Are Enviros Ditching Dems?: Green Skeptic on FOX Business

I was on FOX Business this morning with Stuart Varney and Governor Christine Todd Whitman talking about why environmentalists are disappointed by the Democrats.

Along with a plea for a moderate, practical approach to the environment and reclaim it as an issue from the extreme.

Here is the video:


And for those whose browser doesn't support this format, here is a link: GS on FOXBiz

Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act

I've been away this week and am just starting to catch up on the news.

Thanks to our friends at The Green Energy Reporter for pointing me to Brad Johnson's analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act from Think Progress/The Wonk Room:

A First Look At The Details Of The Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act

The side-by-side comparison between Obama's Campaign Promises, the Waxman-Markey Bill, and the Kerry-Lieberman Bill is particularly useful.

The full text of the American Power Act is in PDF here: APABill.pdf

The Green Energy Reporter also published some of the reactions to the Bill: Reactions

CleanTechies provides a roll-call of business response to the Bill: Business

And Joe Romm at Energy Collective wrote about the offsets component of the Bill here: Romm

For a take on the Bill's impact on employment, see the Gerson-Lehrman Group's analysis.

Republican Senator James Inhofe also weighed in on the Bill, calling it "the same old cap-and-trade scheme that the Senate has defeated three times since 2003": Inhofe

Will it pass? It is hard to see it mustering the 60 votes needed without the support of Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, who was supposed to be the third sponsor of the Bill, and with the offshore drilling provisions causing Graham and others to pause in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does the New Climate Bill Provide the Answer to Our Environmental Woes or Just More Handouts for Big Energy? (alternet.org)
• Amid Oil Crisis, Kerry Calls for Policy Shift (cbsnews.com)
• John Kerry & Greenpeace Right On The Climate Bill? Yes, Unfortunately (treehugger.com)
• 'Green News Report' - May 13, 2010 (bradblog.com)
• Climate Bill: Kerry, Lieberman Unveil American Power Act (time.com)

Best of Green 2010 Awards: Green Skeptic Nominated

Readers who follow The Green Skeptic on Twitter http://twitter.com/greenskeptic have a chance to vote for me in Treehugger's Best of Green 2010 Awards.

I'm nominated in the category Best Twitter Feed for Business & Politics.

I'm up against some pretty stiff competition, including @kate_sheppard, @drgrist, @HuffPostGreen, and @YahooGreen.

If I provide value to your daily Twitterstream, I hope you'll vote for me. You can vote everyday until April 2nd.

Thanks for your support!

Related articles by Zemanta

• The 16 People You Must Follow on Twitter for Green Business (thegreenskeptic.com)
• TreeHugger's Best of Green 2010: Cast Your Vote Today! (treehugger.com)

Federal Subsidies Visualized

Timothy B. Hurst posted on this earlier this week on The Energy Collective, and it is worth checking out his post and the comments: Think Renewables Need Huge Subsidies?

Cantwell-Collins: Want $100/month with Your Emissions Cuts?

The Cantwell-Collins "cap-and-rebate" climate bill, known as the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act (CLEAR), proposes refunding 75 percent of all revenue collected back to U.S. residents in a monthly check of about $100 per family of four.

Tim Hurst over at Ecopolitology has a good analysis of the bill proposed by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), which they claim would reduce greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. And without the messy offset program that would be hard to monitor and regulate.

As Peter Barnes wrote in On the Commons, Cantwell-Collins provides "a simple, transparent cap-and-dividend system that returns higher carbon prices directly to consumers and allows only minimal carbon trading. It would cap fossil fuel suppliers like Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Coal, rather than emitters like utilities and steel plants, because it's much easier to catch carbon when it enters our economy than when it leaves."

Barnes explains "it would auction all carbon permits and avoid giveaways, market distortions and offsets. And it would put a 'collar' on the price of carbon permits in order to limit market volatility."

Critics of the bill, however, argue that it will be slower to deliver on reducing emissions (see chart) and will leave little revenue left for investments in clean technologies.

This Bill has garnered some interesting support, such as Dr. Kenneth P. Green at the American Enterprise Institute, which may give it a leg-up over the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Climate Bill. But, as Tim Hurst rightly points out, "getting any climate legislation passed before November, 2010 is going to be problematic, to say the least."

Camille Ricketts also takes a hard look at the two Senate proposals in VentureBeat's GreenBeat

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climate bill chaos: Your guide to the two newest proposals (green.venturebeat.com)
• By Degrees: Turning Emissions Disclosure Into Business Virtue (nytimes.com)
• NASA, Google offer more precise emissions tracking (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Fee and Dividend (jcwinnie.biz)
• U.S. climate change needed globally and to create economic opportunity (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Boxing Match in the Senate? Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Being Introduced Today

With Democratic Senators Boxer and Kerry preparing to launch their Climate Bill salvo into the Senate, opponents are gearing up for a fight.

