"First they laugh at you,
then they ignore you, then they fight with you, then you win." -- Ghandi
"Mankind's future depends
on America's energy choices. Let's clean house and abandon the
phony solutions that result in war, environmental ruin,
poverty, hunger, hatred and disease.
We must lead. We must set the example and Build A World That
Works!"TM -- Richard D.
Masters
"We'll just earmark this
hydrogen budget for
our
favorite programs!"
The Strange Politics of Hydrogen
Page 1
2 Selling out their country to
Big Oil
worked out poorly for the Republicans, essentially destroying the
"conservative" party, crippling the global economy and creating a single party
system
powerless to moderate government excess.
WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of
the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public
comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the
public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also
finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to
that threat.
GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead
to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the
sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone
pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses;
as well as other threats to the health and welfare of
Americans.
“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history
as the year when the United States Government began
addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and
seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security
experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the
United States Supreme Court have called for enduring,
pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution
that is causing climate change. This continues our work
towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce
the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national
security and our economy.”
EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition
of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves
impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow
EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year
for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking
with the Department of Transportation.
On-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total
U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards for
light-duty vehicles, a subset of on-road vehicles, would
reduce GHG emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and
conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of
model year 2012-2016 vehicles.
EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key
greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride
– that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense
analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and
around the world.
Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human
activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at
record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been
warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase
in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced
climate change goes beyond observed increases in average
surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic,
melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean
temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans
due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation
patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.
President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly
stated that they support a legislative solution to the
problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass
comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change
is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical
that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases
fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.
EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a
60-day public comment period. The agency received more than
380,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and
considered during the development of the final findings.
CHASING MEDIOCRITY
- U.S. LOSES ALL LOGIC AND FOCUS
"Thanks for the big bucks, suckers!" Congress to Raid Great
Ethanol Fraud Giveaway Program for "Cash for Clunkers"
Giveaway Program
'Cash For Clunkers' Vote Takes Subsidies From Solar, Ethanol Siobhan Hughes Dow
Jones August 1,
2009
The House of Representatives voted to transfer $2
billion to a program that offers consumers vouchers to trade
in gas-guzzling cars for more fuel-efficient vehicles. To
fund the program, which was running out of money one week
after it was launched, Congress took away
money from a program that backs up loans to renewable energy
companies. That effectively cut the punch of the renewable
program by $20 billion, based on earlier
estimates that about one-tenth of loans guaranteed by the
U.S. would go bad.
The appropriations process in Congress continues,
with the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill (S. 1436), which includes DOE's FY10 budget,
passing on the floor of the Senate last night by a
vote of 85-9. The hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies provisions of this bill remain
unchanged from the original version passed by the
Senate E&W Appropriations Subcommittee on July 8th
-- $190 million for EERE's Hydrogen program at DOE,
as well as $10 million above the budget request for
hydrogen from coal research and $4 million above the
budget request for fuel cells at DOE's Office of
Fossil Energy (FE).
Note also that DOE's renaming of the Hydrogen, Fuel
Cells and Infrastructure Technologies program (HFCIT)
in their Budget Request was disapproved by the
Senate. DOE had concentrated the requested funding
($68 million) in a new Fuel Cell Technologies
program, which the Senate zeroed. Instead, the
Senate both restores and replaces funding within the
HFCIT program. Given this rejection by the Senate,
it makes it highly questionable whether DOE should
proceed with any reorganizational efforts without
Congressional approval.
The House passed their E&W appropriations bill on
July 17th, which contains a total of $153 million
for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for DOE's
EERE program in FY10, as well as $25.5 million above
the Administration's request "for fuels" in FE which
can be used to fund hydrogen from coal research.
These are significant accomplishments and the NHA
thanks all the members who have supported our
intensive efforts to restore critical funding.
These two versions will now be sent to a
Senate/House conference committee that will
determine how to merge them into one bill. This
will likely happen shortly after Congress returns
from their August recess, and the Senate conferees
have already been selected. We will continue to
work with the Senate and House conferees until final
passage into law. Any news will be reported to the
NHA Membership immediately, as usual.
Best regards,
Geoff
P.S. If your company is not an NHA member (for a
list,
click here) and you would like to join, please
click here for more info:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/join Dues
for 2009 are currently discounted 50%--two times
easier to become a member!
Summary of major actions since the Administration
submitted their Budget Request to Congress (and
after Secretary Chu's testimony in hearings):
House
of Representatives
1. Energy & Water
Subcommittee Markup.
Held June 25. Result: $40 million added, for
"Hydrogen Transportation Systems," to the $68
million originally requested for the DOE hydrogen
budget in a proposed Fuel Cell Technologies
program. More: http://bit.ly/zJcF5
2.Full Appropriations
Committee Markup for Energy & Water and
Financial Services.
Held July 7. Result: Kept the Subcommittee's
markup above unchanged. Total: $108 million. More:
http://bit.ly/TxX1W
3.Full House
Amendments to this bill and the bill itself (HR.
3183) were considered and a vote was held the week
of July 13-17. The bill passed with a vote of
320-97, which includes $153M for EERE's hydrogen and
fuel cell program plus an unspecified portion of
$40.5M for hydrogen from coal projects in FE.
http://bit.ly/tjuQm
Senate
1. Energy & Water
Development Subcommittee Markup
Held July 8. Result: The Subcommittee mark
provides a total of $190 million for hydrogen and
fuel cells at DOE, largely restoring funding to
FY2009 levels [the $68M that was in DOE's FY10
request for fuel cells would be included in that
$190M]. More:
http://bit.ly/TxX1W
2.Full Appropriations
Committee
Held July 9. Result: Kept the Senate Subcommittee's
markup above unchanged ($190M for EERE), but
Committee report language showed that in the
Subcommittee $10M was added for hydrogen from coal
and $4 million above the request for fuel cells in
FE.
3. Full Senate Approval and passage occurred yesterday, July
29. See results above.
Congress appears close to restoring the $100 million in
funding for hydrogen research that Steven Chu, the energy
secretary, had cut from his budget in May. The House of
Representatives voted 320-97 last Friday to approve $26.9
billion for the Energy Department, including $153 million for
hydrogen and fuel cells in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy program, plus $40.45 million for hydrogen from coal.
OBAMA'S
BLIND EYE "Fuel
cells hold out the best hope, however remote, of putting GM back in the position of world
automotive leader that it once commanded."
Jonathon Fahey Hydrogen Gas Forbes April 25, 2005
This reversal on one of
the most promising clean technologies is troubling. Funding of
$2.4 billion for research into gasoline powered hybrids and
plug-in hybrids was announced in March of 2009. Research in to
hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen combustion technology was
funded at a minuscule 1.5% of the level for “cleaner” fossil
fuel based transportation. If the research dollars had been
historically reversed, with 98.5% of research funds being
spent on hydrogen fueled cars, we would already be pulling up
to a filling station to buy hydrogen, not gasoline
and diesel. When Secretary Chu stated that a hydrogen
infrastructure was still 10, 15, or 20 years away, no one
could argue. The lack of funding has put the common goal of a
truly clean fuel technology just out of reach. By cutting
research funds, the Chu and the Obama administration are
putting one of the most promising potential source of clean
energy even further out, to possibly 20, 30, or even 50 years.
...Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said he
was “stunned” by the flat funding for hydrogen, calling it a
“significant mistake” that was “not a smart thing to do.” He
said he will “do everything we can to restore the program.”
...More to the point, J. Byron McCormick, GM’s former
fuel-cell chief, resigned from a DOE hydrogen advisory group
when the funding cut was announced.
Hydrogen Shortchanged at the Department of Energy Congressman Joe Pitts The Phoenix
(PA) May 23, 2009 Secretary Chu has decided to choose electric cars
over hydrogen fuel cell cars in an unnecessary and unwise
zero sum game for federal research dollars.
UPDATE MAY 21,
2009 MURKOWSKI, OTHER PRO-NUKE AMENDMENTS
DEFEATED IN
SENATE COMMITTEE
REVISED CLEAN ENERGY BANK APPROVED IN
HOUSE COMMITTEE
EITHER WE
STOP THE "CLEAN ENERGY" BANK OR WE GET DOZENS OF
NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS
WE CAN WIN
THIS ONE: ACT NOW!
May 14, 2009
Dear friends,
We've asked a lot of you this past several months. As the
Obama administration has moved into power, the
pace of activity has increased; we know that.
So we don't waste your time asking you to take actions that
aren't meaningful.
And right now, we're asking you to take
the most important action of the year.
Write your House member
and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward
this message to everyone you can think of.
We should have figured it
out earlier, but we didn't. The section in the
bill was so obscure we all missed it. But the
"Clean Energy Bank" legislation sponsored by
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman
and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) includes UNLIMITED
taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new
nuclear reactors. Not $50 Billion, or $100
Billion. UNLIMITED!
In other words, under the
guise of a clean energy program, the nuclear
power industry could get taxpayer money to build
as many reactors as they wanted, regardless of
their cost, regardless of their projected
default rate.
That's just unacceptable.
We need to act on this as loudly and clearly as possible.
Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And
then forward this message to everyone you can
think of.
PLEASE forward this Alert
to everyone you can think of. In 24 hours, we
generated more than 3,000 letters in opposition
to the pro-nuclear Murkowski amendment to the
Senate energy bill. That's pretty good for one
day, and we thank everyone who wrote (the
Murkowski amendment has not yet been considered,
it will likely come up next week). But we need
to generate at least 10,000 letters to Pelosi
and House members to stop this fake "clean
energy" bank. Please help everyone you can think
of to send letters now by forwarding this Alert.
Phone calls to House members would be very
effective too: 202-224-3121.
A NIRS blog posting on the "clean energy" bank
is available here. It provides a lot
more background info on this issue. You have our
permission to re-post this everywhere and
anywhere you want. Please do so.
This really is it folks. The effectiveness of our actions
now will determine our energy--and quite
possibly our economic--future. There is just no
reason for inaction; let's all do everything we
can.
Pass the word; send an e-mail to your friends, forward this
Alert everywhere. Put in on Facebook and MySpace.
Twitter it. Blog it. Print this and take it to
meetings. Do whatever you can. We can't let this
stand. And please send a few dollars our way. Every
tax-deductible contribution you make enables us
to reach more people, to expand our efforts, to
build on what you already are doing.
We simply can't do this without your support, so
please contribute here.
We need thousands and thousands of people responding to this
Alert; please act, please do everything you can
to expand our reach. Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
nirsnet@nirs.org
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
WHY IS BIG
ENERGY TERRIFIED OF RENEWABLES?
YEARS OF
U.S. TAXPAYER INVESTMENT BEAR FRUIT
WIND
INDUSTRY THREATENS TO FLEE U.S. AS BIG ENERGY'S CONGRESSIONAL PROXIES
HIJACK CLEAN ENERGY ACT
"The U.S. cannot expect manufacturers to continuously commit
to new manufacturing facilities and take the risk of investing
billion of dollars in wind facilities when the U.S. itself is
not willing to commit to renewable energy. ...America
is on the verge of losing the wind manufacturing industry to
Asia and Europe." Victor Abate, Vice President for Renewables, GE
Energy
Jan Blittersdorf, President and CEO, NRG Systems
Denise Bode, CEO, American Wind Energy Association
Steve Dayney, CEO, REpower USA
J. Cameron Drecoll, CEO, Broadwind Energy
Victoria M. Holt, Senior VP, Glass and Fiber Glass, PPG
Industries Steve Lockard, President and CEO, TPI Composites
Michael Peck, Media, Institutional & Labor Relations, Gamesa
Roby Roberts, Senior VP of External Relations, Vestas Americas
David Willett, Vice President, Manufacturing, Clipper
Windpower
The bill's RPS is less than one-half the
level proposed by President Obama and Chairman Markey’s
original proposal. In response to this weakening of the RPS
measure, the American Wind Energy Association and a group of
representatives from major wind industry companies released a
letter to key members of Congress calling on them to
strengthen the RPS.
“We are concerned that the significantly lower renewable
targets currently being discussed, as compared to proposals
from President Obama, Chairman Bingaman and Chairman Markey,
will severely blunt the signal for companies like ours that
manufacture turbines and components to invest billions of
dollars to expand production and our workforces in the U.S.,”
the letter said.
WELFARE-FRANKENSTEIN ETHANOL STATES THREATEN CLIMATE BILL "Thanks for the big bucks, suckers!"
Ethanol Rebellion Building in
Congress House Ag chair says he'll 'bring this
climate bill down' over indirect land use Dan Looker Agriculture Online
May 16, 2009
Next week, Peterson expects the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, headed by Representative Henry Waxman of
California, to pass a climate change bill. But he thinks he
may have enough votes to defeat Waxman's bill when the full
House votes on it. Peterson's bill that reins in the EPA has
the backing of his committee's top Republican, Representative
Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, all 29 Democrats on the committee,
and by Monday, probably most of the Republicans. As of Friday
his bill had support from a few other House Democrats, with 42
co-sponsors joining Peterson and Lucas in opposing the EPA.
House Republicans are expected to vote as a block against the
climate bill, anyway. So Peterson said he'll need 37 Democrats
to defeat the climate bill.
Ethanol Eyes Only
Minnesota's Collin
Peterson is evidently willing to throw climate-change
legislation under the bus to coddle an unsuccessful industry.
Craig Cox,
Midwest VP for the Environmental Working Group
Minneapolis StarTribune (MN) May
20, 2009
The
tirade that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin
Peterson of Minnesota recently delivered accusing the
Environmental Protection Agency of sinking the corn-ethanol
industry has many of us in the environmental community
scratching our heads. Peterson accused federal officials of
being "in bed with the oil companies" because their
science-based analysis found that corn ethanol doesn't reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions as much as the industry claims.
On Friday, Peterson's anger turned to threats in comments to
Agriculture.com that included: "... If they don't fix this,
I'm going to bring this climate bill down," a reference to
legislation he introduced the day before to strip the
science-based analysis of biofuels from the Renewable Fuel
Standard. Apparently,
the
chairman intends to hold critical climate-change legislation
hostage unless corn ethanol receives yet another free pass.
What has Peterson and the corn-ethanol lobby so upset is that
the EPA took into consideration "indirect land use change" --
technical jargon for factoring in the climate-damaging gases
that will be released when forests or grasslands are plowed
under and planted with crops to make up for the corn used to
make ethanol. When
EPA scientists factor in indirect land use change, as they are
required to do by law, it turns out corn ethanol likely
increases rather than decreases greenhouse-gas emissions.
Peterson has failed to mention, however, that Congress
already made sure corn ethanol was protected from any
scientific assessment of its impact on the environment when it
passed the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Buried
in the law are provisions that exempt every gallon of corn
ethanol from the requirement to reduce greenhouse gases that
all other biofuels have to meet to qualify as a "renewable
fuel." The EPA estimates that these provisions grandfather in
15 billion gallons of corn ethanol, 6 billion gallons more
than was produced in 2008, whether putting that fuel in our
gas tanks helps protect our climate or not.
The upshot is that not a single U.S. corn-ethanol producer
has to worry about what EPA is proposing to do after months of
work and consulting with dozens of scientists. Why the
hysteria around indirect land use change or any other
scientific issues when they've already snuck in under the bar?
The corn lobby and its patrons in Washington are desperate to
distract attention from just how well they are being treated
in the EPA proposal. The real problem for
U.S. corn-ethanol producers is that there is no market for
those 15 billion gallons of grandfathered corn ethanol.
Hence the push by the industry for yet another favor: getting
EPA to allow blending gasoline with 15 percent ethanol, and
demanding that the agency skip the testing it is required to
do under the Clean Air Act to make sure higher blends of
ethanol don't pollute the air. Ethanol interests
likewise want to ignore the protests of automakers and
producers and owners of small engines -- from boats to
snowmobiles to lawnmowers. Who will have to pay when billions
of dollars of equipment is damaged by the enriched ethanol
Washington may force consumers to buy? One wonders what
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be thinking of Peterson's
reckless proposal to hold one of her and the president's most
important priorities -- climate-change legislation -- hostage
to the already well-served interests of the corn-ethanol
industry. Particularly given the fact that
Department of Energy data reveal that ethanol already pockets
two-thirds of all federal support for renewable energy.
