush administration,” he added, “has all the sudden been lifted.”

Continue reading " Robert’s rules? "

By Grist

We asked a number of leaders in environment and sustainability issues to imagine they found themselves in an elevator with the president-elect — giving them one minute of his undivided attention. Here are their messages to Obama about how he should approach environment, energy, and climate policy:

—–

Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco:
"Where the Bush Administration has failed in the last eight years, you must lead. In your first 100 days, begin implementing a detailed, acheivable plan to establish America as the world’s leader in the fight against climate change. By investing in energy independence, you will rebuild the American economy and rid our dependence on foreign oil. Move from the common rhetoric of creating a green revolution in America to achieving results:

“You must:

• Follow-through on your promise to invest $150 billion in clean-technology infrastructure, research, and development (and consider increasing this level of investment). Infrastructure should focus on modernizing our national power grid to make it more efficient and allow new renewable energy projects to feed into that grid. R&D funding should flow to our nation’s universities and scientific institutions to develop new energy-effiency and renewable-energy technologies, such as ocean power, that can be further advanced through the marketplace.
• Establish agressive new national effiency standards for buildings, cars, and appliances. We’ve done this in California over the past two decades and have witnessed no change in per capita energy usage amidst explosive economic growth.
• Recognize the true price of greenhouse-gas pollution by creating an aggressive cap-and-trade system or carbon tax that will make renewable energy competitive with polluting fossil-fuel-burning technologies.
• Organize a bilateral energy summit with China that establishes both countries as leaders in the developed and developing world toward growing national economies while reducing the environmental impact.
• Ensure that clean-energy investment benefits all Americans by creating green-collar job requirements as a pre-condition to any federal funding of infrastructure, research, and development.
• Support cities’ impressive climate protection efforts through technical assistance and resources for programs such as energy-effiency retrofits in low-income housing."

—–

Bill McKibben, author, climate activist, and member of Grist’s board of directors:
"Hey, congratulations, or condolences, or whatever’s appropriate. I know you’re focused on that financial meltdown, but it’s the meltdown meltdown that is going to define your two terms in office, Mr. Obama. How you deal with it may be the key to our economic recovery, but even more to the recovery of our stature in the world. We need a deal — but it’s a deal that has to reflect the new crucial piece of information about the planet. According to the scientists at NASA — your scientists, now — that world doesn’t work right above 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now that you’re done with 270 electoral votes, that’s the number that’s got to focus your thinking."

—–

Vinod Khosla, Silicon Valley investor:
"Don’t focus on all things green. Instead look at the few things that can achieve 80 percent carbon reductions per mile driven in our transportation fleet and be low-cost enough to penetrate 80 percent of all transportation including in India and China. For electric power, go beyond current renewable fashion. Look at the technologies that can replace or clean up 80 percent of coal-based electric generation with 80 percent lower carbon kilowatt hours!"

—–

Summer Rayne Oakes, eco-activist and model:
"President Obama, we are faced with not only a challenge but an opportunity. You have millions of supporters who are urgently seeking a plan to get this country off of dirty energy and lift millions of hardworking people up by providing clean-energy, green-collar jobs. Bills like the Green Jobs Act need to be fully funded and appropriated; Congressman Edward Markey’s iCAP bill is a shining example of forward-thinking legislation; and even Republicans — including Colin Powell and T. Boone Pickens — are looking for change.

"President Obama, the plans and solutions are here — today. Now we need you to help us make them a reality. I say this not only as the sensible but hard-nosed activist that you see me as today, but as a young girl from Pennsylvania who has seen her single mother struggle in an ailing economy and the very land beneath her feet laid to waste by decades of coal mining. I do not forget where I grew up. I do not take the present for granted. And I sure as hell know that with this knowledge, we can look forward to the future with open eyes. I, too, share in your story of a better America and a better world, but we will not get there if we do not have leadership and force of will. So the question is now, will you be that leader … our leader?"