According to USA Today, "Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of climate-change action, predicted the bill won't even be debated on the Senate floor before the end of the year, let alone come up for a vote."

The New York Times reports that "...the 684-page Senate draft bill (pdf) diverges from the House measure in its push for a 2020 emissions target of 20 percent, compared with the House's bill's 17 percent limit.

Both the House-passed bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), and the preliminary Boxer-Kerry proposal contain the same longer-term emissions limits of 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and an 83 percent cut for 2050."

I haven't had a chance to read the Senate draft bill, but will try to have a look at it in the next day or so.

But it sounds like Senators on both sides may want to get out their boxing gloves.

Van Jones From Pillar to Pariah in Six Months

Image via Wikipedia

Six months ago the appointment of Van Jones was widely anticipated and hailed as a win for the new green economy.

On the subject of green jobs, Jones had hopes of being a uniter not a divider, but remarks from throughout his career -- some as recent as a month before his appointment in the Obama administration -- along with some mistakes and questionable affiliations and associations, have brought about his downfall.

Early this morning, Van Jones resigned his position as the so-called "green jobs czar" in the Obama Administration.

Readers of the green skeptic know that I have been a fan of Van Jones' work on the new green economy. His "eco-capitalist" approach is in keeping with how I feel we need to rebuild our economy: focus on alternative energy and clean tech development and create jobs for as many Americans as possible.

I am no apologist for Van Jones. His widely circulated remarks strike me as foolish and hurtful and divisive -- not in keeping with someone who has often said he wants to bring people together to promote clean energy and jobs that bring people out of poverty. And they in no way represent the Jones I know.

But make no mistake: he said what he said. And taken at face value, his statements are pretty damning and, well, just plain dumb.

In February, Jones called Republicans who prevented environmental legislation "a-holes" and, in June 2008, characterized then President Bush as "sounding like a crackhead" addicted to oil. These are the kind of divisive statements made to appeal to the left-leaning audiences to which they were delivered. (Note the cheering crowds in both videos.)

Were Jones a comedian, he might be able to get away with this stuff -- his delivery of the crackhead line and his adlibbing after are actually pretty good stand-up -- we might not think anything of it.

But coming from someone who told the East Bay Express in 2005 that he was "interested in managing conflict with an eye toward maximizing unity," it seems disingenuous at best.

"There's a tradition of very nasty polemics on the left. I've seen it split coalitions, movements, parties," he told the Express reporter. "This is my concern: it's easy to start a fight, it's hard to finish a fight."

So what exactly did Jones have in mind with the comments in the above videos: entertainment value or divisive politics-as-usual? (The irony is that Jones in these two videos comes across as a kind of lefty equivalent of Glenn Beck, the guy who brought him down, fanning the rhetorical flames with sweeping generalizations and personal attacks.)

And whatever he says about it now, the fact is Jones signed the 911 Truth Statement, along with a bunch of other flaming liberals, boomer lefties, and even Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration. Did he know what he was signing? If he didn't read it, why sign it?

His comments on Columbine have been widely shown, but here Jones seems to have been taken out of context.

"You’ve never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never," he says. "They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."

If you watch the entire video, however, his remarks are not racist.

He's actually calling for compassion for troubled young white males who are "suffering in our society and nobody is saying a word about it," and asks "where is the concern, where is the love, where is the compassion for these young men..." and where is the "loving, affirmative male leadership" that will show the "kind of masculinity that is not brittle and or mean-spirited?"

He could have and should have made his point about the alienation and neglect that young people of all colors and backgrounds feel without bringing up such unfortunate comparisons, but he didn't.

Similarly, his comments in the East Bay Express, about his being communist are easily misconstrued.

In the wake of the Rodney King assault trial verdicts, the 25-year-old Jones, who got swept up in mass arrests at demonstrations in San Francisco, fell in with a group of radicals he met in jail who shared his notions of "trying to be a revolutionary."

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

As someone whose opinion I respect said to me last night, it's "hard to dispute someone's own words."

But did he mean he was really a Communist? Did he join the Communist Party?

According to the Express, Jones joined "a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia."

But a decade later, Jones was renouncing the old radicalism of his youth and trying to "present a positive vision Americans can latch onto and vote for," as the Express reporter put it.

"The country is waiting for a movement that inspires people, that doesn't just critique," Jones said. "That's my gut instinct. And when it's resonant, when it's right, people feel how they fit into it. We want a green economy that's strong enough to lift people out of poverty."

In other words, he grew up. This is actually a pretty typical western liberal path: early radicalism, even socialist idealism followed by an awakening of more moderate, free-market leanings and -- sometimes -- followed by an ascent (or fall, depending upon your political persuasion) into neo-conservatism.

The "grown up" Van Jones is the one those of us who believe in the potential of the new green economy embraced and supported. It's too bad the Van Jones that most will remember is the one who is flip and divisive and extreme.

Van made his own bed and must wake up in it. Hopefully, he will learn from his mistakes and renew his commitment to contribute to the vision that inspires and doesn't just critique.