As
ever, the industry wants even more. The
threat of climate change is real, and farmers are particularly
vulnerable to the droughts, severe storms and other damaging
effects of a warming climate. Climate change is threatening
the soil and water resources on which agriculture and our
environment depend.
Congress must ignore the special pleadings of the
corn-ethanol industry and its champions on the Agriculture
Committee and quickly pass a strong climate-change bill. A recent plea from
the National Farmer's Union for Peterson to reconsider his
opposition to climate legislation underscores the fact that at
least some members of the agriculture community can see both
the potential financial opportunity in cap-and-trade policy
and the damage global warming will do. It also highlights the
danger of tunnel vision incurred by a single-minded catering
to a corn-ethanol industry that seems incapable of making a
profit despite lavish government subsidies and top-down
mandates from inside the Beltway.
Craig Cox is the Midwest vice president for the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) and a former USDA undersecretary for
natural resources. EWG describes itself as a nonprofit
research organization that uses information to protect human
health and the environment.
Factual Analysis Debunks Corn Ethanol Industry’s
Call to Waive Clean Air Act Fuel Standards Environmental Working Group
May 2009 We are writing to urge the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to deny the petition submitted by the
industry consortium Growth Energy to increase by 50 percent
the allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline, from 10 percent
in E10 fuel to 15 percent in the proposed E15 fuel.
A message from the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service STOP THE MURKOWSKI
AMENDMENT!
IT'S YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO ADD TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR NEW
REACTORS AND ENCOURAGE REPROCESSING
ACTING TOGETHER, QUICKLY, WE CAN DEFEAT IT!
May 12, 2009
Dear Friends,
Like father, like daughter....Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter
of former Sen. Energy Comm. Chairman and avowed nuclear
supporter Frank Murkowski) intends to submit an amendment to
the Senate Energy Bill tomorrow--Wednesday, May 13--before the
Senate Energy Committee.
This amendment is yet
another nuclear industry attempt to increase taxpayer
subsidies for new nuclear reactor construction and to
institute reprocessing of radioactive waste before the Obama
administration can conduct its re-evaluation of our nation's
failed radioactive waste policies.
This amendment is unnecessary and dangerous, and must be
defeated.
And we believe it can be defeated--with your help.
Then, quickly ask your friends and
colleagues to send letters too and help spread the word across
the country!
And, if you get a second, call your Senators as well, at
202-224-3121.
While not every Senator is on the Energy Committee of course,
and thus won't be voting on the amendment at this time, we're
targeting every Senator with our message as part of our
broader and ongoing campaign to educate the Senate and stop
taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry.
Thank you for acting (yet again!--and it won't be the last
time this year....).
Brief update: Last
week, the Senate Energy Committee voted 18-5 against Sen.
Bernie Sanders' entirely sensible amendment to limit the Clean
Energy Bank from using more than 20% of its money on any
single energy technology. This is a clear indication that this
"Clean Energy Bank" is intended to fund primarily expensive
dirty energy projects like nuclear power and "clean" coal.
We will keep you posted when this reaches the Senate floor and
there is another opportunity to make your views known.
Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service CONTACT: nirsnet@nirs.org
WIND
INDUSTRY NOW THREATENS TO FLEE U.S. AS BIG ENERGY'S CONGRESSIONAL PROXIES
HIJACK CLEAN ENERGY ACT
"The U.S. cannot expect manufacturers to continuously commit
to new manufacturing facilities and take the risk of investing
billion of dollars in wind facilities when the U.S. itself is
not willing to commit to renewable energy. ...America
is on the verge of losing the wind manufacturing industry to
Asia and Europe." Victor Abate, Vice President for Renewables, GE
Energy
Jan Blittersdorf, President and CEO, NRG Systems
Denise Bode, CEO, American Wind Energy Association
Steve Dayney, CEO, REpower USA
J. Cameron Drecoll, CEO, Broadwind Energy
Victoria M. Holt, Senior VP, Glass and Fiber Glass, PPG
Industries Steve Lockard, President and CEO, TPI Composites
Michael Peck, Media, Institutional & Labor Relations, Gamesa
Roby Roberts, Senior VP of External Relations, Vestas Americas
David Willett, Vice President, Manufacturing, Clipper
Windpower
Congress is About to
Sell Out Clean Energy
It's so bad, they need to start
over
The ICHC brings to your attention
this important message from Solar Nation
The U.S. Congress' first response to President Obama's
groundbreaking campaign promise to move the country
toward a clean energy economy has garnered reactions
ranging from lukewarm support to profound
disappointment.
At Solar Nation, we're in the latter group. And we're
looking for your help.
HR2454, America's Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the
'Waxman-Markey' bill), has come out of committee
like a patient discharged from hospital two hours
after major surgery -- enfeebled, impotent, and a
shadow of his original self. And this is before
the full House and Senate get to run the poor fellow
down in the parking lot. (They're already gunning
for him: Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has up to 400
amendments ready to roll, and they won't be aimed at
making him any healthier).
Even in committee, so many concessions to industry and
compromises with state interests have been made that
it's doubtful whether the legislation can scratch
the surface of the problem it purportedly
addresses. For example:
It's widely felt that GHG emissions must be
reduced by 25-40% of 1990 levels by the year
2020; although the bill's boosters are aiming for
"17% of 2005 levels", in reality this means a
reduction of only 4% of 1990 levels -- a
pitiful under-achievement.
Instead of auctioning off emissions permits
to raise money to invest in a clean energy
economy, the bill proposes to give away up
to 85% of them to utilities, carbon-intensive
industries, natural gas companies, and others.
Only 10% would go to states for renewable energy
and energy efficiency investment, and 0.5%
for green job training.
The proposed national renewable electricity
standard for utilities has also been diluted from
20%-clean-energy-by-2025 down to 15%-by-2020;
worse, if utilities complain to their state
governors about meeting this mandate, the figure
could be knocked down to 12% for clean
energy generation.
We've included links to further reading and commentary on
HR2454 below, but here's what we feel is the bottom
line:
If we're to tackle the problems of GHG
emissions, pollution and energy security in a
meaningful way...
If we're to use the gift of a potentially
huge clean energy industry to assuage our current
economic troubles...
If we're to provide a lead in addressing
planet-wide problems for the rest of the planet to
follow...
Business-as-usual is not the way to do it.
For Congress to pass this sick
bill and congratulate itself on a successful
operation would actually set us back in the energy
fight, since it could be years before a properly
effective bill is presented again.
So we're asking you to send a strong message. Urge your
U.S. representative to fight hard to strengthen
HR2454, but if its health can't be improved to
vote it down. It's
a strong position to take. But someone has to be
strong, and right now it's not the U.S. Congress.
The bill's RPS is less than one-half the
level proposed by President Obama and Chairman Markey’s
original proposal. In response to this weakening of the RPS
measure, the American Wind Energy Association and a group of
representatives from major wind industry companies released a
letter to key members of Congress calling on them to
strengthen the RPS.
“We are concerned that the significantly lower renewable
targets currently being discussed, as compared to proposals
from President Obama, Chairman Bingaman and Chairman Markey,
will severely blunt the signal for companies like ours that
manufacture turbines and components to invest billions of
dollars to expand production and our workforces in the U.S.,”
the letter said.
Now it seems that mining uranium, which
nuclear power depends on, could be even less environmentally
friendly and more costly than critics say, according to a new
analysis led by Gavin Mudd, an environmental engineer at
Monash University in Australia.
On average, supplies of high-quality uranium ore have been
steadily declining worldwide for the past 50 years, and will
likely to continue to wane in the mid- to long-term, Mudd
said. Any new uranium deposit is likely to be deeper and
harder to extract, and getting uranium from lower-quality
deposits involves digging up and refining more ore, according
to their analysis of government and industry reports.
This suggests that in the future, uranium mining could
require more energy, water and industrial chemicals such as
corrosives, and release more greenhouse gases.
"Over
time, as ore grades decline and more energy is required for
uranium production, this will lead to a higher carbon
intensity for nuclear power, eventually becoming similar to
gas-fired electricity, though this may be a few decades
away and difficult to quantify precisely," Mudd said.
Suit Challenges New Uranium Exploration That Threatens the
Grand Canyon Center for
Biological Diversity
May 8, 2009 The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon
Trust, and Sierra Club today amended their lawsuit against
the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the
Interior to challenge newly authorized uranium exploration
near Grand Canyon National Park. The new uranium projects
are located within a 1-million acre area that was required
to be immediately withdrawn from new mining claims and
exploration by a June 25, 2008 emergency resolution of the
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources. Today’s amendment
challenges new uranium projects authorized by the Bureau of
Land Management on April 23 and April 27, 2009. While the
Bureau initially denied that new uranium exploration
activities had been authorized, it has since acknowledged
that exploration on the lands in question could begin
whenever the companies wish.
EITHER WE
STOP THE "CLEAN ENERGY" BANK OR WE GET DOZENS OF
NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS
WE CAN WIN
THIS ONE: ACT NOW!
May 14, 2009
Dear friends,
We've asked a lot of you this past several months. As the
Obama administration has moved into power, the
pace of activity has increased; we know that.
So we don't waste your time asking you to take actions that
aren't meaningful.
And right now, we're asking you to take
the most important action of the year.
Write your House member
and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward
this message to everyone you can think of.
We should have figured it
out earlier, but we didn't. The section in the
bill was so obscure we all missed it. But the
"Clean Energy Bank" legislation sponsored by
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman
and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) includes UNLIMITED
taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new
nuclear reactors. Not $50 Billion, or $100
Billion. UNLIMITED!
In other words, under the
guise of a clean energy program, the nuclear
power industry could get taxpayer money to build
as many reactors as they wanted, regardless of
their cost, regardless of their projected
default rate.
That's just unacceptable.
We need to act on this as loudly and clearly as possible.
Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And
then forward this message to everyone you can
think of.
PLEASE forward this Alert
to everyone you can think of. In 24 hours, we
generated more than 3,000 letters in opposition
to the pro-nuclear Murkowski amendment to the
Senate energy bill. That's pretty good for one
day, and we thank everyone who wrote (the
Murkowski amendment has not yet been considered,
it will likely come up next week). But we need
to generate at least 10,000 letters to Pelosi
and House members to stop this fake "clean
energy" bank. Please help everyone you can think
of to send letters now by forwarding this Alert.
Phone calls to House members would be very
effective too: 202-224-3121.
A NIRS blog posting on the "clean energy" bank
is available here. It provides a lot
more background info on this issue. You have our
permission to re-post this everywhere and
anywhere you want. Please do so.
This really is it folks. The effectiveness of our actions
now will determine our energy--and quite
possibly our economic--future. There is just no
reason for inaction; let's all do everything we
can.
Pass the word; send an e-mail to your friends, forward this
Alert everywhere. Put in on Facebook and MySpace.
Twitter it. Blog it. Print this and take it to
meetings. Do whatever you can. We can't let this
stand. And please send a few dollars our way. Every
tax-deductible contribution you make enables us
to reach more people, to expand our efforts, to
build on what you already are doing.
We simply can't do this without your support, so
please contribute here.
We need thousands and thousands of people responding to this
Alert; please act, please do everything you can
to expand our reach. Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
nirsnet@nirs.org
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Henry
Waxman, D-Calif., announced Tuesday evening the outlines of a
deal that they said would ensure the legislation will please
both environmental and industry groups and have the support of
moderate Democrats on the House Energy Committee. To do so,
they have lowered targets for renewable energy, will require a
smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global
warming, and will give away valuable permits to release
pollution to electricity distribution companies and auto
manufacturers.
National Hydrogen Association
Press Release
Hydrogen Vehicles Drive
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
from Mexico Border to Canada
Washington
DC--May 21, 2009--Today,
the National Hydrogen Association announced the
beginning of the 1,700 mile 2009 Hydrogen Road Tour.
For nine days starting May 26, Americans and Canadians
in 28 cities between southern California and Vancouver,
British Columbia will have a unique opportunity to see
what the transportation future holds for with the launch
of a nine-day caravan of clean, efficient hydrogen fuel
cell electric vehicles.
The
California Air Resources Board, California Fuel Cell
Partnership (CaFCP), Powertech Labs (on behalf of
British Columbia), National Hydrogen Association and the
U.S. Fuel Cell Council are organizing the 2009 Hydrogen
Road Tour. Vehicles from seven major automakers will
turn heads as they make the trek from border to border.
The Tour will stop in 28 communities along the route,
with special focus on the communities where hydrogen
technologies-passenger vehicles, transit buses and
hydrogen stations-will likely enter the market first.
"The
Hydrogen Road Tour is another example that hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are
real vehicles with real marketability and real
benefits," said Jeff Serfass, President of the National
Hydrogen Association. "So far, these facts have escaped
the notice of the Secretary of Energy's attention, given
the request to eliminate the federal hydrogen vehicle
program. The Tour will show how capable today's hydrogen
fuel cell electric vehicles are by providing
performance, environmental responsibility, a reduction
of fuel imports and a pleasant driving experience for
anyone who gets behind the wheel."
The
NHA's recent Energy Evolution reports shows how
scenarios that initially use a mix of vehicles with
sales later dominated by hydrogen vehicles can address
greenhouse gas pollution, oil imports and urban air
pollution. Specifically, the Energy Evolution shows
that fuel cell electric vehicles powered by hydrogen can
simultaneously cut greenhouse gas pollution by 80% below
1990 levels; help the U.S. reach petroleum
quasi-independence by mid-century; and eliminate nearly
all controllable air pollution by the end of the
century."
On the
Hydrogen Road Tour, the public will be able to see the
latest hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles from
Daimler, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai-Kia, Nissan,
Toyota and Volkswagen-including several new models-as
well as fuel cell transit buses at several stops. Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc. and Powertech Labs are
providing hydrogen fuel and mobile refueling stations.
Currently,
over 300 zero-emission fuel cell vehicles have been
placed on U.S. roads along with 62 operational hydrogen
fueling stations in anticipation of plans released by
automakers, energy companies and government agencies to
collectively roll out 4,300 passenger vehicles to
customers in California by 2014. In addition, transit
agencies operate fuel cell buses, including BC Transit
in Vancouver which will operate a fleet of 20 fuel cell
buses for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Cities,
businesses and military bases in California, Oregon,
Washington and many other American states are
implementing other projects that use fuel cells,
including forklifts and stationary power for buildings
and cell phone towers.
The Energy Department will continue to
pay for research into stationary fuel cells, which Dr. Chu
said could be used like batteries on the power grid and do not
require compact storage of hydrogen.
“This is a strange turn
of events.
We are very close to the tipping point.
To stop that now is
a waster of taxpayer dollars.” Shannon Baxter-Clemmons
Executive director of the S.C. Hydrogen & Fuel Cell
Alliance
"We should go to
Washington
and make the case that not funding
the long-term solution is short-sighted.” Mayor Bob Coble, Columbia, S.C.
Obama’s Cuts Deal Blow to S.C. Hydrogen Economy Jeff Wilkinson The State
(SC) May 9, 2009
“The vehicles have been
invented.
The issues are infrastructure
and how do we reduce cost.” John Hanson, Toyota
“Hydrogen is a key to
solving the nation’s mid- to long- term issues of energy
security, reduced petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions
as well as being part of the reinvention of General Motors.”
Larry Burns, GM
Honda, GM Stick to Fuel-Cell Plans as Obama Guts Hydrogen
Funds
A. Ohnsman, T. Seeley Bloomberg
May 11, 2009
The policy shift is “very disappointing,” said Dan Sperling,
director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the
University of California, Davis and a member of the state’s
Air Resources Board. The agency has authority to set
environmental rules for carmakers and other industries
rivaling the federal government’s.
“It’s unclear how we’re going to get big reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions without hydrogen,” Sperling said.
“Hydrogen is the most challenging in terms of implementation
because of the need for new fueling infrastructure.” That could be created
in 10 to 15 years at less cost than the “$6 billion to $10
billion” the U.S. provides annually in subsidies for corn
ethanol, Sperling said.