—–

Gus Speth, dean at the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies:
"Mr. President, the climate problem is more of a threat to the human future than even many environmentalists realize. You would be well-advised to create a cabinet-level position to lead your efforts nationally and internationally to address it. You should also move quickly to convene a White House meeting of top climate scientists and use that as a springboard to an address to the American people from the Oval Office. You can’t responsibly put this issue off or subsume it under an energy initiative. The most important thing you can accomplish early in your term is major federal climate legislation and a post-Kyoto Protocol international agreement, both aimed at dramatic greenhouse-gas emission reductions."

—–

Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association:
"If you really want to make the New Energy Economy a reality, the most important step would be to establish long-term, stable policy in support of renewable energy. That means a long-term extension of the renewable-energy-production tax credit as well as the 25 percent federal renewable-electricity standard by 2025.

"Secondly, our best renewable energy resources — wind, solar, geothermal — tend to be found at a distance from where most people live. To get our renewable energy to electric customers, we will need a significant upgrade of the nation’s transmission infrastructure. But the cost of that investment is cheap compared to the value of all the clean, renewable energy that will be made available to help create new jobs, clean up our environment, and make a substantial down payment in the fight to curb global warming.

"Those two steps — stable long-term policy and transmission infrastructure — are the most important steps to move this country into a position for wind to be able to provide 20 percent of our nation’s electricity by 2030."

—–

Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch:
"Mr. President-elect, I believe global climatic disruption poses two unprecedented challenges. We must dramatically cut emissions, and we have to prepare for potentially disastrous impacts that are already underway and are projected to intensify in the future. Mobilizing the country to take effective action will require great leadership from your administration and a restoration of integrity in dealing with the findings communicated by the science community. Only when the leadership communicates a clear understanding of the potential dangers will Americans support policies that will adequately reduce emissions and the actions needed to prepare for likely impacts. Couple this with putting in place an ongoing nationwide process to further assess the likely consequences of climate change and opportunities to reduce emissions, and incorporate this knowledge into all relevant spheres of activity. This process should engage citizens all across the country."

—–

Evon Peter, executive director of Native Movement:
"Barack, as you are aware, our world is in need of deep healing and a transformation of consciousness that will lead to tangible changes in policy and practice, shifting the fundamentally unsustainable and exploitative direction in which we are headed. This is not unlike the years leading up to the end of slavery as ideological forces conflicted and arguments over economics and political structure prevailed. Your presidency will require courageous decisions to face the truth in what is inequitable, unjust, and unsustainable if we are to make needed change happen. Many will vehemently challenge these decisions because they are terrified to face the truth in the situation humanity is facing. Your job is to stay true to principles that the world is in great need of receiving from its leaders. We are entering an era of truth over politics and love over violence as a means to our survival. I wish you blessings in keeping to a solid path and carrying this torch forward."

—–

Julian Dautremont-Smith, associate director of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education:
"Higher education has been a leader in helping America overcome many critical challenges and is uniquely positioned to enable the achievement of your goals related to energy, climate, and green jobs. Colleges and universities are eager to help — almost 600 of them have signed a commitment to eliminate their greenhouse-gas emissions and to provide education, research, and outreach to support the transition to sustainability — but they need financial support to meet their potential for leading the sustainability transformation. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 authorized funds to create a "University Sustainability Grants Program" at the Department of Education, but no funds have been allocated. With your help securing this and other federal support, colleges and universities can mobilize their intellectual resources to break America’s dependence on fossil fuels and create millions of new green jobs at the same time."

—–

David Foster, executive director of the Blue Green Alliance:
"Our energy, environmental, and economic problems are interdependent. So are the solutions. While there are many ways to stimulate the economy, we don’t need a 20th Century stimulus package. We need a "green recovery" — big, public investments in global warming solutions that put Americans back to work. China is building a coal-fired power plant a week. We need to build 500 megawatts of renewable power a week. Set a goal of creating 2 million new jobs in the next two years with global warming solutions. Then push federal spending down through the states and cities to create massive energy-efficiency programs for our building stock, expansion of mass-transit systems, and a modernized grid to bring our renewables to urban markets. With a green recovery underway and Americans headed back to work, you’ll be able to muster the political will to pass legislation that puts a price on carbon, stabilizes energy prices, and funds the long-term economic transition to a clean-energy economy."

