What We Need: Moderation, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Solutions

On a late September morning I walked into the FOX Business studio in New York to sit down with host Stuart Varney and former EPA head Christine Todd Whitman. We were talking about why environmentalists seemed to be increasingly disgruntled as 2010 was coming to a close.

"The environmentalists were disappointed they didn't get all they wanted," I told Varney. "They thought they had a mandate with the president and Congress lined up."

"It's about over-reach and over-expectation," Governor Whitman agreed. "They want the perfect, and if they can't have the perfect they don't want to settle for anything."

Varney turned to me and asked, "Just for the record, you are an environmentalist?"

"Yes, but I'm a practical environmentalist," I answered.

Later in the segment, I expressed my concern that the environment had become a "left issue," pointing out that many of the strides made in protecting the environment had come from the Republican side, including the EPA, and the Clean Air and Water Acts.

"The environment is a universal issue. We all live in the environment. We all care about it," I offered. "But right now, the rhetoric is about panic, it's about crisis, and I don't think the American people are going to respond to that."

Governor Whitman and I share the opinion that we need a more moderate approach on the environment. One that understands what needs to be done and is practical and pragmatic, and doesn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I left the studio and went over to the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers, where I was attending the Clinton Global Initiative, the annual gathering of leaders from government, business, and civil society around the world.

The day before, Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group was in conversation with José María Figueres, former president of Costa Rica. He talked about the need for putting aside the issue of climate change and about investing in clean energy innovation and entrepreneurs.

"Put the idea of whether global warming is real aside," said Sir Richard. "Recognize that we are depleting resources. Demand for oil in 5 years will exceed supply. Even in the recession, the demand for oil hardly dropped. Energy is critical for society, so the demand for clean energy will be enormous. We must invest in alternative fuels."

Innovative alternative fuels like that being developed by one of the start-ups I'd been working with in Philadelphia, BlackGold Biofuels.

Emily Landsburg, BlackGold's CEO, is using a patent-pending technology that turns sewer grease from a municipal pain into a profitable biodiesel product.

Last summer, in an effort to demonstrate how the technology works, BlackGold and researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture turned a hunk of solid fat into biodiesel.

They melted an 800-pound butter sculpture of Ben Franklin that would otherwise go to waste, strained off the water, and added methanol. The chemical bonded to the end of the chains of fatty acids in the lard, which could then be refined into fuel suitable for most diesel engines.

With their first installation in place at a water treatment facility in San Francisco, BlackGold will generate fuel for that city’s bus fleet not from butter, but from sewage fats that now plague municipal systems.

The innovation won accolades from San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, who said the project "will break new ground toward accessible, sustainable energy and serve as a model for the entire state and the country."

Moderation, innovation, efficiency, and entrepreneurial solutions. That's what we need more of if we want to turn our economy around.

Should the EPA Have the Right to Regulate CO2 Emissions? Green Skeptic on FOX Business

I sat down last week with Stuart Varney & Company of Fox Business News to talk about the Senate decision to reject the measure preventing the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions.

Here's the video:




And if your browser doesn't support the player, here is a link: Green Skeptic on FOX Business.

American Voters Want EPA, Not Congress, to Set Standards

Image via WikipediaA new bi-partisan survey released yesterday claims Americans trust the EPA not Congress to protect them from pollution.

The survey was released just one day before the US House of Representatives votes on a bill that would curtail the EPA's ability to protect public health from air pollution.

The American Lung Association (ALA) commissioned the survey, conducted jointly by the polling firms Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (Democrat) and Ayres, McHenry & Associates (Republican).

What they found was that three out of four American voters support the EPA setting tougher standards on specific air pollutants, including mercury, smog and carbon dioxide, as well as setting higher fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks.

Perhaps most relevant to the current debate in Congress, according to the ALA, is that "68 percent of voters oppose Congressional action that impedes the EPA from updating clean air standards generally and 64 percent oppose Congressional efforts to stop the EPA from updating standards on carbon dioxide."

"Voters clearly recognize and respect the role of the EPA in protecting their families from breathing toxic air," said Paul Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association. "They don’t want Congress to interfere with the EPA's authority to take action when lives are clearly at stake."

The House has proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by one third.

"The survey clearly indicates that voters strongly trust the EPA to deal with clean air standards more than Congress," reads a memo from the two pollsters to the ALA. "A bipartisan 69 percent majority believes that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards. This is despite opposing language arguing that our elected representatives in Congress would do a better job than 'unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.'"

The full survey, along with slides and a memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Ayres, McHenry and Associates, can be found here.

Related articles

• American Lung Association Bipartisan Poll Shows Strong Public Support for Lifesaving Clean Air Act (prnewswire.com)
• New poll: the public trusts EPA, loves the Clean Air Act, and wants Congress to butt out (grist.org)
• EPA enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support (sfgate.com)

Green Skeptic Friday LinkFest - 02/11/11

Image via climatechangesocialchange

Welcome to the Friday Fights Edition of Green Skeptic Friday LinkFest!

This week we have a lot of links on controversy. It seems the rhetoric is getting hotter than, well, the weather...if not the climate.

First up, The Economist asks, "Are economists erring on climate change?", which was, in part, a reaction to David Roberts' attack on economists in Grist.

Next, as House Republicans take EPA Chief Lisa Jackson to task, as reported in the New York Times, she responds in this Los Angeles Times story.

While a new report by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts and CERES would seem to confirm EPA's position that their power plant rules will spur job creation, the left think tank Center for American Progress tries to make The Business Case for EPA Rulemaking.

Meanwhile, engineers in the UK urge government to act now to "climate-proof" infrastructure, while climate deniers (I refuse to call them skeptics...) are unpersuaded by extra-warm 2010.  

My colleague from The Energy Collective's Advisory Board, Mark Gunther, sat down with NRG’s David Crane and got some straight talk about energy, and Tyler Hamilton of the Clean Break blog acknowledged Canadian VC Chrysalix Energy as one of most active global cleantech investors in 2010: Canadian Cleantech.

And, finally, Eric Wesoff of Greentech Media pits Bloom Energy vs.Cogeneration and finds that cogeneration can achieve better CO2 reductions than the much-hyped Bloom Box: Lost its bloom?

Have a great weekend everyone!

EPA Delays Enforcement of CO2 Emissions Regulations: The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

This morning I sat down with Stuart Varney & Co on FOX Business to talk about the EPA's decision to delay enforcement of CO2 emissions.  Here's the video:



If the player doesn't work in your browser, here is a link: Green Skeptic on FOX

The EPA @ 40: The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

 I spoke with Charles Payne of Varney & Co. on FOX Business this morning about the 40th Anniversary of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Here's the video:




If the player doesn't work in your browser, here is a link: EPA

Related articles

• End of Carbon Credit Market? The Green Skeptic on FOX Business (thegreenskeptic.com)
• Are Enviros Ditching Dems?: Green Skeptic on FOX Business (thegreenskeptic.com)
• CA Considers Feed-in-Tariff: Green Skeptic on FOX Business (thegreenskeptic.com)
• Spreading the Good Word on Fox Business (ducttapemarketing.com)
• EPA Turns 40: The Top 10 Ways EPA Has Strengthened America (ecopolitology.org)
• EPA Touts 40 Years of Successes, but What Do the Next 40 Hold? (greenbiz.com)