Washington DC----The National Hydrogen Association
(NHA) and U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC) issued the
following joint statement regarding the Obama
Administration's FY 2010 budget request for the U.S
Department of Energy.
"The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program
threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of
technologies that are showing exceptional promise and
beginning to gain market traction.
"Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are
real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits.
Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged
millions of miles.
"Both the National Academy of Sciences and NHA's recent
Energy Evolution report conclude that a portfolio of
vehicle technologies is needed to achieve the nation's
energy and environmental security goals and that
hydrogen is essential to success. Hydrogen also advances
the Obama Administration's goals of greener power
generation and a smarter power grid.
"The newest fuel cell vehicles get 72 miles per gallon
equivalent with no compromise in creature comforts. Fuel
cell buses operating in revenue service achieve twice
the fuel economy of diesel buses. Hydrogen production
costs are already competitive with gasoline. Projected
vehicle costs have been reduced by 75%. These are
accomplishments of the Department's own program in
partnership with industry. It would truly be a
government waste to squander them by walking away just
as success is in sight.
"The National Academy recommended a portfolio approach and we
are frankly puzzled at the Energy Department's decision
to ignore that recommendation even as the Department
uses other material from the same report to justify its
proposed cut.
"We are also concerned that the Department appears to be
walking away from its Market Transformation activities,
which support fuel cell deployment in early commercial
applications. This Congressionally-mandated program is
demonstrating the ability of fuel cells to provide a
competitive and green alternative to battery-based
systems in vehicles and in power supply.
"Finally, we are concerned that the Department has proposed
to cut funds for the Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance (SECA). SECA success could dramatically lower
the cost of carbon sequestration, improve power plant
efficiency, and enable a virtually pollution-free coal
plant in the future. Additional funding will hasten SECA
progress."
The NHA and USFCC collectively represent more than 200
companies and organizations.
CONTACT:
NHA: Patrick Serfass, 202-223-5547, ext. 366 serfassp@HydrogenAssociation.org
Energy Department Slashes Hydrogen Transportation Funding in
Proposed BudgetGreen
Car Advisor May 7, 2009
Chu's belief that it is best to cut hydrogen spending and
divert the funding elsewhere isn't necessarily shared by
Congress, which must approve the budget, said Patrick
Serfass, the National Hydrogen Association's vice president
for technology. ...Serfass worries that
if the Obama administration turns its back on hydrogen
fuel-cell vehicles, the
automakers will take their research and development programs
to Europe or Asia and the U.S. will lose the lead in
technology that will be a critical part of an
oil-independent future.
Recommendations to the U.S. Government The future prosperity
and economic progress of the United States depend largely on
developing nationally coordinated long-term strategy to
transform toward a stable and sustainable energy economy.
This transformation must be achieved in a sufficiently timely
manner to reduce prospective greenhouse gas impacts and U.S.
dependence on foreign sources of energy. The Board makes the
following overarching priority recommendation:
Priority Recommendation The U.S. Government
should develop, clearly define, and lead a nationally
coordinated research, development, demonstration, deployment,
and education (RD3E) strategy to transform the U.S. energy
system to a sustainable energy economy that is far less carbon
intensive.
This strategy must include clearly defined
science and engineering research and education objectives that
prioritize national security, economic growth, and environmental
stewardship.
As part of the Senate's budget
negotiations, Senator John Thune (R-SD) inserted a measure that
would prohibit climate change legislation from increasing
electricity or gasoline prices. The non-binding amendment passed
by a vote of 89-8. Huh? This does not prohibit certain kinds of
climate legislation; it effectively blocks all legislation on
climate change.
The National Hydrogen Association, whose
members include GM, Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Daimler
AG and BMW AG, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu Feb.
27 asking him to allocate up to $700 million from advanced
energy research grant programs for hydrogen-related research.
The government and automakers "have made significant technical
progress over the last few years in proving that hydrogen and
fuel cells offer a critical component of the domestic, oil-free
high efficiency very low emissions industries we all seek," said
the letter signed by Jerry Hinkle, the group's vice president
for policy and government affairs. Hinkle said Tuesday the
association had more work to do to convince the Obama
administration. "Part of
the rap is that hydrogen is a left-over Bush administration
idea, and that's baloney," he said.
Study Finds Plug-In Hybrids With Lots of All-Electric Range
Won't Be Cost-Effective John O'Dell
Green Car
Advisor February 26,
2009 In a report sure to be a blow to GM's hopes for its
upcoming plug-in hybrid, researchers at Carnegie Mellon
University have found that
the extra cost and
weight of the batteries a vehicle such as the Chevrolet Volt
must carry to achieve its targeted 40 miles of all-electric
range make it too expensive to be cost-effective
transportation for most people.
Impact of Battery Weight and Charging Patterns on the Economic
and Environmental Benefits of Plug-in Hybrid VehiclesC. Shiaua , C. Samarasb, R. Hauffea
, J. Michaleka Carnegie Mellon University/Energy Policy
February 2009 ...larger
PHEV40 and PHEV60 are not cost effective in any scenario...
The dominance of the small-capacity PHEV over larger-capacity
PHEVs across the wide range of scenarios examined in this
study suggests that
government incentives designed to increase adoption of PHEVs
may be best targeted toward adoption of small- capacity PHEVs
by urban drivers who are able to charge frequently.
Swapping Peak Oil for Peak Lithium?
Hybrid Cars
Oct 31 2009
Because of a limited number of sources for processed
lithium, the potential for market disruption or manipulation
is greater even than what is seen with oil and OPEC, according
to some observers.
“Could we not be
swapping dependence on one depleting natural resource, oil,
for another? Analysis shows that a world dependent on lithium
for its vehicles could soon face even tighter resource
constraints than we face today with oil.” William Tahil
research director, Meridian International Research
Obama Announces Additional $1.2B for Clean Energy Clean Tech Brief
March 25, 2009
He also announced the availability
of $1.2 billion in basic research at the Department of Energy's
national laboratories. Grants will be offered for upgrading
national lab facilities, research in renewable energy (including
solar, biofuels and nuclear), underground carbon dioxide
storage, and hydrogen.
While the stimulus is helping to
prime the marketplace, there is much hope and anticipation that the
federal government will establish a national renewable portfolio
standard, or RPS, a mandate that the country generate a specific
proportion of its energy needs from wind, solar, geothermal and
other such sources.
Lobbyists Sparring Over Details of Federal Renewable Porfolio
Standards BillAnne C. Mulkern E & E
March 16, 2009 Also at stake is which power sources will
be considered "renewable." The Bingaman draft limits those to
wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and
hydropower created after passage of the bill. Nuclear power and
clean coal technologies are not included. "In our definition, it
doesn't meet the definition of a renewable," committee spokesman
Wicker said.
LEADER OF
THE CENTURY?
"We know the country that harnesses the power of clean,
renewable energy will lead the 21st century. ...It is time
for America to
lead
again. ...As we stand at this crossroads of history, the
eyes
of all people in all nations are once again upon us –
watching to see what we do with this moment; waiting for us
to lead."
President Barack Obama
Feb 24 2009
Now that the $787
billion stimulus package has become law, a key emphasis is “green
jobs” and energy rescue. But the single most important program in
becoming energy independent and regaining financial health is
never mentioned in the massive Congressional text. ...That
undiscovered program is vehicle “retrofitting” to create a
Retrofitting Revolution. ...Compressed
natural gas (CNG) and hydrogen are waiting to sweep into America’s
garages. Neither CNG nor hydrogen needs a neighborhood gas station
infrastructure. Auto makers who say that are continuing to
mislead. Home or office refueling devices, such as those now under
the control of Honda and largely kept off the market despite
surging demand, convert ordinary household oven gas to fuel. Even
T. Boone Pickens was unable to purchase the technology to bring
these simple home and office refueling devices into common use.
...CNG and hydrogen possibilities dazzle the mind. GM’s hydrogen
fuel cell Equinox uses simple electrolyzed water to create the
hydrogen gas that powers the car. The Hydrogen Equinox, which has
no engine or motor, drives like any other car. So does Honda’s
exquisite Hydrogen Clarity....
Overview of Renewable Energy Provisions in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 American Council
on Renewable Energy
February 2009
This massive $800 billion
spending bill, being truly unprecedented in modern times, will
drive new national strategies in renewable energy, smart grid,
transmission, advanced vehicles, energy efficiency, and many other
aspects of energy, environment, climate and sustainability that
were at the heart of the 2008 Presidential election.
After 10
years, Hawaii's
Mina Morita remains steadfast in her efforts
to "put Hawaii at the forefront of renewable energy in the
Pacific."
America's ill-advised choice to abandon
democratic ideals for access to foreign reserves of petroleum comes at
great cost. The hidden price of oil includes the tremendous expense of
the vast military network that Petroleum Imperialism demands,
accompanied by the terrible risks of global destabilization that
result when populations see their national resource heritage stripped
away by international corporations and their craven puppet regimes.
But renewable energy does not bear this burden - nor does renewable hydrogen.
This makes hydrogen fuel a bargain in real dollars.
Dollars spent making and purchasing hydrogen fuel
circulate within the producing country, enriching it.
This makes hydrogen fuel a bargain for national security. Therefore a global hydrogen economy, where each nation
is its own source of fuel, will promote world peace.
Why wait? -- Richard D. Masters, ICHC
PATHWAYS
TO A HYDROGEN ECONOMY NATURAL GAS VS. COAL / HABERMAN VS. PICKENS "It is nonsensical to build the
foundations of a new energy system (hydrogen) on the wildly
unpredictable future of an already stressed resource (natural
gas). ...[Using off-peak coal power] is environmentally neutral
since the coal plants are operating anyway."
Realistic Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure
- A Pragmatic Path Forward -
Action Plan for the American Council on Renewable Energy
David Haberman, President
Mountain States Hydrogen Business Council
February 2009
The Mountain States Hydrogen
Business Council (MSHBC) is a national non-profit based in Santa
Fe, New Mexico. The MSHBC Charter is to promote the success of its
members in their efforts to build hydrogen energy based
businesses. We have members from 22 states and have been active
for five years. ACORE challenged us to put forward a near term
(3years) plan to increase renewable fuel production and use.
Obviously we interpret this in regards to H2. The following
approach is offered in the context of managing the risks of
technology, market penetration and financing.
Refocus the nation’s approach toward
hydrogen fueling infrastructure by supporting a coal to hydrogen
pathway. Rather than
subsidize the expansion of the oil refining & industrial gas
business model of using natural gas to produce hydrogen it is
essential that national policy switch to using coal power to
transform water into hydrogen. Natural gas should be prioritized
for use in peak power production because natural gas combined
cycle plants are the only stationary power generation which can be
built quickly in the U.S. with acceptable risks. Natural
gas is subject to extraordinary instabilities due to market
manipulations, cartel actions and current demands for industrial &
home use. It is nonsensical to build the foundations of a new
energy system (hydrogen) on the wildly unpredictable future of an
already stressed resource (natural gas). Coal, an abundant and
economical resource, keeps the lights on in America and dependable
coal based electricity at off-peak hours is the basis of a viable
value chain that transforms a water feedstock into a competitive
H2 fuel source. Splitting water
(electrolysis) is a proven technology that can be energized using
undervalued (off-peak) electricity. Since this electricity comes
primarily from the base loaded coal fired power plants this
approach effectively creates value because the pure hydrogen is a
flexible fuel that can be sold into existing and future markets.
This approach is environmentally neutral since the coal plants are
operating anyway. In order to increase
the use of hydrogen fuel it must be priced competitively against
gasoline and diesel. Since only $.02 worth of water is necessary
to make a kilogram of H2 (equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline)
there is no uncertainty in positioning of H2 to compete.
Electrolysis is a method that assures the H2 fuel purity demanded
by the vehicle and fuel cell manufacturers to warranty their
equipment’s performance and life. The use of electrolysis and grid
electricity assures a freedom of placement for hydrogen generation
that allows distribution of dispensing in proximity to users.
In the near term, this pathway produces hydrogen fuel at the
locations of opportunity without the burden of replicating the
large capital expenditures of reformation based industry including
pipelines and diesel truck fleets.
The implementation of the coal to hydrogen pathway will
involve many states whose economies rely on coal. By illuminating
the economic opportunity of “H2 gives coal legs” there will be a
broader public acceptance of the hydrogen vision. This expansion
of the hydrogen stakeholder community to encompass the large
amount of American’s vested in the coal economy will translate to
a faster penetration of H2 fuel use since H2 fuel will be
available in places other than in two urban areas in California.
This advantage combines with a H2 supply stability based on a
transparent value chain which is not susceptible to instantaneous
changes in the natural gas economy.
This is a national transition strategy to stimulate the
production and use of hydrogen fuel in the near term. As other
electrical generation technologies achieve a scale of economy
(e.g. wind and solar) they will compete as the basis for
electrolysis. The hydrogen economy will only succeed if there is a
broader public experience of the benefits of hydrogen and this
marketing necessity will not wait.
Hydrogen must compete
against biofuels now. The placement of small, scalable production
and dispensing facilities (infrastructure building blocks) in
major cities will enable lead adopters to proceed with hydrogen
energy verifications now because they have access to a dependable
low cost pure H2 fuel supply.
On August 17-19, 2009 the MSHBC will hold its
5th Annual Hydrogen Implementation Conference in Charleston, West
Virginia. This conference coincides with the opening of a new
generation hydrogen production and dispensing facility at Yeager
Airport. See www.mountianstateshydrogen.com
David Haberman is the President of the Mountain
States Hydrogen Business Council. He is the co-Founder and Past
President of the California Hydrogen Business Council. As the
co-Founder and Chairman of DCH Technology (AMEX:DCHT) Mr. Haberman
commercialized hydrogen energy systems, sensors and fuel cells. He
has served as an expert witness on hydrogen in testimony to
Congress and on the Secretary of Energy’s Hydrogen Technology
Advisory Panel. Over the last twenty years Mr. Haberman has
contributed to hydrogen energy activities in 22 states and in 13
countries.
Two weeks into the new Obama
Administration United States Department of
Energy
Request for Information (RFI) February 4, 2009 The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) Hydrogen Program seeks stakeholder and public input on
potential early markets and deployment opportunities for hydrogen
and fuel cells. The information collected will help guide the
Program’s efforts to identify key early markets and related green
domestic jobs, validate hydrogen and fuel cell system performance
through data collection and communicate results, cultivate demand
and accelerate market development, and reduce non-technical barriers
that hinder market penetration.
...DOE seeks to facilitate the market
penetration of hydrogen and fuel cell products through higher
volume purchases (e.g.,
hundreds to thousands of units) and promote the
Hydrogen Program mission by generating “market
pull”—stimulating market demand— for the technologies.
Higher volume
purchases can lower market barriers and help grow
the U.S. economy by (a) enabling developers to move down the
learning curve, reduce cost, and develop manufacturing
capability; (b) establishing a domestic supplier base; (c)
creating green jobs
both in the manufacturing sector but also in the fuel cell and
hydrogen production industries; (d) increasing public
awareness of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; (e) enabling
assessments of infrastructure needs (which will help to
develop codes and standards and lay the groundwork for
financing); (f) creating a demand for technology developers,
which will, in turn, encourage expansion of relevant training and education
opportunities; and (g) familiarizing the end-user communities
with the technologies.
The number of fuel
cell deployments has begun to grow in the material handling
equipment and backup power markets, in particular.
Government agencies such as the Defense Logistics Agency (for
material handling equipment) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (for backup power), as well as private sector
entities including grocers, distribution companies, and
others, are starting to incorporate fuel cells into their
operations.
DOE
seeks information on other and related potential early market
applications, including but not limited to airport ground
support equipment, personal mobility applications, and
grounds-keeping equipment, that can contribute to the purchase
volumes needed to help lower market barriers, achieve the
benefits described above, and accelerate fuel cell market
penetration.
...DOE seeks to (1)
demonstrate the viability of hydrogen as a storage medium for
variable renewable electricity and fuel generation
technologies, and (2) address the challenges
of using hydrogen from variable renewables to compensate both
for short-term mismatches between electricity grid power
demand and renewable supply and for providing vehicle fueling
capability in a multi-purpose, co-production system.