—–

Terry Kellogg, executive director of 1% For The Planet:
"If you look at the landscape of corporate environmental initiatives, the headlines are impressive. But we are a long way from seeing the kind of change that’s necessary. Despite all the noise, most of the big indicators are still moving in the wrong direction. You should incent companies to show what a new, truly sustainable paradigm looks like. Use today’s ‘best in class’ performers as a guide for setting tomorrow’s baseline. And don’t lose sight of the most important challenge and opportunity: getting the prices right. In getting this stuff done, leverage the wisdom and perspective of the nonprofit sector, and the cover and capacity of corporate leaders."

—–

Jim Moriarty, president of the Surfrider Foundation:
"Inspire us. Lead us. Challenge us. Your campaign was about these themes and now that you are President we need these more than ever. The United States and its citizens are beaten down. We’ve lost our luster around the world and we’ve lost our sense of optimism. Our environments are red-lining; they are under siege because we’ve lost our collective sense of stewardship. Please look beyond the lobbyists who will anchor us to our past, and challenge every single American to build a new future built on energy independence and environmental stewardship. Do these things with the spirit which compelled us to elect you … your sense of hope and optimism. The most important thing we need from you is your belief in what is possible. Remember that always."

—–

Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University:
"Renewable energy systems at every level of our economy and at every level of user will be the single most positive thing you can do to address our strategic failures in global economics, global warming, and global politics. This trifecta will renew America’s independence and allow us to focus on the most important issues of education and competitiveness."

—–

Jonathan Fink, director of the Global Institute of Sustainability at Arizona State University:
"You should view universities as intellectual resources — not just for new research ideas, but for new ideas on how to implement policy. Public universities in large cities have experience in translating research into policy — that’s where the big gap is.

"More specifically, your administration should view urban areas (where most Americans live) as the places where sustainable solutions need to be developed and implemented. The federal government lags way behind the cities and states in experimenting with new sustainability concepts. Direct your agency heads to figure out how best to address the social, environmental, and economic challenges associated with our country’s continuing trend toward urbanization."

Continue reading " Going up? "

With just months left in office, it seems that President Bush has a fire under his ass to destroy the environment in as many ways as possible before he vacates the White House. The Bush Administration is already rushing to ease endangered species laws so government-approved building projects can move forward; now, we’re hearing that […]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “New Bush Rule Eases Pollution Restrictions on Factory Farms”, url: “http://earthfirst.com/new-bush-rule-eases-pollution-restrictions-on-factory-farms/” });

Continue reading " New Bush Rule Eases Pollution Restrictions on Factory Farms "

By Kate Sheppard

As Americans anxiously wait to find out who will become our next president, the current occupant of the White House continues efforts to undermine environmental protections. Whomever wins today will inherit a bounty of 11th-hour actions of the Bush administration on environmental issues, pushed through before No. 44 is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009.

At least in theory, all new rules should have been completed by Nov. 1. In May, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten declared that new regulations “should be proposed no later than June 1, 2008, and final regulations should be issued no later than Nov. 1, 2008″ — “except in extraordinary circumstances.” The wording leaves some wiggle room, and the nonprofit watchdog group OMB Watch noted in September that it “appears there are a lot of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ to be found.”

Officials would need to publish any economically significant rules by Nov. 20, as the law requires a 60-day comment period before they to go into effect. Less important rules could be announced up until Dec. 20, as those require just a 30-day comment period.

We’ve seen a number of new rules in just the last few weeks, including ones that would ease restrictions on mountaintop-removal coal mining, push forward plans to store nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, speed up the offshore leasing process, and advance efforts to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon. The Bureau of Land management has also proposed opening wilderness-quality areas to oil and gas drilling in Utah.

