Climate 411

The voices of a new clean energy future

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: June 2, 2010

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared June “Energy Month” yet the fate of the best option Americans have for energy reform, a comprehensive climate and energy bill, hangs in the balance.

Top senate democrats will debate their willingness to take up a comprehensive climate and energy bill on June 10th and unless constituents start declaring their support for comprehensive legislation now, Senators will be tempted to take the easy way out and postpone the issue indefinitely.

This option is not acceptable.

We have never been closer to passage of comprehensive climate legislation and unfortunately, it may be years or even decades, before we get this close again. Our economy, our energy security and our climate are at stake and we can not afford to wait.

We applaud the concerned citizens, industry members and politicians who have been stepping up to voice their support in this crucial time.

Poll after poll shows that the public is in support of comprehensive action and in the wake of the BP oil tragedy, that support for environmental protection and energy reform has only grown stronger.

Thanks to all of you for making your voices heard. Let’s keep the pressure on. Key senators and the President have already begun to take note. With a united push in this final stretch, they will also take action.

Below are just a few of the voices of a new clean energy future. We will be updating this list as pieces come to our attention. Please let us know if you spot a great opinion piece so we can add it to the list.

May 27, 2010 – Huffington Post –  “Every Day We Delay”

Pete Altman, climate campaign director, Natural Resources Defense Council

“As the Gulf Coast oil disaster shows, America has a failed national energy policy. We need a new clean energy policy to break our addiction to oil, enhance our national security, limit carbon pollution and lead us to clean American energy.”

May 28, 2010 – Northwest Herald – “Pass American Power Act”

Bruce Ratain, field associate, Environment Illinois

“While some opponents of energy reform attack transitioning to clean energy over supposed economic impact, today we clearly see that the real economic disaster is our continued dependence on fossil fuels…. We call on Congress to prevent this type of catastrophe from happening again by finally passing the American Power Act – comprehensive legislation to transition our nation to clean, renewable energy – and by strengthening the act to reduce our dependence on oil.”

May 28, 2010 – The Salon – “Will the Gulf oil disaster mark the turning point for meaningful energy legislation”

Andrew Leonard, technology reporter, Salon

“But here’s the amazing thing. With each day that BP fails to stop the leak, the job of passing energy legislation becomes a little less difficult, and little more simple common sense.”

May 28th, 2010 – CNN – “What if carbon dioxide were as black as oil?”

Christopher Reddy, associate scientist and director, Coastal Ocean Institute

“But while we have readily and rightfully committed ourselves to understanding the cause of the spill, its effects and how to help restore the affected Gulf Coast region, we still can’t seem to come to grips with a much more dangerous, far-reaching pollutant that is changing the fundamental chemistry of our entire planet: carbon dioxide.”

May 28, 2010 – Huffington Post – “The Beginning and the End of Our Oil Addiction”

Amy Davidsen, U.S. executive director, The Climate Group

“As we witness the destruction caused by the latest oil spill in the Gulf, the need to reduce our dependence on oil has never been more tangible. The good news is that we don’t need to look far for a solution…  On Thursday, both the House and the Senate introduced bi-partisan legislation to scale up the use of electric vehicles in the US.”

“The legislation introduced yesterday represents the start of this exciting process. If it’s adopted, it would mark a new era in US transportation – and a welcome beginning to the end of our oil addiction.”

June 2, 2010 – Huffington Post  – “Coming of the Green Industrial Revolution”

Stephan B. Tanda, managing board member, DSM

“We are at the beginning stages of the development of a green industrial landscape that has the power to transform our modern economy into a more sustainable economy.”

Posted in News / Read 1 Response

Yesterday’s blog highlights

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: June 2, 2010

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.”

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Science / Comments are closed

Blog highlights from the past few days

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: June 2, 2010

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.”

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, News, Science / Comments are closed

President Obama – Connecting the BP oil disaster with the need for climate legislation

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: May 28, 2010

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.”

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Science / Read 2 Responses

On Murkowski’s “Resolution of Disapproval”

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: May 27, 2010

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.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Science / Read 1 Response

Personal Car Sharing: Save the Environment without Moving a Muscle

By EDF Blogs / Published: May 27, 2010

Personal car sharing, a better way to get to the mountains without buying a new car. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Arthaey.

Across the country, car sharing has taken off. Programs like Zipcar, PhillyCarShare, Car2Go in Austin, Texas, City CarShare in San Francisco, as well as big name rental companies like Hertz and Enterprise, are helping people get around without owning a car. For many people who don’t want the hassle of car ownership—insurance, trips to the DMV, high gas prices, and parking—this is an easy option for the times they need a car to get to the beach or reach a far flung place not accessible via transit or bike.

By sharing rather than owning, car share participants cut their average vehicle use, which means a cut in gasoline consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and smog-forming pollution. A UC Berkeley study done for San Francisco’s City CarShare, found that 30% of City CarShare households sold one or more of their cars after joining the program and automobile travel among members dropped 47%. The study concluded that City CarShare members save 720 gallons of gas or 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions on a daily basis.

A new state bill, AB 1871, will be coming up for a vote on the Assembly floor next week. Introduced by California Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), AB 1871 would take car sharing one step further by removing some important barriers to car sharing. This has great potential for a range of arrangements that would ultimately lead to a reduction of vehicles in a given neighborhood.

Suppose, for instance, you’d  like to buy an SUV because you anticipate going skiing, or maybe you might want to buy a light-duty truck because every year you need it to haul your grandma’s jams to the farmer’s market. If you knew you could easily share a neighbor’s SUV or truck located just a block or two from your home, you might not feel compelled to buy the gas guzzler, and instead, opt for a smaller car for daily use.

In exchange for sharing his or her vehicle, under AB 1871, your neighbor with the truck would be reimbursed for the costs of operation by the car sharing company. This would help defray some of the truck’s fixed expenses, such as parking costs, though AB 1871 caps the reimbursement so the vehicle doesn’t become a commercial enterprise for the owner.

While this makes sense on paper, what happens when someone scratches the handle or gets into a more serious accident while driving your car? The basic gist of AB 1871 is this insurance piece, which is a tricky one. Currently, if an individual opts to put his or her own car into a car sharing program, a typical insurance company would consider the vehicle to be a commercial vehicle and would invalidate the individual’s personal insurance.

AB 1871 addresses this by clearly demarcating  liability. When a person’s personal vehicle is in the car sharing program, the program assumes all liabilities, and when it is in the owner’s possession, it goes back to being a personal vehicle covered by the owner’s own insurance.  This clear demarcation is helped through technology that records when the car is and isn’t under the car sharing program’s control.

These insurance fixes widen the scope of existing car sharing companies without putting more cars on the road. Carsharing programs are tough to get started in lower density areas as demand just isn’t high enough, and the capital costs of purchasing new fleets often isn’t worth it. With personal car sharing, these programs can begin to move out of urban areas, expanding transportation choices for more people.

The personal vehicle sharing company behind this legislation, Spride, is a Silicon Valley company started up by venture capitalist Sunil Paul. If AB 1871 is enacted, Spride aims to link up with San Francisco’s CityCarshare to run a pilot program, using the web and social networking to pair people with cars, with pricing based on make and model.

Car share aficionados in other states—especially Massachusetts where RelayRides is working– are watching what happens with the California legislation. Personal car sharing presents an innovative transportation choice that is financially smart, reduces greenhouse gases, and improves air quality. People want a variety of mobility options, and personal car sharing is a really creative way to solve these needs.

Posted in Cars and Pollution / Comments are closed