...DOE seeks to (1) identify and evaluate
technical and system engineering opportunities and challenges
for deploying biogas/fuel cell applications, (2) evaluate the
feasibility of and opportunities for using biogas together
with natural gas at specified ratios, and (3) examine
potential financing options for biogas/fuel cell deployment
projects, including innovative approaches and use of
investment tax credits that will lower the needed funding for
an entire project.
...DOE is interested in distributed
generation CHP projects that use fuel cells as a source of
secure, reliable, clean power and heat as an alternative to
steam turbines, gas turbines, internal combustion engines, or
other traditional CHP prime source.
Now that the $787
billion stimulus package has become law, a key emphasis is “green
jobs” and energy rescue. But the single most important program in
becoming energy independent and regaining financial health is
never mentioned in the massive Congressional text. ...That
undiscovered program is vehicle “retrofitting” to create a
Retrofitting Revolution. ...Compressed
natural gas (CNG) and hydrogen are waiting to sweep into America’s
garages. Neither CNG nor hydrogen needs a neighborhood gas station
infrastructure. Auto makers who say that are continuing to
mislead. Home or office refueling devices, such as those now under
the control of Honda and largely kept off the market despite
surging demand, convert ordinary household oven gas to fuel. Even
T. Boone Pickens was unable to purchase the technology to bring
these simple home and office refueling devices into common use.
...CNG and hydrogen possibilities dazzle the mind. GM’s hydrogen
fuel cell Equinox uses simple electrolyzed water to create the
hydrogen gas that powers the car. The Hydrogen Equinox, which has
no engine or motor, drives like any other car. So does Honda’s
exquisite Hydrogen Clarity....
Overview of Renewable Energy Provisions in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 American Council
on Renewable Energy
February 2009
This massive $800 billion
spending bill, being truly unprecedented in modern times, will
drive new national strategies in renewable energy, smart grid,
transmission, advanced vehicles, energy efficiency, and many other
aspects of energy, environment, climate and sustainability that
were at the heart of the 2008 Presidential election.
WILL HISTORY
REPEAT?
"Most of us who recall a bit of history
think that constant barbarian invasions caused the western empire
to disintegrate, but actually these invasions were only the most
immediate cause. In the background were more powerful long-term
forces, especially the rising complexity of all parts of Roman
society— including its bureaucracy, military forces, cities,
economy, and laws—as the empire tried to maintain itself. To
support this greater complexity, the empire needed more and more
energy, and eventually it couldn’t find enough. Indeed, its
increasingly desperate efforts to get energy only made its
bureaucracies and laws more elaborate and sclerotic and its taxes
more onerous. In time, the burden on the empire’s peasants became
too great, while rising complexity strangled the empire’s ability
to renew itself. The collapse that followed was dramatic:
populations of cities and towns fell sharply, interregional trade
dwindled, banditry and piracy soared, construction of monumental
buildings and large-scale infrastructure stopped, and virtually
all institutions—from governments to armies—became vastly simpler
in their operation and organization."
“The
governor repeatedly proves he is clueless
as far as how to develop a
21st-century economy.” Texas State
Representative Lon Burnam Throwback TX Governor Cringes
from Impending Carbon Caps San Antonio Express (TX)
January 2, 2009
How will the new
U.S. President deal
with the Great Ethanol Fraud?
As Congress and the incoming
Obama administration plan the nation’s next major investments in
green energy, they need to take a hard, clear-eyed look at
Department of Energy data documenting corn-based ethanol’s
stranglehold on federal renewable energy tax credits and subsidies.
Solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have struggled
to gain significant market share with modest federal support.
Meanwhile, corn-based ethanol has accounted for fully three-quarters
of the tax benefits and two-thirds of all federal subsidies allotted
for renewable energy sources in 2007.
A little noticed analysis buried in an April 2008 report from
the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA)1 shows that the
corn-based ethanol industry received $3 billion in tax credits in
2007, more than four times the $690 million in credits available to
companies trying to expand all other forms of renewable energy,
including solar, wind and geothermal power.
Ethanol made from corn has extremely limited potential to
reduce the country’s dependence on imported oil, and current
production systems likely worsen greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover,
despite billions in federal
subsidies on top of a government mandate that forces motorists to
buy ethanol, the industry’s financial outlook remains highly
unstable.
ANOTHER
GOVERNMENT GIVEAWAY TO ETHANOL
EPA Raises US Renewable Fuel Standard
to 10.21 Percent Biofuels Digest November 18, 2008
In Washington, the US Environmental Protection Agency officially
raised the 2009 Renewable Fuel Standard to 10.21 percent, or 11.1
billion gallons of ethanol, compared to 7.76 percent or 9 billion
gallons in 2008.
ETHANOL INDUSTRY IN COLLAPSE
DESPITE 52-CENT PER GAL SUBSIDY
"If government funds become short,
subsidies for fuels will be looked at very carefully. When they
are, there's no way ethanol production can survive."
Tad Patzek,
University of California Berkeley
UC Scientist Says Ethanol UsesMore Energy
Than It Makes
Elizabeth Svoboda
San Francisco Chronicle
June 27, 2005
U.S. Ethanol Fad Dries Up K. Allison and S. Kirchgaessner
Financial Times (UK) Oct
21, 2008
Investors, such as Microsoft’s
Bill Gates, are sitting on billions of dollars in losses after
buying into the corn-based ethanol industry that George W. Bush
embraced as the answer to US energy woes.
....Investors who bought and held shares in hotly anticipated market
listings of Aventine Renewable Energy, VeraSun Energy and other
ethanol producers that have gone public since 2005, have seen the
value of their holdings plummet as much as 90 per cent from their
flotation price, in spite of billions of dollars of government
support for the industry.
Ethanol Group's PBS Protest May Reveal Industry Panic David Greising Chicago
Tribune (IL) October 24,
2008 The Renewable Fuels
Association has put a twist on the old Holmes deduction. In
attacking "Heat," an examination of climate change issues by the
Public Broadcasting System's "Frontline" program, the RFA has made a
ruckus over something it should have left alone...
This is the program the Ethanol Industry were
protesting:
Outstanding
PBS Frontline Special
HEAT: Can We Roll Back Global Warming?
WATCH IT ONLINE!
Oct 21, 2008
For years, big business -- from oil and coal companies to electric
utilities to car manufacturers -- have resisted change to
environmental policy and stifled the debate over climate change in
America and around the globe. Now, facing rising pressure from
governments, green groups and investors alike, big business is
reshaping its approach to the environment. With the election
looming, FRONTLINE producer Martin Smith investigates what some
businesses are doing to fend off new regulations and how others are
repositioning themselves to prosper in a radically changed world. From the
transcript:
Prof. DANIEL KAMMEN, U.C. Berkeley Inst. of the
Environment:Corn
ethanol is simply a bad biofuel. And it's a bad biofuel several
times over. We, in this country, have optimized corn, ironically, to
be as greenhouse-gas-intensive as possible. We reward farmers for
using more fertilizer, more irrigation because those things have
been cheap historically. So we have lots of greenhouse gasses and
carbon embedded in what it takes to grow an ear of corn. And the
analysis that my lab and many others have done says very clearly
that corn is simply not a good feed stock for biofuels.
MARTIN SMITH:
Regardless, the corn lobby continues to throw its weight around
Washington and has helped the auto companies win a fuel efficiency
credit for every E85 car they sell, even though very few drivers
have access to ethanol filling stations.
[on camera] You say you have 2.5 million
E85-ready vehicles on the road.
BETH LOWERY: Yes.
MARTIN SMITH: How
many of those are actually using ethanol?
BETH LOWERY: Well,
there's a few pumps there, and also-
MARTIN SMITH: A few.
But there's not much.
BETH LOWERY: Right.
It's not widespread.
MARTIN SMITH:
Negligible amounts.
BETH LOWERY: It's not
widespread.
MARTIN SMITH: [voice-over]
In fact, out of a total of 120,000 gas stations nationwide, only
1,600 offer ethanol, most in the Midwest. California has just 10,
New Jersey none.
[on camera] We've invested a lot of money
in ethanol. Is that getting us anything?
AMY MYERS JAFFE, Baker Institute, Rice Univ.:The
corn-based ethanol program is going to be considered one of the
biggest follies ever implemented in energy policy anywhere in the
world in the history of energy policy.
Peak Oil: Hydrogen critic Richard Heinberg
takes a sobering look at global agriculture running short of fossil fuel in
The Food and Farming Transition
Global Public Media
November 2008
Another Inconvenient Truth
How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate
change 58 pages
Oxfam International
June 25, 2008
Reading the Tea Leaves of an Economic Meltdown Scott Sklar
Renewable Energy WorldDecember 3, 2008
Leveraged government procurement
programs along with changes in utilization of federal tax credits (so
as to have refundability and transferability) seem to be the
critically appropriate measures.
BREAKING NEWS DEMS CLEAN HOUSE!
DEMOCRATS REMOVE BIG OIL/COAL/AUTO PROXY DINGELL FROM HOUSE
ENERGY LEADERSHIP
Henry Waxman
Henry Waxman defeats John Dingell
for Chairmanship of House Energy and Commerce Committee
Who The Hell Do We Thank? As we witness the financial
system of the free world in collapse, there are striking
similarities between the rapacious behavior of the energy
companies and the rapacious behavior of the financial
institutions. Commentary by Richard D. Masters, ICHC November 14, 2008
Here at the International
Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce, we tend to look at things
from the viewpoint that pretty much everything that happens in the
world is a result of energy choices.
Overwhelmingly bad energy choices.
But we are not talking about energy choices that you make.
We are talking about energy choices that are made for you
by the powerful centralized energy corporations that have used
their vast wealth to to usurp democratic principals to guide the
strategic policy of formerly free countries, as well as to
purchase the control of corrupt, tyrannical ones. This enables the
highest profit from resource plundering with the bonus of
non-accountability.
This is nothing less than a war and a coup on what was the
United States of America, the principles she was founded upon and
her grossly unaware population. During the past eight years, it
has changed the face of America in the eyes of the greater part of
the world from friend to foe, creating a much more dangerous world
where military and financial adventurism, corrupt media, national
pride and terrorism can be manipulated in the shadows to establish
inflated commodity prices and a vastly effective market
instability designed to steal wealth away from virtually every
assumed safe haven - from your mutual funds to your 401k to your
life insurance to your savings account.
The people doing this to you are of the same ilk as the oil
corporations the government has allowed to despoil lands of people
in Africa and South America to supply you with cheap gasoline for
grossly oversized vehicles. They are of the same ilk as those in
congress who concocted the Great Ethanol Fraud, a zero-sum game
that, in concert with rising oil prices, drove food prices beyond
reach of many of the world's poorest to reward political primary
states, agricultural campaign donors and wealthy investors in a
host of erupting companies now going bankrupt. Meanwhile, research
and support for true renewable energy went begging. Companies with
years of taxpayer funded investment, with promising technologies
on the verge of fruition, went bankrupt or were acquired by
foreign nations - or soon will be.
This was our true flower.
From
the vantage of our current precipitous and accelerating decline
into economic chaos, recession and likely depression, it is clear
that a terrible and catastrophic seed was planted long ago, when
corporations were first granted charter. A responsibility for the
well-being of the earth, upon which we humans live, was not
considered. A requirement for compassion and respect for human
beings was left out. The only mandate was profit, preferably
uncontrolled, unregulated profit (Enron). And this profit
was and is greatly enhanced by ignoring ethical concerns and
disastrous environmental, therefore anti-human, impacts. These
costs and consequences were and are brutally dumped on powerless
non-consumer populations or absorbed by consumer populations who
have been taught to accept them as a necessary part of economic
life. For the corporations, the only concern, the only goal, is
higher profit. Human beings have value as consumers of their
goods. But if they cannot consume, or if they get in the way of
profit, they are swept aside like spilled garbage.
We have been led to justify the belief, through
our educational institutions, government policies and financial
markets, that global fossil energy resources are simply a
commodity suitable for sale to the highest bidder. Yet in America
we call these deposits a "precious national resource."
There is an obvious contradiction in this. A dichotomy.
It would be logical to expect every geographical segment of
mankind to hoard whatever fossil reserves it was blessed with to
enable emergence from poverty into technological prominence,
creating high-tech industry and high-tech jobs, ending hunger and
disease, and most importantly, laying the foundation for the next
step: the necessary transition from anti-human, centralized,
depletable, dirty fossil energy to pro-human, distributed,
sustainable clean energy. What would follow then is surely of
higher promise.
No population would willingly give up this God-given
opportunity for a better future. No, it would have to be taken
from them, stolen from them by force. By surrendering democracy
for corporate energy rampage in the name of democracy, the United
States, by wielding its military might to seize oil states and
pipeline routes to the West, has lost its credibility with
much of the world.
And with this light extinguished comes a dire foreboding of
more darkness to come.
Many hold out hope that the election of Obama will turn
around the dark and fearful momentum of Energy Imperialism. Others
see the two party system as nothing but two sides of the same coin
held in the grip of corporate/military/media overlords that are
much too powerful to confront.
Fossil energy exploitation made America a
wealthy, modern and powerful nation. We utilized our own fossil
deposits to achieve this, creating modern postwar America with
little importation of oil. It was not until the middle 1960s, when
our cheap oil peaked, that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil
began in earnest.
This was the time when our government first incentivized the
move to domestic energy. Although this effort toward
sustainability was encouraged by Nixon (nuclear) and made
significant headway under Carter in the 1970s (synthetic fuels
from coal), in the 1980s it was halted by Reagan (decontrol), who
was too preoccupied with his brilliant economic assault on the
Soviet Union to understand the dire consequences of his
failure to continue the struggle for energy self-reliance.
The Reagan Era marked the beginning of the War on
Renewable Energy by the centralized energy corporations. Big
Oil and natural gas, now freed from the price controls they had
struggled under since Nixon's extraordinary break with
conservative economic theory, along with Big Oil's centralized
energy cohorts from nuclear and coal, began to funnel their
new-found profits toward the cravenly palm-up members in the U.S.
Congress, gradually subverting the basic principals of democracy
and, following the abject ethical failure of the Republicans to
follow through with their Contract for America in the 1990s,
ultimately buying up the influence of the entire Republican Party.
In less than 20 years, the Republicans were voting as a block in
concert with the oil companies' wishes over 90% of the time.
The U.S. government and the oil companies had, in effect,
become one. While a great show between the political parties
seemingly raged in Congress, the 911 atrocity by Arab nationalists
seeking to drive existing U.S. military entrenchment out of the
Middle East backfired, ultimately resulting in the seizure of the
Iraqi oil fields and oil pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea to
the Indian Ocean. This could never have been achieved without
complete control of the dominant political party and proxies at
the top of the Executive Branch who handed Big Oil our armed
forces on a silver platter.
In much the same way that IBM viewed the
nescient PC, the expansion of renewable energy was denigrated and
regarded by centralized energy as a relatively insignificant but
easily managed threat. For many years, low crude and coal prices
presented an insurmountable barrier to wind power expansion. Then,
as turbines became more robust, Production Tax Credits were
allowed to pass to level the playing field between upstart wind
and established energy, but never were they permitted to extend
for the sufficiently long period that banks would find attractive
for financing the capital expenditure that would make wind a
potential competitor.
The nuclear and coal industries ran decades-long
disinformation campaigns against wind power, secretly recognizing
the threat but publicly dismissing it. Big Oil spent millions on
disinformation on the effects of pollution on climate change,
possibly the greatest threat mankind will ever face, delaying the
potential solution and loading the atmosphere with countless tons
of carbon dioxide and pollutants.
Awash in money, the U.S. educational system was allowed to
deteriorate as the populace was bombarded with disinformation from
every side.
Why?
Because stupid people are so easy to manipulate.
So very easy.
Richard D. Masters is a former Ayn Rand
Objectivist and Republican Central Committee member who once
believed that corporations created opportunity.
“There will be a revolution in this
country.
It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re
going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover
of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless
coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.” Gerald Celente, CEO
Trends Research Institute
The fight for the direction of the Democratic Party, and thus
Congress, has begun in earnest. Will the historic election
of Barack Obama herald real change? Or will it just be
business as usual for the oil and coal industries in sheep's
clothing?