The Bush administration is likely to move forward with plans to weaken air-pollution standards for power plants by altering the “new-source review” rules. Those rules now require power plants to install new pollution-control equipment if they are making upgrades that would keep their facilities operating more hours each day and increase overall emissions. Instead, the administration’s proposal would allow older power plants to upgrade without installing costly new equipment as long as their hourly emissions rates don’t increase. There’s also talk of easing limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks, and allowing increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories, and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations, as well as weakening the cleanup standards for radioactive releases.

In August, the administration proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act that would exempt federal agencies from independent reviews under the law, instead allowing the agencies themselves to determine the possible harm their proposed projects might pose to endangered species. The changes also would not allow agencies to include greenhouse-gas emissions in their calculations. That proposal attracted more than 200,000 comments, which the Bush admin only allowed reviewers 32 hours to look over — meaning that their 15 reviewers had to read seven comments per minute, even though some were dozens of pages long. New memos regarding the Bush administration’s legal approach to the ESA were also leaked to the press recently; they argue that the act can’t be used to spur regulation of specific sources of greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Washington Post recently detailed a number of other efforts the administration is taking to deregulate in its last days, including a rule that would allow natural-gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures. A proposed rule from the National Marine Fisheries Service now under consideration would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would turn review authority over to regional councils, many of which are run by fishing interests.

And special interests are lining to ask for more rule changes. The Post reports that the commercial scallop-fishing industry has requested that catch limits be eased, and National Mining Association officials requested that rules on keeping coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams be relaxed. Last week, representatives of the biofuels industry asked the EPA to ignore the requirement that life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions from the production of various biofuels be taken into account in issuing new rules regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard established last year under the Energy Independence and Security Act.

So in addition to two wars, a financial crisis, and all those other problems out there, the next president will likely inherit a big stack of last-ditch anti-environment rules from the Bush administration.

Continue reading " When Bush comes to shove "

We’ve been seeing a lot of this lately: people who proclaim themselves ‘neutral’ on climate change issues who insist that they’re ‘looking past the hype’, who willfully ignore scientific evidence and simply repeat ignorant conservative talking points.  Grist notes the case of one Kenneth Green (ironic last name), resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, […]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Global Warming Denier Talking Points Debunked”, url: “http://earthfirst.com/global-warming-denier-talking-points-debunked/” });

Continue reading " Global Warming Denier Talking Points Debunked "

As of last Friday, the number of Nobel Laureates endorsing Barack Obama for president has risen to 76, saying Obama will end Bush-era trashing of scientific research, integrity, and competitiveness.

In an open letter (pdf), the Laureates cite the politicization of science under the Bush administration, particularly in the fields of heath and climate, saying that “vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support,” adding that through an advisory process “distorted by political considerations” America’s “once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk.”

Despite John McCain’s claim that he is the true agent of change for all that has gone wrong under George Bush, both he and his remarkably incurious and misinformed (at best) running mate show how they plan to continue Bush’s appalling lack of regard for science; combining  an inexcusable ignorance of the importance of basic scientific research, with the morally bereft penchant for using science as yet another divisive wedge to promulgate their politics of intolerance, fear, and derision - aiming straight at the lowest common denominator in the body politic.

Read more of this story »

Continue reading " 76 Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama "

By Frank O’Donnell

With a new president-elect only days away, the Bush administration is racing to push through 11th-hour, polluter-friendly rules.

The Washington Post flagged some of the most egregious examples in a front-page story, Friday.

The latest to pop up is what the Bush EPA opaquely describes as the “increment modeling” rule. It is now under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Despite its inpenetrable name, this rule is highly controversial: It would make it easier for electric power plants and other big smokestack sources of air pollution to site near national parks and wilderness areas. It would do this by changing the way companies estimate the impact of their pollution on the parks and wilderness areas — essentially pretending there would be less damage than would really occur.

This is an extremely duplicitous rule change. (How many people know what “increment modeling” means?)

It really ought to be called the “dirty air in the parks” rule.

Continue reading " Dirty air in the parks "