Climate 411

On Grist, there is an interesting study of how to design U.S. energy policy to incorporate microgrids.

“Critical to reducing American dependence on fossil fuels is the development of alternative clean energy sources, such as solar, wind, and biomass…. It’s time for Congress to break the stranglehold that the utilities and oil industry have on our energy system and include language in the climate bill that will move our nation to a more consumer-based system of energy development, management, and disbursement. This paradigm shift is clearly on the horizon with the development of microgrids and the growing appetite for local development and local control of energy sources.”

Also on Grist, Dan Lashof announcing the official start of the “battle for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.” He argues that President Obama’s speech last week at Carnegie Mellon was a turning point.

“The whole speech is worth a careful read because it makes clear that President Obama does not see energy and climate legislation as simply another item on his agenda. He sees it as one of the four pillars of a new foundation for America’s prosperity in the 21st Century, along with health care reform (passed), financial reform (passed), and education reform (ongoing).”

Treehugger examines how the American Power Act could be transformed into the BP Spill Bill.

“[T]his is generally a good idea, as the need to pivot towards clean energy should be one of the clear messages to emerge out of this tragedy. So, using the platform that Kerry/Lieberman/Graham meticulously hammered out with industry leaders to price carbon and encourage clean energy growth in an unobtrusive, industry-approved manner makes sense: And pairing that with direct action to hold BP legally financially liable for the spill would make for a comprehensive legislative response to the BP Gulf spill.”

On Huffington Post, Lisa Jackson, E.P.A. Administrator, takes a stand against the Murkowski resolution. The resolution that would limit EPA’s ability to regulated carbon pollution is set to go to the Senate for a vote this week. Jackson asserts that

“Senator Murkowski’s resolution would take away EPA’s ability to protect the health and welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution. The resolution would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. It would also gut EPA’s authority in the clean cars program, a program that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut down on air pollution.”

The Boston Globe – “Oil spill is a sign to Congress: kick the fossil-fuel habit”

Editorial

“Beyond managing the current crisis, it is essential that the Senate pass a comprehensive energy law that steers the country in a cleaner, safer direction.”

The Economist – “The blame game: The president can’t stop oil from gushing in the gulf. But he can improve America’s energy policies”

Editorial

“The catastrophe… has provided a chance to talk about deeper problems in energy policy: to spell out to Americans the true cost of the petrol they guzzle (including all the subsidies and distortions of trade) and to push for alternatives, facilitated by a price on carbon.”

The Denver Post – “Set a standard for renewables”

Editorial

“While we don’t want to see renewable energy propped up over the long haul by government subsidies, we think the environmental disaster in the gulf needs to prompt some soul-searching into the country’s reliance on fossil fuels. Hopefully, the slate of answers will include a renewable-energy standard.”

The New York Times – “The Spill and Energy Bill”

Editorial

“Passing a comprehensive bill would be good for the economy, by creating new jobs; good for the environment, by reducing emissions; and good for national security, by reducing our dependence on unstable oil-producing countries. The president’s task now is to convert that rhetorical fervor into actual, filibuster-proof votes.”