We're about to find out - and
you can help Congress decide. Next week Democrats in Congress
will make decisions on committee leadership. No committee is more
important for potential action on energy and climate than the
House Energy and Commerce Committee. For years, that committee has
been controlled by 82 year old Representative John Dingell of
Michigan, the biggest Democratic friend of the oil, auto and coal
industries.
This is a problem.
You can help solve it. Representative Henry Waxman of California
has announced his intention to challenge Dingell for the
Chairmanship of this vital committee. Waxman, who is one of
the most progressive members of Congress, would indeed represent
real change.
I'm asking you to
contact your Democratic Representative and let them know that you
support Henry Waxman as Chair of the Energy & Commerce
Committee. If you live in a district represented by a
Republican, or if your district just became Democratic, please
contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices [at] mail.house.gov.
There are many reasons to prefer Henry Waxman over John
Dingell. Here are a few:
- John Dingell was the
top recipient of coal money
in this most recent election.
- Since 2000,
John Dingell has received an amazing 33 times more from the oil
and coal industries
than Henry Waxman has. 89 percent of Congress is cleaner
than John Dingell is.
- On average,
Dingell and his allies have received nearly six times as much
money from Big Oil as
those Democrats that support Waxman, and nine times as much money
from King Coal.
It's really important that we
act on this today.
The fossil fuel industry is already moving to support Dingell.
We need to counter them right now. In short, this battle is
between the future and the past of Congress, and the country.
We need to win it, and yes, we can.
Yours for a Separation of Oil & State,
Steve Kretzmann, Executive Director
PS - We really need
all the support we can get right now. Every bit helps.
Thanks so much for anything you can do right now.
"To date, we have had no
leadership capable of moving the world in a new direction. President Obama
can be this leader, he will be the catalyst for the dawn of the solar
revolution and the beginning of the transition to a truly renewable
economy." J. Peter Lynch,
Financial Analyst
How Will Renewables Fare in the New Political Environment?
Renewable Energy
World
November 5, 2008
"We no longer have a country.
We don't have a republic any more.
...They managed to destroy the United States. Why? Because they're oil and
gas people
and they're essentially criminals." Author Gore Vidal Gore
Vidal: 'The US is Not a Republic Anymore' PressTV (IR)
June 30, 2008
"Democracy is not
working
the way it's intended to work." James Hanson, NASA Climate
Scientist
"We must end
the Age of Oil in our time." Senator Barak Obama
Lansing, Michigan
August 4, 2008
BIG OIL'S MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
"[John
McCain thinks]
Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind
turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted
for such renewable power — when you didn’t."
Eight Strikes and You’re OutNY
Times
Thomas Friedman
Author of
Hot, Flat & Crowded
Why we need a Green Revolution and how it can
renew America
Senate Voting Record on Renewable Energy
"Senator
McCain did not show up for the
crucial vote on
July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the 8th time. John
McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has
missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a
no vote each time." Thomas Friedman
The New York Times August 12, 2008
In 2007, she stalled
the Fire Island Wind Farm Project by placing a veto on $20 million of
state support. Even though she later rescinded this decision, enabling the
project to move ahead, she has vetoed a further $268 million in budget
items this year, including other renewables projects; This same budget
contributed $2 million towards a bizarre conference to “highlight
arguments that global warming isn’t threatening the survival of polar
bears.” In opposition to the recommendations of state biologists, she has
also argued against listing the polar bear as endangered; Due to lack of
financial support, several renewable energy projects in the state have
been stalled; The Alaskan policy of distributing the state’s ‘oil
royalties fund’ to residents, instead of ploughing it back into clean
energy development, has led some commentators to suggest that any sort of
large scale renewables infrastructure is doomed from the start.
Governor Sarah Palin
today signed legislation that will help Alaskans combat the high cost of
energy. ...SB 4002 uses revenues generated from the state’s natural
resources to provide a one-time special payment of $1,200 to every Alaskan
eligible for the 2008 Permanent Fund dividend. The bill also raises by 50
percent the maximum amount of loans that bulk fuel bridge and bulk fuel
revolving loan funds can make to communities and cooperatives.
Gwen Holdmann, the
group’s director, said Tuesday the $500,000 in state funding was needed as
a match for federal grant money. “It really cripples us in our ability to
bring federal funding,” she said of the governor’s veto. Holdmann said she
was hoping to use some of the funding to bring a top expert in geothermal
energy to Alaska to help develop a research program in the field. She said
she also applied for federal grants to study new technologies involving
river current, tidal energy, and combined wind and diesel power systems.
Palin vetoed $71.5
million in requested fund projects, including
$20 million for a Chugach Electric Association wind farm.
TALK RADIO
AND NEANDERTHAL CONGRESSMEN VS. CLIMATE SCIENCE
The Myth of the 1970s
Global Cooling Scientific Consensus There was no scientific consensus in the
1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the
peer-reviewed literature even then. Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley,
and John Fleck
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
September 2008
When the myth of
the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary
discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form
of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news
media coverage. That is where U.S. Senator James Inhofe turned
for much of the evidence to support his argument in a U.S.
Senate floor speech in 2003. Chief among his
evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: “The cooling
world” (Gwynne 1975). The story drew from the latest global
temperature records, and suggested that cooling “may portend a
drastic decline for food production.” Citing the Kuklas’work
on increasing Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and Reid
Bryson’s concerns about a long-term cooling trend, the
Newsweek story juxtaposes the possibility of cooling
temperatures and decreasing food production with rising global
populations. Other articles of the time featured similar
themes.
Even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue
reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among
scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists.
For example, these are titles from two New York Times
articles: “Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major
cooling may be ahead” (Sullivan 1975) and “Warming trend seen
in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due”
(Sullivan 1975). Equally juxtaposed were The Cooling (Ponte
1976), which was published the year after Hothouse Earth
(Wilcox 1975).
However,
the
news coverage of the time does reflect what New York Times
science writer Andrew Revkin calls “the tyranny of the news
peg,” based on the idea that reporters need a “peg” on which
to hang a story. Developments that are dramatic or new tend to
draw the news media’s attention, Revkin argues, rather than
the complexity of a nuanced discussion within the scientific
community (Revkin 2005). A handy peg for climate
stories during the 1970s was the cold weather.
"While the northern edge of her state literally
falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still
out on global warming.’"
With his choice of Sarah Palin — the
Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change
— for vice president, John McCain
has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for
president to just another representative of big oil. Given the fact that
Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a
bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand
our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering
the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more
gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil, and given his
desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy,
the centerpiece of his energy policy — in an effort to mislead voters that
support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump
today — McCain has forfeited any
claim to be a green candidate. ...Palin’s nomination for vice president and her
desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness “reminded me of a lunch
I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés,”
global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. “After much wine, this
gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush
administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion,
the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible
in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was
not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course
would threaten the economic growth of Russia.”
State Will Sue Over Polar Bear Listing, Palin Says Dan Joling
Anchorage Daily News/AP
May 22, 2008
Climate models
that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears,
during summers are unreliable, Palin said.
The announcement drew a strong response from the primary
author of the listing petition.
"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally
misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for
Biological Diversity. "Alaska
deserves better."
Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore
overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar
bear's habitat. The WWF said observations on ice coverage and
thickness pointed toward a record low for the second year in a row,
continuing a "catastrophic" trend that could threaten polar wildlife and
accelerate global warming.
"If you take reduced ice thickness into account, there is
probably less ice overall in the Arctic this year than in any other year
since monitoring began," said Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate adviser of
the WWF's Arctic program.
'America's Outrageous War Economy!'
Pentagon can't find $2.3 trillion, wasting
trillions on 'national defense' Paul E. Farrell
MarketWatch
August 18, 2008
"At a time when
unemployment is at a four-year high and the economy needs every stimulus
it can get, a rapid extension of the credit should be on any economic
priority list for Congress." Randall Swisher, Executive
Director American Wind Energy
Asociation
Policy Uncertainty Weighs on Wind Industry Christine Real de Azua
AWEA
August 14, 2008
Cuomo's Coalition of Twelve States,
the District of Columbia, and the City of New York Sues EPA for Refusing
to Adopt Pollution Controls, Violating Clean Air Act ~ Today's Action is
the Latest Front in New York's Effort to Fight Global Warming
NEW YORK, NY (August 25, 2008) - Attorney General Andrew
M. Cuomo today announced he is suing the federal Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for failing to adopt regulations that control emissions of
global warming pollution from oil refineries. Cuomo is leading a group of
twelve states, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York in a
suit that challenges the EPA's refusal to require new or renovated oil
refineries to install technologies that control global warming pollution,
in violation of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA's refusal to control pollution from oil
refineries is the latest example of the Bush Administrations do-nothing
policy on global warming, said Cuomo. Oil refineries contribute
substantially to global warming, posing grave threats to New York's
environment, health, and economy. As long as the Bush EPA continues its
blatant violation of the Clean Air Act and its shameful refusal to control
global warming pollution, I will continue to fight them aggressively on
all fronts.
Cuomo's suit announced today charges that the EPA
violated the Clean Air Act when it refused to issue standards - known as
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - for controlling global warming
pollution emissions from oil refineries. These standards ensure that new
or renovated sources of air pollution install state-of-the-art emissions
control technologies. The Clean Air Act specifically requires the EPA to
adopt NSPS for oil refineries, as well as power plants and other major
stationary sources, if the EPA determines they emit air pollution that
poses a danger public health and welfare. Nonetheless, on June 24, 2008,
the EPA finalized new air pollution control regulations for oil refineries
without setting a NSPS for global warming pollution.
Oil refineries account for over 3% of the total energy
consumption in the United States. Due to their large energy consumption,
oil refineries are major sources of carbon dioxide, accounting for almost
15% of the carbon dioxide emitted from industrial processes nationally.
These refineries also emit large amounts of methane, an especially potent
global warming pollutant.
The suit announced today by Cuomo is the latest front in
the battle that New York and other states are waging to force the EPA to
use its authority under the Clean Air Act to control sources of global
warming pollution. For example, Cuomo is leading coalitions of states in
lawsuits to require the EPA to set NSPS for global warming pollution
emissions from power plants and to uphold the right of states to regulate
pollution emissions from automobiles.
I am committed to using the power of my Office to step
in when the federal government has failed to take action on critical
issues affecting New York, said Cuomo. The EPA's repeated failure to
control global warming pollution will not go unchallenged by New York
State.
Today's challenge was filed in the federal Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Joining Cuomo in the action
are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as
well as the District of Columbia and the City of New York. The suit seeks
to vacate the EPA's decision not to control oil refinery emissions of
global warming pollution and to order the EPA to adopt proper NSPS.
Although no petroleum refineries operate within New York State, major
contributors to global warming are an acute concern to the State as they
pose severe threats to its environment, public health, and economy.
The case is being handled by Assistant Attorneys General
Morgan Costello and Michael Myers of the Environmental Protection Bureau,
under the supervision of Special Deputy Attorney General for Environmental
Protection Katherine Kennedy.
WIND, SOLAR,
WAVE, GEOTHERMAL,
AND OTHER NEW CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES THREATEN THE
FOSSIL AND
NUCLEAR MONOPOLY THAT OWNS MOST
SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN.
THE
U.S.
GOVERNMENT
SHUNS RENEWABLE
ENERGY AT ALL COSTS, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE SENATE'S CYNICAL PASSAGE OF AN UNFUNDED,
1-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT FOR WIND. BANKS ARE
SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE 30-YEAR FINANCING BASED ON THIS? NO WONDER THE HOUSE
KILLED IT.
WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES HIKE GAS TAXES TO FINANCE RENEWABLE INFRASTRUCTURE,
A U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CALLS FOR A GAS TAX HOLIDAY.
AND THE CYNICAL PURPOSE OF THE
GREAT ETHANOL FRAUD IS TO
DRAW OFF FUNDING FROM TRUE RENEWABLE SOLUTIONS.
YEARS OF TAXPAYER INVESTMENT IN NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IS SQUANDERED AS
COMPANIES SEEK FOREIGN MARKETS OR ARE ACQUIRED BY FOREIGN INTERESTS.
THE LACK OF EFFECTIVE ENERGY ALTERNATIVES KEEPS THE PRICES OF OIL
PRODUCTS HIGH, WHILE
OUR MILITARY HAS BEEN HIJACKED TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF INTERNATIONAL OIL
CORPORATIONS AND
DRACONIAN FOREIGN DESPOTS -- ALL THIS HAS BEEN PAID FOR BY LYING TO
TAXPAYERS ABOUT INFLATION AND TRUE COSTS, THEN ROBBING THEM OF THEIR SAVINGS
VIA DISHONEST FINANCIAL MANIPULATIONS, RESULTING IN A DEVALUED CURRENCY.
THERE IS NO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.
THERE IS NO VISION.
INERTIA
RULES RAMPAGE.
THIS COUNTRY IS BROKEN AND WE ARE IN BIG, BIG TROUBLE.
-- RDM
"[John MaCain
thinks] Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just
show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you
showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t." Thomas Friedman, author and
New York Times columnist
Eight Strikes and You’re Out Thomas Friedman
The New York Times
August 12, 2008
ANOTHER BLACK DAY FOR AMERICA Republican Senators vote as a bloc to protect oil
profits
from the threat of limitless renewable energy --
RDM
Renewable Energy Tax Credit Legislation Voted Down
in U.S. Senate Renewable Energy World
July 31, 2008 “Time is running out to extend the solar tax
credits and without passage in the immediate future, tens of thousands of
jobs and billions of dollars will be lost in new solar investment. Already
companies are putting projects on hold and preparing to send thousands of
jobs overseas — real jobs that would otherwise be filled by American
workers. Failure to extend the solar tax credits is a severe blow to an
industry that has proven to be an economic engine for the U.S. at a time
when we need it most."
Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association
“With today’s technology, we can
produce hydrogen for less than the cost of gasoline.… The technology to
create hydrogen cheaply has been around for quite some time. The challenge
is to get it to the fueling stations.” Patrick Serfass, National Hydrogen
Association
Clean-burning, Cheap-hydrogen Cars
Start High-profile Road Trip
Meggan Clark
KeepMECurrent July
31, 2008
What these tax
credits are designed to do is to stimulate investments by many players in
solar and wind so these technologies can quickly move down the learning
curve and become competitive with coal and oil — which is why some people
are trying to block them. As Richard K. Lester, an energy-innovation
expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes, “The best
chance we have — perhaps the only chance” of addressing the combined
challenges of energy supply and demand, climate change and energy security
“is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply
and use and deploy them on a very large scale.”
Eight Strikes and You’re Out Thomas Friedman The
New York Times August 12,
2008
REPUBLICANS NOW
TARGET THE LAST VESTIGES OF AMERICA'S WILDERNESS, PARKS AND COASTLINES FOR
OIL EXPLOITATION BY THEIR INTERNATIONAL MASTERS WHILE THEY STEADFASTLY
REFUSE TO ALLOW A TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE FUELS, EVEN AS U.S. CITIZENS AND
BUSINESS SLOWLY STRANGLE ON RISING GASOLINE AND DIESEL COSTS.
MANY SHORT-SIGHTED AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS PILLAGE AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR
CHILDREN'S HERITAGE. THEY MUST ASK THEMSELVES, "IF WE DRAIN THE LAST OF
NORTH AMERICA'S OIL WITHOUT DEVELOPING A RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
NOW, WHILE WE CAN STILL AFFORD TO DO IT,
WHAT WILL OUR CHILDREN HAVE LEFT? WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM IF WE FAIL TO
REPLACE OUR EXHAUSTED OIL RESERVES WITH SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES? WHO WILL
RULE THEM IF WE LEAVE THEM HELPLESS?"
-- RDM
An urgent message from the League of
Conservation Voters 7/17/08
We're so
deep in a hole, you'd think we'd stop drilling...
Unfortunately not everyone
agrees. Big Oil's allies in Congress are trying to scoop up more land for
drilling—including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Later today,
President Bush is expected to go so far as to repeal the long-standing
executive ban on offshore drilling put in place by his own father.
