Green takes a look at how pricing carbon with affect nuclear incentives.
“Nuclear reactors are hugely expensive to build by comparison with conventional coal and gas plants” however a price on carbon, if set high enough, could change that.
E2 has a new poll on off-shore drilling which shows that
“Americans are now divided on whether the nation should continue those efforts.”
On Grist, Michigan is in the spotlight as a state with huge clean energy job potential.
“Ford is spending $10 million to retool one plant in Rawsonville to assemble battery packs for next generation clean vehicles, and $125 million more in another plant in Sterling Heights to build electric drive transaxles. The $135 million investment, made possible by $62.7 million in federal clean vehicle grants from Obama’s 2009 stimulus act, will lead to 170 new jobs, said Ford, and bring work currently occurring in Mexico and Japan back to the United States.”
Corporations in a host of industries are rallying behind the climate bill on E2.
“A group of 60 companies, environmental groups and other parties, in a letter Thursday, say the U.S. ‘must take control of its energy and economic future while enhancing our national security….It’s time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bipartisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security, limits emissions, and protects our environment while preserving and creating American jobs.'”
Kate Sheppard, via Ezra Klein, discusses how the gulf oil tragedy is affecting American attitudes on energy.
“Overall public opinion is changing, on offshore drilling in particular and the environment in general. It is becoming clear to many Americans that our current energy system is dangerous and unsustainable, and that the environmental risks aren’t worth it.”
On Grist, there are signs that President Obama is ready to connect the oil spill to the need for comprehensive climate and clean energy bill. At a fundraiser in San Francisco the President said:
“The reason that folks are now having to go down a mile deep into the ocean, and then another mile drilling into the ground below, that is because the easy oil fields and oil wells are gone, or they’re starting to diminish. That tells us that we’ve got to have a long-term energy strategy in this country. And we’ve got to start cultivating solar and wind and biodiesel. And we’ve got to increase energy efficiency across our economy in our buildings and our automobiles.”
On the Financial Times, President Obama has “finally come out and linked the Deepwater Horizon accident and the continuing oil leak to the ‘dangers of fossil fuels’.” Mr Obama said
“the increased risks, the increased costs” of deepwater drilling “gives you a sense of where we’re going…We’re not going to be able to sustain this kind of fossil fuel use.”
E2 also has President Obama relating the oil spill to the need for clean energy.
“’This disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it is time to move forward on this legislation,’ Obama said, citing a need to develop ‘clean’ energy sources.”
The American Power Act, the bill that would give EPA new tools to regulate carbon pollution, make us more energy secure as a nation, and enhance our competitiveness, is the best chance we have for a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill this year, maybe even this decade.
Instead of rallying around Senators Kerry and Lieberman’s “all of the above” strategy, some senators appear to be for “none of the above.” A resolution introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski would strip EPA of all of its existing authority under the current Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution. That would make us more dependent on foreign oil, do nothing to help American manufacturing compete with China or other nations in clean energy technologies, and cripple efforts to address global warming.
How is this possible?
Basically, Sen. Murkowski’s bill would nullify EPA’s finding of scientific fact that greenhouse gases cause harmful global warming – a finding that forms the legal basis for any further steps EPA can take to address carbon pollution. A vote for Murkowski’s bill is a vote against the strong scientific consensus that climate change is a real threat we must avoid.
Sen. Murkowski’s bill would also block a key step in fighting America’s oil addiction. It would dismantle the government’s program to reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks – a program that U.S. automakers and the Obama Administration agreed last year to put in place. The program will save Americans more than 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the affected vehicles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. At oil prices of $80 a barrel, that’s more than $80 billion worth of foreign oil Americans will not have to buy thanks to these standards.
Sen. Murkowski’s bill would also lead to greater red tape and conflicting regulations for our auto manufacturers (and their suppliers) at a time when many are struggling to recover in these tough economic times. That’s because the agreement the Obama Administration and automakers reached last year also included California and 13 other states that agreed to set aside their own regulations of automobile emissions. With no national program, the agreement would fall and states would be free once again to move forward independently, leaving the automobile industry without the nationwide uniformity that it has described as vital to its business.
It’s truly ironic that even as we watch what may end up being one of the most serious environmental and ecological disasters in our nation’s history – the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – some senators are actively trying to block pollution regulations and hamstring the EPA’s ability to protect the public. This is both inexcusable and unforgivable.
Grist asks “In wake of Gulf spill, should this be the summer of energy reform?” Their answer, of course, is yes.
“Is there any good reason why President Obama, Congress, and the nation shouldn’t spend the summer figuring out an energy-reform plan that would get us started in replacing oil and coal with clean, sustainable energy sources?”
On triplepundit, a new poll shows that
“more than 6,000 American businesses support clean energy and climate legislation, including nearly a quarter of the Fortune 100.”
Climate Progress highlights a new WWF report which
“reveals the potential for U.S. market share in clean technology deployment in the developing world….The report finds that if the U.S. is able to capture a 14% market share of this potential clean tech export market—on par with our current market share in environmental goods and services in developing countries—280,000-850,000 new, long-term American jobs would result.”
E2 has Senator Lieberman optimistic about the chances of the climate bill. He said
“I hope that sometime in June we’re going to be able to prove to Sen. Reid that we’re in the range of 60.”
Also on E2, President Obama pushes for a climate and energy bill at the Republican caucus.
“’On energy, the President told the conference that the gulf oil disaster should heighten our sense of urgency to hasten the development of new, clean energy sources that will promote energy independence and good-paying American jobs,’ the White House said in a statement after the meeting. “
E2 shares President Obama’s plan to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
“The president is directing EPA and DOT to create a first-ever national policy to increase fuel efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014-2018, and an extension of the national program for cars and light-duty trucks to model year 2017 and beyond,”
a White House official said. Grist has the details.
Michael Levi comments on a new World Bank working paper that looks at renewable energy projections from the last 36 years. The report seems to conclude that we are not great at long-run energy forecasting. Levi asks
“can you see a trend? If not, that’s because there pretty much isn’t one. Here’s their fit:”
On Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard laments that in his weekly address,
“Obama yet again missed an opportunity to talk about how the spill illustrates the need to end reliance on fossil fuels. Instead, he gave passing acknowledgment to clean energy, while maintaining that we need to drill for oil here in the US.”
Sheppard acknowledges that Obama is still engaged in the issue. In his speech, Obama did say that
“One of the reasons I ran for President was to put America on the path to energy independence, and I have not wavered from that commitment. To achieve that goal, we must pursue clean energy and energy efficiency, and we’ve taken significant steps to do so.”
However Sheppard makes the point that Obama is still falling short.
“This would have been a perfect point to restate the need for Congress to pass a climate and energy bill this year. But Obama did not.”
Sheppard ends her piece by asking the President to transition his rhetorical calls for “energy independence” into action.
“There will never be a better illustration of why our energy system is dirty and dangerous than the current disaster in the Gulf. But Congress needs Obama to step up and lead to prevent this opportunity from going to waste. So far, he hasn’t.”