This is not only an
environmental disaster, it will give us zero relief from gas prices and
will pad Big Oil's bottom line. That's a raw deal.
Every
week, we can expect a new, outrageous drilling provision. And we urgently
need your support to stop them! Please give today—there will be votes on
drilling in the next TWO weeks.
Big Oil's cronies in
Congress are using high gas prices as an excuse for this greedy land grab,
and they plan to make this a major campaign issue. Even some of our
pro-environment friends in Congress are feeling pressure to support
drilling legislation. But renowned oil businessman T. Boone Pickens is
publicly broadcasting a different message: "I've been an oilman all my
life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."
We believe
that the facts will triumph over the fear mongering, but we need your
support to keep up the fight and deliver our message to Congress:
America simply can't drill its way out of this
problem. Our supply (less than 3% of world oil reserves) can't possibly
keep up with our demand (25% of world oil consumption). A few drops of
oil, up to a decade away from making it to market, cannot alleviate our
pain at the pump.
There are almost 70 million acres of proven
reserves in Big Oil's possession where absolutely no drilling is taking
place. As long as gas prices continue to rise, so does the value of the
reserves they're sitting on.
We need consumer choices, such as plug-in
hybrids and other fuel efficient cars—not a greater addiction to oil.
Cutting subsidies for Big Oil and giving rebates to consumers would be
true short-term relief.
The ban on offshore
drilling, which has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, is in real
danger. Both President Bush and Senator John McCain have recently
reversed their position and now support this land grab.
Your support today will
allow us to conduct valuable polling in battleground states on this issue,
lobby key Members of Congress, and place ads to educate consumers that
drilling will not provide them with the relief they need.
Thank you, Norman, for
your continued support of the League of Conservation Voters. We'll never
match Big Oil's resources dollar-for-dollar. But backed by your
commitment, I know we will be able to build a clean energy future.
---- JUNE 20, 2008
----
BUSH INVOKES
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
TO SAVE BIG OIL FROM CO2
RESPONSIBILITY
"I don't think we've had a situation
like this since Richard Nixon was president; where the president of the
United States may have been involved in acting contrary to law, and the
evidence that would determine that question for Congress in exercising our
oversight is being blocked by an assertion of executive privilege." Henry Waxman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform
White House Asserts Executive Privilege in EPA Investigation Erica Werner
AP June 20,
2008
Waxman contends the White House
intervened with EPA to produce more industry-friendly outcomes in setting
new smog standards and denying California and more than a dozen other
states permission to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
For
months, the Committee has been investigating EPA's decision to prevent
California and other states from reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
motor vehicles and its decision to adopt new ozone air quality standards
weaker than those recommended by the agency's scientific experts.
These investigations have shown that the decisions in these
important environmental matters were made not at EPA, but in the White
House. In both cases, the scientists, the agency career staff, and EPA
Administrator Johnson wanted to take stronger action to protect the
environment. And in both cases, the White House rejected the agency's
position.
Today the President has asserted executive privilege to
prevent the Committee from learning why he and his staff overruled EPA.
There are thousands of internal White House documents that would show
whether the President and his staff acted lawfully. But the President has
said they must be kept from Congress and the public.
In the case of the California motor vehicle standards, we
learned that EPA's experts and
career staff all supported granting the California petition. In a
briefing prepared for Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA's own lawyers said: "we don't believe there are any good arguments
against granting the waiver. All of the arguments ... are likely to lose
in court if we are sued."
Administrator Johnson listened and was prepared to support a
partial approval to California's request. But then the White House
intervened. In December, after secret communications with White House
officials, Administrator Johnson ignored the law and the evidence and
denied California's petition.
In the case of the ozone standards, the same pattern
happened. We learned that EPA's
expert advisory panel unanimously recommended a new standard for
protecting the environment. After considering all of the
alternatives, Administrator Johnson agreed with the new approach.
He was opposed, however, by industry and Susan Dudley, the
Administrator of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. And once again, the White House intervened.
On the evening before the final
rule was released, President Bush rejected the unanimous recommendation of
both EPA's experts and Administrator Johnson and instructed EPA to abandon
the new standard.
The Clean Air Act is clear about what can be considered and
what cannot be considered when EPA makes decisions under its authority. In
both cases, the EPA's methodical and scientific process pointed to
specific outcomes. In both cases, the outcome dramatically changed when
the White House became involved.
This Committee has a fundamental obligation to learn the
truth about what actually happened on these critical health and
environmental decisions. That is why we have been seeking documents in
both cases that would provide important details about the President's role
in directing Administrator Johnson's actions. This morning I have
been informed that the White House is asserting executive privilege over
thousands of documents the Committee is seeking. This is an
extraordinary step. Administrator Johnson has repeatedly insisted he
reached his decisions on California's petition and the new ozone standard
on his own, relying on his best judgment. Today's assertion of
executive privilege raises serious questions about Administrator Johnson's
credibility and the involvement of the President. Without the
remaining documents, it will be nearly impossible to fully understand the
President's role in overruling the unanimous recommendations of EPA's own
experts.
We had scheduled a vote on a contempt resolution for this
morning for Mr. Johnson and Ms. Dudley. We will not have that vote in
light of the executive privilege claim. I want to talk with my colleagues
on both sides about this new development and consider all our options
before deciding how we should proceed.
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND
STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
AND SUSAN DUDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WHITE HOUSE, IN
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESSFOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DULY ISSUED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM U.S. House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform
June 20, 2008
"SHAMEFUL,
OUTRAGEOUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE!" Governor O'Malley, Maryland "A DERELICTION OF DUTY!"
Senator Frank Lautenberg STATE
GOVERNORS EXPRESS EXTREME OUTRAGE AT EPA DENIAL OF CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS
WAIVER
January 24, 2007
FED EPA DIRECTOR JOHNSON GRILLED
BY CALIFORNIA'S BOXER ON C-SPAN
"We are in this situation because
of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil. The direction our
nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward
greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for
consumers." California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger Opposes Offshore Oil Drilling International Herald Tribune/AP
June 18, 2008
Shooting the Moon on Renewables Steve Hargreaves
CNNMoney June 19, 2008 While McCain wants to drill more oil to fight $4
gas, Obama calls for an 'Apollo project' aimed at alternative energy.
...The presumed Democratic nominee wants to fund renewable energy to the
tune of $15 billion a year for 10 years, paid for by auctioning off
permits to companies that emit greenhouse gases.
BY ESTABLISHING THE
GREAT ETHANOL FRAUD, THE IDIOTIC BURNING OF PRECIOUS FOOD FOR FUEL, IN
PLACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF REAL RENEWABLE ENERGY - UNTAPPED, ABUNDANT,
FREE ENERGY THAT WOULD THREATEN CENTRALIZED FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY'S
STRANGLEHOLD ON THE WORLD - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AT THE BEHEST OF
ITS OIL MASTERS, HAS SET INTO MOTION AN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVIL SO
SOULLESS AND UNCONTROLLABLE THAT IT THREATENS TO DRIVE STRUGGLING HUMANITY
INTO A CHAOS THAT MAY RIVAL OR EXCEED THAT OF THE WORST OF THE
PREVIOUS CENTURY. - RDM When Third World nations do not
have food to export and First World nations are having their crops
destroyed by inclement weather, where does the food come from?
If current trends intensify, the food riots that two dozen countries have
already experienced will move to America.
Heavy Rains Drowning U.S. Crop Production Hopes The Trumpet
Philadelphia Church of God
June 11, 2008
CONNECTICUT
GOVERNOR
JODIE RELL POLITELY ATTEMPTS TO
EDUCATE GEORGE BUSH ON THE SEEMINGLY UNFATHOMABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN OIL,
CORN AND FOOD -- AND TELLS CONGRESS TO KILL THE BLOODSUCKING ETHANOL
INDUSTRY IMMEDIATELY! -- RDM
Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced
she is urging President Bush and Congressional leaders to temporarily
waive the federal Renewable Fuel Standard and lift a 54-cents-per-gallon
tariff on imported ethanol. The Governor said these two steps could reduce
the pressure that families in Connecticut and across the nation are facing
from endless increases in energy prices and the costs of staple foods.
Governor Rell also called on Congress and the President to
pass a second, energy-related stimulus package to help families keep up
with food and energy costs.
“Connecticut residents and business owners, squeezed from one
side by energy prices and on the other by food prices, are trapped in a
vise,” Governor Rell said. “The pressure is relentless and mounting
ever-higher. It is time for the federal government to take some strong,
definitive action to address these issues.”
The Governor noted in her letter that a gallon of regular
unleaded gasoline currently costs an average of $3.787 in Connecticut. A
month ago the average was $3.35; a year ago the average was $3.06. A dozen
eggs costs around $3, while a gallon of milk runs about $4. A box of
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes costs $4.29 while a top round beef roast and chicken
breasts are both priced at $4.99 a pound.
“As unrelated as the cost of a gallon of gas and a gallon of
milk might seem, these price increases actually have a common link: corn,”
Governor Rell said. “The demand for ethanol – either as an additive to
gasoline or as the primary component in fuels such as E85 – has increased
sharply in recent years. Since most ethanol is made from corn, that demand
has meant there is less of the crop for use as food for people and
animals. Moreover, many farms are opting to switch from crops such as
wheat to corn because of the higher price commanded by corn.
“Every day the families of Connecticut – like their
counterparts in every other state – face difficult decisions and
diminishing choices,” the Governor said. “They are struggling to cope with
the epic upward spiral of energy prices, struggling to avoid the worst
effects of the current economic slump and struggling to make ends meet.
Their struggles have been made all the more difficult because the prices
of basic staples such as eggs, cereal, bread and milk have shot up by
double digits even as more and more of our household budgets are consumed
at the pump or burned to heat our homes.”
Governor Rell recommended two specific actions to ease the
demand pressure on corn prices:
Lift the current 54 cents-per-gallon tariff on
imported ethanol. “The tariff is a major
disincentive to imports of ethanol,” the Governor said. “Especially
since refiners have turned to ethanol in lieu of additives such as MTBE,
virtually all of the ethanol used in motor fuels has been domestically
produced. Importing less-expensive ethanol from producers such as
Brazil, Mexico and Jamaica could reduce gasoline prices and ease
domestic demand, but because of the tariff those potential savings have
not been achieved.”
Waive temporarily the federal Renewable Fuel
Standard. “I recognize that ethanol is an
increasingly important component of the nation’s efforts to decrease its
dependence on foreign oil imports and improve air quality, and I value
these efforts,” Governor Rell said. “However, given the current crisis,
I believe a temporary waiver is in order and will not significantly
hinder energy independence or environmental improvement programs.”
ASK A KID, THEN ASK AN ETHANOL ADVOCATE,
"WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BURN YOUR FOOD?"
"Look, Ma. No food!"
Food Rationing Strikes the U.S.
Josh Gerstein
New York Sun
April 21, 2008
Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast
are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips
supply.
WALL STREET BIOFUEL PUSHES THE WORLD'S POOR TO THE BRINK
GLOBAL FOOD RIOTS SPREAD Marc Lacey International
Herald Tribune April
17, 2008
In Haiti, where three-quarters of the
population earns less than $2 a day and one in five children is chronically
malnourished, the one business booming amid all the gloom is the selling of
patties made of mud, oil and sugar, typically only consumed by the most
destitute.
"It's salty and it has butter, and you don't know you're
eating dirt," said Olwich Louis Jeune, 24, who has taken to eating them more
often in recent months. "It makes your stomach quiet down."
Jean Ziegler
UN Special Rapporteur
on the
Right to Food
"This is silent mass murder.
We have a herd of market
traders, speculators and financial bandits who have turned wild and
constructed a world of inequality and horror.
We have to put a stop to this."
(reportedly to the Austrian newspaper, the Kurier am
Sonntag)
SOURCEApril
2008
AN UNENDING FUTURE
OF OIL WARS
U.S. SENATE BETRAYS ELECTORATE
"With 116,000 jobs and nearly $19 billion in investment at risk in the
renewable energy industries, a minority of the Senate has again frustrated
the desire of millions of Americans across the political spectrum who
overwhelmingly support clean, home grown energy." Randall Swisher, American
Wind Energy Association
Senators Block Stimulus Package with PTC Extension Jeff Siegel
North American Windpower
February 7, 2008
"If we are to end
our dangerous reliance on foreign oil and create the green-collar jobs of
tomorrow, we have an obligation to find renewable energy sources." Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Charles Rangel
US House Passes Latest Oil-Tax-for-Alternatives Bill Nick Snow
Oil & Gas Journal (TX)
February 28, 2008
Moving Tax Breaks From Oil to Sun and Wind? Andrew Revkin
New York Times
February 28, 2008
House Votes to Rescind Tax Breaks for Oil Industry Siobhan Hughes
Wall Street Journal
February 28, 2008
House Vote Shows Oil Still Beats Wind in Texas Keith Johnson
Wall Street Journal
February 28, 2008
Yesterday’s House vote on a bill to
take away billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil and channel the
money into renewable energy passed handily; only eight Democrats voted
against. But five of them were from Texas: Henry Cuellar, Gene Green, Nick
Lampson, Solomon Ortiz, and Ciro Rodriguez. ...Mr. Lampson is chair of the
House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. He says that he is
“making a strong push for alternative fuels and sources of energy,
including wind, solar, biofuels.” But he’s not voting that way.
GOP Should Stop Coddling Big Oil
and Make Way for Renewable Energy Barry Cinnamon
Mercury News (California)
February 26, 2008
Senate and House Republicans need to
wake up to the fact that their continued votes for Big Oil are
embarrassing and politically suicidal.
"...the packages
offered thus far do nothing to address the long-term needs for economic
and jobs growth. There are investment incentives in the tax code that will
expire at the end of 2008 - for research and development, alternative
energy and energy conservation - and Congress should extend these
important incentives in order to avoid choking off critical investments
that can have tremendous long-term economic benefits." Senator Maria Cantwell, WA
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
January 24, 2008
A CONGRESS OWNED BY
THE FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR LOBBY IGNORES REAL ECONOMIC STIMULUS TO WAGE WAR ON
RENEWABLE ENERGY -- RDM
"While a stimulus bill is welcome, it
is a major disappointment that, at least as proposed, this package does
not extend the renewable energy incentives which expire at the end of this
year. We estimate that the slowdown in the wind industry from
a failure to extend the renewable
tax incentives will place 75,000 jobs at risk and undercut a
singular bright spot in the American economy--the booming renewable
electricity sector that is creating tens of thousands of manufacturing and
construction jobs annually. Last year we saw more than $20 billion in
investment in renewable electricity in the U.S.--
today, investors are holding back on
decisions regarding wind and solar power projects
that will not come on line until next year. Immediate Congressional
action is essential if wind and other renewable energy industries are to
continue to grow, attract large-scale manufacturing investment and create
jobs for Americans across the country."
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Issues Statement on Tentative
Agreement on Economic Stimulus BillJanuary 24, 2008
IS THIS THE END OF AMERICA?
A TRAITOROUS CONGRESS, HARD AT WORK DESTROYING THE
ECONOMY FOR THE SAKE OF OIL PROFITS, IS PUTTING AMERICA UP FOR SALE TO HER
ENEMIES. THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE JAILED, NOT RE-ELECTED. -- RDM
"Congress will be raising taxes on clean,
domestic, renewable energy sources and will undercut one of the fastest
growing segments
of the U.S. economy. With the nation facing a possible recession, it is
difficult to imagine a worse time to destabilize America's rapidly growing
renewable energy sector." American Wind Energy Association
Solar Energy Industries Association
National Hydropower Association
Geothermal Energy Association
Renewable Energy Leaders Urge Congress, Bush to Extend Tax Credits Quickly Jim Pieroban
RenewableEnergyAccess.com
January 22, 2008
...Rhone Resch, President of the
Solar Energy Industries Association, tried simplifying it for lawmakers:
"Do you want to write them (consumers) a check, or do you want to give
them a job?" Resch highlighted 80
utility-scale solar projects on the drawing boards collectively
representing about 56,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity generating
capacity, more than 20,000 permanent jobs and hundreds of thousands of
construction jobs. "None of these projects will be built unless the
investment tax credit is extended," he said. For workers in
Michigan where the automobile industry continues to unravel, the risks are
in sharp focus for solar companies such as Hemlock Semiconductor, which
Resch said has invested one billion dollars to expand plant capacity in
Midland; ditto for Unisolar, a thin-film manufacturer that is creating
hundreds of new jobs for six plants planned in Greenfield.
Randall Swisher, Executive
Director of the American Wind Energy Association, said "major wind farm
development companies are telling us that investment is drying up and they
are being forced to put large projects in the pipeline for construction
next year on hold." Swisher told reporters that AWEA estimates about
75,000 jobs are now at risk, including more than 32,000 in the direct
manufacture, construction and operation of wind energy facilities.
more
SO IT GOES. AMERICA FOLLOWS ITS
SO-CALLED "LEADERS" LIKE LEMMINGS LEAPING OFF A CLIFF, WILLING TO ACCEPT
ANYTHING, IT SEEMS, TO AVOID RENEWABLE WIND, GEOTHERMAL, WAVE AND
SOLAR ENERGY -- THE CHEAP BUT GENUINE SOLUTIONS THAT THREATEN RAPACIOUS
FOSSIL ENERGY PROFITS. THIS WAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE WILLING FAILURE OF
THE FAUX SENATE, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF OIL
COMPANIES, TO HELP LEVEL THE RIGGED PLAYING FIELD FOR ENTRY OF OUR
STRUGGLING RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANIES BY SIMPLY EXTENDING THE PRODUCTION TAX
CREDIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN ENERGY.
BECAUSE OF REDUCED
EXTERNAL COSTS, IT WOULD HAVE COST THEM
NOTHING TO TAKE THIS SIMPLE STEP TOWARD FREEING AMERICA FROM THE SHACKLES OF
MIDDLE EAST OIL DEPENDENCE, FROM OPEC, FROM SPIRALING FOOD PRICES, FROM
SACRIFICING OUR SONS AND OUR DAUGHTERS DYING BY THE THOUSANDS IN FOREIGN
LANDS FOR WHAT WILL TURN OUT TO BE LESS THAN NOTHING, TO STOP THE ASTHMA
EPIDEMIC IN OUR YOUNG CHILDREN, TO STOP THE MERCURY POISONING OF THE
NORTHEAST, TO FORESTALL THE HORRIBLE BURDEN OF UNSECURED RADIOACTIVITY ON
OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. BUT EVEN THE "ARIZONA IS THE SOLAR STATE" HYPOCRITE JOHN MCCAIN, ONE OF MANY, WOULDN'T
GET OUT OF BED, WOULDN'T LIFT A FINGER WHEN HE COULD HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE
OF HISTORY. NOW NEW HAMPSHIRE CROWNS HIM THE REPUBLICAN FRONTRUNNER. NEVER HAS THERE BEEN A PEOPLE AS STUPID AS
THIS. GOD HELP US ALL OR GOD DAMN YOU ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHICH. PROBABLY
BOTH.
IMPLEMENTING THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO GATHER ABUNDANT FREE
CLEAN NATURAL ENERGY WOULD HAVE BEEN A WORTHY CHALLENGE FOR THE LONG LOST AMERICA I GREW
UP IN. THE REASONS TO DO SO NOW ARE MYRIAD, RATIONAL AND URGENT. WE
PUT MEN ON THE MOON TO MEET OUR DREAMS. WE DID THE IMPOSSIBLE. WE MADE A
LEGEND THAT WILL LINGER ON THE LIPS OF HUMAN HISTORY UNTIL THE END OF TIME.
BUT TODAY WE
PUT MEN IN IRAQ TO MEET OIL PRODUCTION.
WHY?
ALL THE STUDIES SHOW TEN TIMES THE EMPLOYMENT
WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY. NO MORE MONEY DRAINING FROM OUR COUNTRY TO THE MIDDLE
EAST. THE END OF UNBEARABLE HEALTH COSTS FROM THE EFFECTS OF FOSSIL
POLLUTION. A HUGE ECONOMIC BOOM FROM THE GROWTH OF NEW, CLEAN ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES. MORE POWER THAN WE COULD EVER DREAM OF USING. INFINITE POWER.
NO DEPLETION. FREEDOM FROM FEAR. FREEDOM FROM FOOLS.
WHY HAVEN'T WE MOVED IN THIS DIRECTION?
WE HAVE LOST SIGHT OF COMMON SENSE!
WORSE, WE HAVE LOST SIGHT OF GOOD AND EVIL. THE
VERY WORST EXAMPLE, OUR REPRESENTATIVES CYNICALLY CHOOSING TO FOREGO TRUE
RENEWABLES AND LINK THE PRICE OF OIL TO FOOD WITH CORN ALCOHOL AND
BIOFUELS WHEN MILLIONS ARE HUNGRY, SEEMS TO HOLD NO MORAL
COMPUNCTION TO THESE VICIOUS, STUPID, SOULLESS CREATURES FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE. SOON THEY WILL BLAME YOU FOR THIS DISASTER.
AND NOW, AS THEY PREPARE TO SEND YET ANOTHER GENERATION
OF OUR CHILDREN TO FIGHT FOREIGN OIL WARS FOR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, PEOPLE
OFTEN ASK ME, WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP IT?
TO CHANGE IT? TO TURN IT AROUND?
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DROWNED OUT THE
VOICES OF REASON, WHO SHOUTED DOWN THOSE WHO CRIED, "IF YOU TURN FOOD INTO
GASOLINE, WHAT WILL WE EAT?"
WHAT CAN WE TELL THEM NOW?
ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
IF DEMOCRACY ACTUALLY WORKS AS ADVERTISED, THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE AND EASY. STOP ELECTING
PEOPLE TO OFFICE WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO GIANT FOSSIL, NUCLEAR AND AGRICULTURAL
CORPORATIONS. DEMAND REAL CANDIDATES, REAL CHOICES. REAL
SOLUTIONS.
DEMAND CHEAP, FREE, CLEAN, DOMESTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY TO
END THE OIL WARS FOREVER.
OTHERWISE, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN LOST,
IF OUR REPUBLIC IS A FRAUD AND HAS BECOME BUT A DIM SWORD TO ENFORCE THE WILL OF
INTERNATIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY CORPORATIONS AND THEIR MILITARY COHORTS, THE SOLUTION
TO OUR SUDDEN DILEMMA, IF EVEN ACHIEVABLE, BECOMES
DIFFICULT AND UGLY.
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT A PEOPLE DESERVE THE GOVERNMENT THEY
CREATE. NOW AS THE DEMOCRATS WAIT IN THE WINGS, SALIVATING LIKE PAVLOV'S
DOGS FOR THEIR CHANCE AT THE OIL MONEY THE REPUBLICANS HAVE FUMBLED, I HAVE COME TO THE SAD AND BITTER CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS TRUE.
I WAS A REPUBLICAN. I WAS AN OBJECTIVIST. BUT NOW
I AM ONLY ASHAMED.
IF GOD IS JUST, PREPARE TO SUFFER. FOR THE POOR ARE
MORE THAN THE FIRST WORLD'S CALLOUSLY ORPHANED CHILDREN, SO CRUELLY TORN FROM
THE LIVES THEY DESERVE -- THE LIVES THEY COULD SO EASILY HAVE HAD IF THOSE
WITH WEALTH AND ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE HAD CONSCIENCE. THE WORLD'S POOR ARE
INSTEAD PITIFUL, HELPLESS, CAGED CANARIES, ABANDONED DEEP, DEEP DOWN IN THE
DARKNESS OF PLANET EARTH'S FOUL COAL MINE WHILE THE OTHERS SEIZE THEIR FOOD
TO CIRCLE THE MALLS IN GIANT STEEL MACHINES.
FIRST THEM.
THEN YOU.
THE WAR FOR OIL & THE WAR TO BURN THE
POOR'S FOOD FOR
FUEL
"Why
have you stopped sending food?" THE GREAT ETHANOL
FRAUD There are people in
the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of
bread.
-- Ghandi
A new crisis is emerging, a
global food catastrophe that will reach further and be more crippling than
anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the
reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in
comparison to what is about to transpire, Donald Coxe, global portfolio
strategist at BMO Financial Group said at the Empire Club's 14th annual
investment outlook in Toronto on Thursday. ...Mr. Coxe warned
U.S. corn exports were in danger of seizing up in about three years if the
country continues to subsidize ethanol production. Biofuels are expected
to eat up about a third of America's grain harvest in 2007. more
“By bowing down to
corporate interests, the Bush Administration is thwarting the will of the
citizens of more than a dozen states and the Supreme Court of the United
States.” Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley
“EPA’s decision ignores the
law, science, and commonsense.” Representative Henry Waxman,
California
The EPA Vs. Everyone Else: Get Ready To Rumble
Center for American Progress
December 21, 2007
"A
horrendous decision." New Jersey Governor John
Corzine Corzine Considers New Fight on
EPA Car Emission Rules John Reitmeyer
North Jersey
December 21, 2007
WASHINGTON (December 19, 2007) - The same day the president
signed a ground-breaking fuel economy bill, his administration reversed
course and denied California a waiver to regulate global warming pollution
from vehicles, the first time in the history of the Clean Air Act that the
federal government has denied the state a waiver.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied the waiver
despite clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court that miles-per-gallon
standards and the global warming pollution standards required under the
Clean Air Act are “wholly independent.” A recent Fresno, California,
federal district court ruling added that “it would be the very definition
of folly” to prevent the implementation of vehicle global warming
emissions standards.
Likewise, the EPA denied the waiver despite the fact that the
Bush administration has touted the California standards as evidence that
the United States is meeting its international commitments on climate
change. While California and the 12 other states that have adopted
California's tailpipe standard will pursue legal avenues to overturn the
denial, the announcement today could delay the implementation of the
standards, undermining potential benefits.
The goals of a fuel economy standard and a vehicle global
warming emissions limit are different. The Department of Transportation
(DOT) sets fuel economy standards to reduce oil use. The DOT is not an
environmental agency. The EPA regulates motor vehicle global warming
emissions limits according to Clean Air Act requirements to protect public
health. Under the Clean Air Act, California has the right to set higher
standards for pollution reduction from automobiles, and recent court cases
clarify that states have the authority and obligation to regulate vehicle
global warming pollution. The Bush administration is illegally preventing
California from exercising its right, under the Clean Air Act, to set
pollution standards for automobiles.
The following is a statement by Clean Vehicles Program
Director Michelle Robinson:
“In the eleventh hour of this presidency, the administration is still
doing what it can to throw roadblocks in the way of progress in combating
global warming. California has the legal right to set stringent pollution
standards and has historically led the way for the rest of the country.
But the EPA is blocking California and a dozen other states from
protecting their residents. Administrator Johnson has sadly chosen
politics over his responsibility to protect public health and the
environment.”
...Democrats
could have refused to take the bill forward when they knew that
revenue-raising from oil & gas was an insurmountable obstacle for
Republicans.
The total collapse of the bill would have
made it clear that the GOP was joined at the hip to Big Oil, and that
nearly half the U.S. Senate existed merely to do the bidding of the fossil
fuel industry. Going into an
election year, this might have been a powerful tool in many Democratic
candidates’ favor. Had Democrats done this, of course, it would have
meant abandoning CAFE standards for the sake of an electioneering ploy,
which might well have rebounded on them in other ways. Instead,
Congressional Democratic leadership put the country on notice that they
would reintroduce those provisions that were stripped from the bill at an
early stage next year. But
we have yet to hear an unequivocal
statement from Democratic leadership to the effect that their attempt at
social justice—redirecting a sliver of Big Oil’s obscene profits to the
renewable sector of the energy industry—was blocked by corrupt politicians
on the other side of the aisle.
Playing nice still seems to be a priority
in the nation’s capital.
more
BIG OIL WINS!
BIG
COAL WINS!
BIG
NUKE WINS!
You lose.
NO RENEWABLE PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS
NO FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
AMERICA'S SLAVE MASTERS HAVE SPOKEN
- RDM “The failure to pass critical
policy provisions to reduce energy costs for business owners and
homeowners, protect our energy infrastructure against acts of nature and
terrorism, and fundamentally reduce emissions causing respiratory diseases
and global climate change was an
abdication of duty to the American
people by a minority of legislators from both parties and The
Administration." Scott Sklar, President,
Stella Group
Energy Bill Update: Senate Approves Compromise Legislation
RenewableEnergyAccess.com
December 14, 2007
Yesterday, the U.S.
Senate dealt a losing hand to all those who believe in solar power as a
vital component of our energy future.
By a vote of 59-40, just one vote short of the number needed
to cut off debate, the Senate failed to include a tax title in the 2007
energy bill that would have provided investment and production tax credits
for renewable energies.
Many people have worked long and hard this year to secure a
government commitment of support for solar and other nascent renewable
industries, including solar citizens like yourself, Congressional
Democratic leadership, environmental and conservation groups, industry
associations, and scientific bodies. And although representatives and
senators were left in no doubt about the importance of the legislation to
America's future, the peculiarities of the American way of politics
trumped common sense and hope. Senators from states where the oil and gas
industry lobby is strongest voted to continue support for the industry,
even though the proposed tightening of tax breaks would have amounted to
only 1%-2% of its net profits. To see which senators voted against the tax
title measure, check the list at the end of this message. (Look closely
and you'll find one Democrat who voted 'nay', and one presidential
candidate who failed to vote at all).
Late yesterday evening, the Senate finally voted on what was
left of the bill. Absent investment tax credits, production tax credits
and a national renewable electricity standard (RES), the bill sailed
through by a vote of 85-12. It will now go back to the House, then on for
signature by President Bush. And what the President signs will contain
CAFE standards for automobile mileage standards, a renewable fuels
mandate, and provisions for energy efficiency in federal government
departments. For renewables, there is practically nothing.
The timing of the vote may strike historians as curious in
years to come; half a world away in Bali, attendees at the UN global
warming conference were working toward final agreement on long-term
measures to mitigate climate change while the U.S. Senate was rewarding
the oil and gas industry for its long-term support.
more
THE WAR ON RENEWABLE
ENERGY THE
STUNNING LIST OF AMERICA'S SHAME
SENATORS BOUGHT
BY OIL
WHO HAVE TURNED THEIR
BACKS ON AMERICA
WAVING THE FLAG AND REPRESENTING SAUDI ARABIA,
AND OBSTRUCTING DOMESTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY
WHILE THEY SEND OUR KIDS TO FIGHT WARS FOR OIL
WHO ARE THESE FOOLS THAT KEEP US
JOINED AT THE HIP TO OIL AND TERROR?
Senators Voting 'Nay' on Cloture Vote
for Energy Bill Tax Title on December 13, 2007 Compiled
from Oil Change International
andOn
The Issues
Big Oil money accepted from 1990 to 2006
ALASKA Ted
Stevens $370,140 Owned by
BP
Commerce, Science
& Transportation
Appropriations
ALABAMA
Richard
Shelby $321,298 "Support our
troops in the
Middle East!"
Appropriations
ARIZONA
Jon
Kyl $260,882
Owned by
EXXONMOBIL "Support our
troops in the
Middle East!"
ALABAMA
Jeff
Sessions $191,600 "Support our
troops in the
Middle East!"
Armed Services
VIRGINIA
John Warner $221,398
Owned by EXXON MOBIL
Armed Services;
Environment &
Public Works
WYOMING Michael
Enzi $178,100
"Support our
troops in the
Middle East!"
WYOMING
Barrasso
"Support our
troops in the
Middle East!"
Republican Senators
Not Voting on Energy Bill Cloture Vote
ARIZONA
John
McCain $261,110
Owned by
EXXON MOBIL Armed Services;
Commerce, Science
& Transportation
"There's no living
American that's not in favor of [wind, solar and tide]. I'm in favor of
it. I come from the great state of Arizona where we have more days
of sunshine than any other in the United States of America."
Democratic Senators
Voting 'Nay' on Cloture Vote
for Energy Bill Tax Title
LOUISIANA
Mary
Landrieu $407,044
Energy & Natural Resources;
Appropriations
Washington, D.C. – Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today sent a complaint to
the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District for
Louisiana and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, asking
for an investigation into whether Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) violated
federal bribery law by including a $2 million earmark for Voyager Expanded
Learning in a bill a mere four days after receiving $30,000 in campaign
contributions from company executives and their relatives. CREW also asked
the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the matter.
Randy Best, a top Republican donor and Bush pioneer,
founded Voyager, an educational products company and rather than selling
the company’s reading program to school districts, hired lobbyists to
obtain earmarks for it. Although the House had appropriated $1 million for
his program for the D.C. public schools, Best still needed a Senate
sponsor. A lobbyist arranged a meeting with Sen. Landrieu, the chair of
the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the District of Columbia,
to press for an earmark. Shortly after Sen. Landrieu met with Best, a
member of Sen. Landrieu’s staff asked him to hold a fundraiser for her and
he agreed. After the fundraiser, she received $30,000 in campaign
contributions from individuals associated with the company -- donors who
had never before contributed to her. Four days after she received the
money, she inserted an earmark into a D.C. appropriations bill, giving
D.C. schools $2 million to buy Best’s reading program, which was unproven
and had not been requested by the school system.
Federal law prohibits public officials from directly or
indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to
receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the
performance of an official act. Accepting a contribution to a political
campaign can constitute a bribe if a quid pro quo can be demonstrated.
Given that Sen. Landrieu asked Best to hold a
fundraiser for her, which he did, and then inserted the Voyager earmark
only four days after receiving contributions from individuals connected
with the company, it certainly appears she traded the earmark for the
contributions in violation of federal criminal law. Sen. Landrieu also may
have violated the Senate rule prohibiting “improper conduct which reflects
upon the Senate.”
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said today,
“Senator Landrieu appears to have traded a $2 million earmark for $30,000
in campaign contributions. It was a win-win situation for Best and Senator
Landrieu, but a lose-lose for the taxpayers and D.C. school children.”
Sloan continued, “the Department of Justice and the Senate Ethics
Committee should look into this matter immediately. Members of Congress
need to understand that trading earmarks for campaign funds is illegal --
no exceptions.”
UPDATE: Melanie Sloan, CREW’s
executive director, responds to
Senator Landrieu’s release today
on CREW’s complaints: “Sen. Landrieu’s response to CREW’s Department of
Justice and Ethics Committee complaints fails to address the key
allegation: that she inserted an earmark in return for campaign
contributions. According to a document just provided by Sen. Landrieu, the
District of Columbia apparently asked the senator on April 25, 2001 to
include an earmark for Voyager in the D.C. appropriations bill.
Nevertheless, by September 24, 2001, when a House committee included a $1
million earmark for Voyager, the company still had not attracted a Senate
sponsor. Sen. Landrieu has not explained why she didn’t follow through on
the District’s request until November 6, 2001, four days after Mr. Best
and his associates contributed $30,000 to the senator’s campaign.”
-----
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a
non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials
accountable for their actions. For more information, please visit
http://www.citizensforethics.org
A number of local restaurant operators have been tracking hikes in
wholesale food prices. Restaurants: Nino's, Vincent's, Grappino's, Pronto.
Owner: Vincent Mandola.
Price increases over past 10 months:
Since January, prices
for the crops that make most biodiesel have doubled, driving the cost of a
ton of biodiesel up 50%, to around $1,440 a ton, or about $4.80 a gallon.
Prices for regular crude-oil-based diesel have risen sharply, too, but
only to $840 a ton, or $2.80 a gallon. Biodiesel has become more expensive
for oil companies to buy than fossil fuel, and they are cutting back.
....Europe's governments are finding it difficult to adjust
policy to a new and volatile market. In 2006, when commodity prices were
low and margins were fat, Germany decided to trim the tax breaks it offers
to biodiesel producers. Earlier this year, France raised taxes on
biodiesel. Now that producers are in trouble, governments aren't giving
the tax breaks back.
THE SAD U.S.
PRESIDENTIAL RACE: NO VISION
FALLING PREY TO
CENTRALIZED INDUSTRY'S MYTH THAT RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN'T DO THE JOB,
HUCKABEE CONTEMPLATES
AN AWFUL NUCLEAR OPEC TO REPLACE THE OIL OPEC
- RDM
"I would make the United States energy independent within 10 years and
tell the Saudis they can keep their oil just like they can keep their
sand, that we won't need either one of them."
DUH!
-
Huckabee: America Enslaved to Saudi Oil AP
November 25, 2007
ENERGY
BILL BOOSTS ETHANOL
There are people in
the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of
bread.
-- Ghandi
THE GREAT ETHANOL FRAUD
DRIVES WORLD HUNGER
Biofuels Bonanza Facing 'Crash' Roger Harrabin
BBC
November 15, 2007 Critics say biofuels will lead to
food shortages and destroy rainforests. They point to the destruction of
Indonesia's peat swamps as an example of biofuel folly. The swamps are one the
richest stores of carbon on the planet and they are being burned to produce palm
oil.
Pasta Panic Strikes Italy Peter Gumbel
Fortune
November 15, 2007
The story behind the price hike is a
global saga involving agricultural policies, commodity-market speculation, the
growing use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, and Australian drought.
Guatemala: Corn Prices Raise the Specter of Hunger Louisa Reynolds
Latin America Press (Peru) November
15, 2007
a growing appetite for corn-based biofuel
in the US has pushed up the price of corn on the international market, raising
the specter of
a serious food crisis in Guatemala.
A Shortage of Beer? Justin Foss
KCRG-TV (IA)
November 14, 2007 After years of profit-killing surplus,
farmers across the world starting growing other crops, like corn. The fix will
take years because hops come on vines which take time to grow.
Sowing the Seeds of Farming's Future Les FirbankBBC (UK)
November 13, 2007
Global food stocks are running low. There
are three main reasons: increasing use of crops for bio-energy, especially in
the US...
Corn Ethanol: The New Snake Oil
Mother Jones
Nov/Dec 2007
"Our country does not have a
long-term, national policy in place to promote
renewable energy development."
Randall Swisher, AWEA executive director
U.S. Wind Industry Blowing Past Previous Development Records RenewableEnergyAccess.com November 8, 2007
The U.S. wind industry is on track to
complete roughly 4,000 megawatts (MW) of wind projects in 2007, shattering
the 2006 record of 2,454 MW and solidifying wind as a major source of new
power in the country today, according to a new market report from the
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
Where the Candidates
Currently Stand The League of Conservation
Voters
PDF
Color added by RDM
CANDIDATES
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS
FUEL EFFICIENCY
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD
EFFICIENCY TARGETS
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL
Joe
Biden
Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2017
Supports 20% standard by 2020
Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
Opposes investment in liquid coal
Hillary Clinton
Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Supports 55 mpg
fleetwide standard
by 2030
Supports 25% standard by 2025
Supports 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
Utilities must show that demand
cannot be met through efficiency before building new coal plants;
supported investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%
Chris Dodd
Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Supports 50 mpg for cars by 2017
Supports 20% standard by 2020
Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
New coal plants must capture and
store carbon emissions
John Edwards
Supports at least 80% reductions by
2050
Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2016
Supports 25% standard by 2025%
Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
Supports ban on new coal plants
unless they are compatible with carbon capture and storage technology
Rudy Giuliani
No articulated
position
No articulated position
No articulated position
No articulated position
Supports liquid coal
Mike Gravel
Supports cap tied to international
compliance; no target specified
Supports 40 mpg
Supports 20% standard by 2020
Supports upgrading national utility grid
New coal plants must capture and
store carbon emissions
Mike Huckabee
Supports a cap on carbon emissions;
no target specified
Supports 35 mpg
fleetwide
standard by 2020
Supports 15% standard by 2020,
which includes nuclear power
No articulated position
No articulated position
Duncan Hunter
No articulated
position
Opposed 33 mpg in 2005
No articulated position
No articulated position
No articulated position
Dennis Kucinich
Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Supported 33 mpg in 2005
Supports 20% standard by 2010
General support for efficiency; no
target specified
No articulated position
John McCain
Lead author of bill to reduce
emissions 65% by 2050
Supports fuel efficiency increase,
no standard specified
Opposed 10% standard in 2005;
opposed 20% standard in 2002
General support for efficiency; no
target specified
No articulated position
Barack Obama
Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Supports 50 mpg fleetwide standard in 18 years
Supports 25% standard by 2025
Supports 50% reduction in energy intensity by 2030
Supports investing in liquid coal
if it reduces carbon pollution by 10%; will consider standards that ban
new conventional coal plants
Ron Paul
No articulated
position
Opposed 33 mpg in 2005
No articulated position
No articulated position
No articulated position
Bill Richardson
Supports 90% reductions by 2050
Supports 50 mpg fleetwide standard
Supports 30% standard by 2020 and 50% by 2050
Supports 20% increase in energy productivity by 2020
Opposes liquid coal. Supports ban on new coal plants
unless they capture and store emissions
Mitt Romney
Willing to
consider cap on emissions only if enacted globally
Opposes increasing fuel efficiency
standards as stand alone measure
No articulated position
General support for efficiency; no
target specified
THE NEW NUKE FRAUD
BY LABELING NUCLEAR POWER AS "CLEAN," A
CROOKED U.S. CONGRESS ALLOWS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO RAID TAX FUNDS
WITHOUT LIMIT, MAKING THIS BILL A SMOKESCREEN FOR YET ANOTHER EXPENSIVE
AND DANGEROUS ENERGY FRAUD FOISTED ON AMERICANS BY THE SWINDLERS THEY
ELECTED. - RDM
Passage of the energy bill and tax
package rests in the hands of the informal group of about 25 Democrats
from oil and gas-producing states, Republican leadership in the House and
about 5 Democratic Senators and a part of the Republican leadership in the
Senate who are reportedly opposed to the $17 billion of tax increases on
the oil and gas industry that are used to offset the cost of H.R. 2776's
tax incentives that are primarily for renewable energy and energy
efficiency. ...The loan guarantee program however came under fire, since
nuclear power was included as a “clean technology.” Section 9202 in the
House energy bill did not give the nuclear industry $50 billion in loan
guarantees that got play in the national media; however, it prevents
Congressional appropriators from being able to exclude any eligible
project from the guarantees. It does not prevent appropriators from being
able to set a cap on the amount of guarantees that the Department of
Energy (DOE) can give out.
Fluor Corporation announced today
that its Power Group was awarded a contract by Toshiba International
Corporation, a U.S. business unit of the Toshiba Corporation, for
engineering, procurement and construction-related services for two new
nuclear reactors planned for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating
Station in Bay City, Texas. Later this year, STP's 44-percent owner, NRG
Energy, Inc. plans to apply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
a combined construction and operating license to build two Advanced
Boiling Water Reactors, known as STP Units 3 & 4, which will be adjacent
to the two existing reactors (STP Units 1 & 2). NRG announced on Aug. 9,
2007, that it had contracted with Toshiba to provide key reactor
components as well as early engineering, procurement and
construction-related services for these planned reactors. "These two new
reactor units for the South Texas Project could very well be the first new
nuclear power plants built in the United States in more than two decades,"
said Alan Boeckmann, Fluor Corporation's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer.
A catastrophe at a nuclear fission power
plant could make a city uninhabitable -- a total loss. The response to
Hurricane Katrina
reportedly hit $2 BILLION PER DAY. What would the cost be for a
core meltdown such as we almost experienced with the "safe" reactors at
Three Mile Island? Only fools would accept such risk, which is exactly
what the U.S. Congress did in authorizing the Price Anderson Act. -- Richard D. Masters
The liability limit for DOE facilities is $10 billion subject to
adjustments for inflation. In the event of a nuclear incident involving
damages in excess of the limits established in the Act, Congress could
take further actions, including the appropriation of funds.
"Disasters on the scale of the
Chernobyl accident lead to harmful effects on the population, territorial
losses without any military action, and to thousands of billions of
roubles' worth of damage, and are, therefore, hard to justify by the need
for electric power."
Chernobyl, Insight from the Inside
Vladimir M. Chernousenko, Scientific Director of the
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Institute of Physics in Kiev's Task Force
for the Rectification of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident
Three powerful lobbying forces -
automakers, electric utilities and the coal industry - are confounding
Democrats' efforts to forge a less-polluting energy policy. ...The
companies, in letters to senators, argued that the requirement to produce
15 percent of their power from renewable energy sources can't be met
without huge electricity cost increases. ...The coal industry has weighed
in as well, urging support of an alternative that would have included more
efficient coal-burning power plants and nuclear reactors....
Big Energy Stooge Pete
Dominici (R - NM)
to Raid U.S. Renewable Funds
for Nuclear and Coal - RDM
Energy policy is once again up for
debate on Capitol Hill with Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) expected to
introduce an amendment today that would require 15 percent of electricity
generated in the U.S. to come from renewables by 2020. The legislation
will be countered by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who is planning to
offer a "weaker" amendment that defines coal and nuclear as clean energy,
and eligible for renewable credits. A National Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard (RPS) that includes clean coal technologies and nuclear power
will reduce the demand for "genuinely clean" renewables such as wind,
solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal, said Jim Rubens of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. "There's only 15 percent to go around," said Rubens,
adding that nuclear requires huge subsidies and clean coal technologies
are at least 10 years away from being commercial.
Sen. Pete Domenici: Nuclear Renaissance Man
Mike Stuckey MSNBC Jan 24, 2007
Since 1989, Domenici has
received $1.2 million in campaign donations from individuals and
political action committees in the energy and natural resources sector,
well over a tenth of the total $10.8 million he has raised for his
Senate campaigns in that time, according to federal election records.
Electric utilities, with big stakes in the future of nuclear power and
government subsidies for it, kicked in $384,923. The list of Domenici’s
campaign donors includes at least three dozen firms on the membership
roster of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s main lobbying
arm.
We are very concerned
that biofuel expansion is accelerating climate change through
deforestation, ecosystem destruction, peat drainage, soil organic carbon
losses, and the wider effects of increased nitrate fertilization. We do
not believe that life-cycle greenhouse gas assessments, which look at the
micro-level only, can capture those wider impacts. Even at the
micro-level, there is little scientific consensus, and there are large
uncertainties. We are concerned
that biofuel strategies are being developed without any proper risk
analysis having been done: The impacts from the ‘worst case scenarios’
such as the complete destruction of South-east Asia’s peatlands, or the
irreversible die-back of the Amazon forest are of such magnitude that they
clearly are not ‘risks worth taking’. We fear that policies are being
developed based on micro-studies, whilst the wider impacts on the global
climate and on ecosystem have been ignored and risks of potentially
catastrophic impacts, however high or low the probabilities might be, have
not been looked at. In the absence
of proven safeguards which would address not just immediate impacts of
biofuel production, but the wider macros/displacement impacts, too, we
believe that the risks of promoting large-scale biofuel expansion based on
monocultures remain unacceptably high.
NOW
IT'S OUR WAR?
RALPH, GET A CLUE! YOUR WAR IS AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE PROFIT OF FOSSIL
STAKEHOLDERS.
- RDM "There's a war going on against energy from
fossil fuels. I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."
Rep.
lead
again. ...As we stand at this crossroads of history, the
eyes 
America's ill-advised choice to abandon
democratic ideals for access to foreign reserves of petroleum comes at
great cost. The hidden price of oil includes the tremendous expense of
the vast military network that Petroleum Imperialism demands,
accompanied by the terrible risks of global destabilization that
result when populations see their national resource heritage stripped
away by international corporations and their craven puppet regimes.
"Senator
McCain did not show up for the
“Because
Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly ignore its
duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action.”
"Oil! 
"Oil!
CONNECTICUT
GOVERNOR 
"Why
have you stopped sending food?" THE GREAT ETHANOL
FRAUD
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
COLORADO
GEORGIA
FLORIDA
KANSAS
IDAHO
KANSAS
IDAHO
LOUISIANA
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY
NEBRASKA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH
CAROLINA
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
NEVADA
0HIO
PENNSYLVANIA
SOUTH
CAROLINA
OKLAHOMA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
TEXAS
UTAH
WYOMING
ARIZONA
LOUISIANA