Related articles by Zemanta

• "In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration's conservative critics, Van Jones resigned..." (althouse.blogspot.com)
• A Different Way of Looking at it (krilefiles.blogspot.com)
• Van Jones, the One-Man You Tube Channel (powerlineblog.com)
• A communist in the White House (powerlineblog.com)
• Defending Van Jones from the McCarthyites (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Glenn Beck dives off the conspiracist deep end with nutty guilt-by-association game (crooksandliars.com)
• Fox 'News' Thought Police Win: Van Jones Resigns (bradblog.com)
• Van Jones And Liberal Organizations -- A Key Post At A Key Moment (seeingtheforest.com)
• The Van Jones Story (alan.com)
• Obama adviser forced to resign over remark about Republicans (guardian.co.uk)
• Obama's "green jobs" advisor Van Jones resigns under attack from right-wing (green.venturebeat.com)
• Van Jones goes down swinging (powerlineblog.com)

Van Jones to CEQ: Finally, An Entrepreneur in the White House

Well, it's official, Van Jones will be joining the White Center on Environmental Quality as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. Finally, an entrepreneur in the White House. Perhaps he can things going in the right direction.

"Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President’s agenda of creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources," CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley said in a released statement. "Jones will also help to shape and advance the Administration’s energy and climate initiatives with a specific interest in improvements and opportunities for vulnerable communities

Jones is the founder of Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas. He is also the co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, and was the author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller, The Green Collar Economy.

"Your goal has to be to get the greenest solutions to the poorest people," Jones told Elizabeth Kolbert of the New Yorker in a profile in January. "That’s the only goal that’s morally compelling enough to generate enough energy to pull this transition off. The challenge is making this an everybody movement, so your main icons are Joe Six-Pack—Joe the Plumber—becoming Joe the Solar Guy, or that kid on the street corner putting down his handgun, picking up a caulk gun."

Here, according to the White House, is a video of Van's "official" meeting at the Middle Class Task Force in Philadelphia two weeks ago:



Hopefully, this will be an opportunity for Van to expand his work started with Green for All, making the transition to the new green economy. I wonder about how he'll fair in a government position.

Van has excelled as an entrepreneur, first starting the Ella Baker Center and then Green for All, which requires nimbleness and resourcefulness. The White House hasn't exactly been known for that in the past -- and despite all the talk from Candidate Obama, it hasn't seemed particularly entrepreneurial thus far under President Obama.

> GREEN FOR ALL PRESS RELEASE

> WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE

Congratulations, Mr. Obama. Now Let's Get to Work

I'm not an Obamaniac. I am hopeful about the prospect of our new president, but I get nervous about all the messianic talk surrounding Mr. Obama during and since the election.

(He can't save us alone.)

Today, I am ever proud to be an American. For what electing Mr. Obama says about ourselves, our values, our country, and our ability to be forward thinking, to reinvent America.

And I am hopeful that in reinventing America we can get the new green economy kick-started under Mr. Obama's leadership.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago on this blog, "I hope Mr. Obama isn't setting himself up for failure by trying to bring a compromise to the table before the table has been set or by biting off more than he can chew before dinner is served." The coming weeks will tell.

Tonight, I offer our new president my congratulations and admiration. I continue to be impressed with how he brings people together -- conservatives and liberals alike.

Tomorrow, however, is the time to begin turning all the talk into action. So that one day we can say "Yes, We Did...when it mattered most."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mr. President-Elect, Bring On the New Green Economy, But Be Practical
• What is the New Green Economy?
• Touring the new Whitehouse.gov.
• The Inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President

On Al Gore, Twitter, Puppies, and Bacon (the Food, Not Kevin)

Twitter is an amazing animal. Yesterday, before heading to a meeting with Al Gore, which I wrote about last night, I decided to ask the Twitterverse what they wanted me to ask him.

Here is a sampling of the responses:



Pretty cool to have such a quick response from the Twitterverse. Thanks to everyone who responded.

In the end, I got to ask one question of Mr. Gore and I went with, "Do you think it is possible for traditional industries, such as the auto industry to adapt and change for the new green economy?"

His answer? "Many of us wish they had done so years ago instead of giving Toyota a 7-year lead in hybrid drive-train development," Mr. Gore said. "But I do think there are plenty of opportunities for industries to get on board now -- and those that see it will do so; those that don't will be gone."

Perhaps Mr. Gore will visit the green skeptic and tackle the questions above in Disqus comments, assuming he is a Disqus user.

(Note: As an experiment, I'm using the words Gore, Puppies, and Bacon in the title of this post.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• So Far, Al Gore Is Terrible At Twitter
• Underscore no more: Twitter renames Al Gore

Mr. President-Elect, Bring On the New Green Economy, But Be Practical

Now that the election is over and Americans have selected Barack Obama as our next president, it is time to get back to work.

I'm not going to dwell on the historical heft of this event; many people have and will.

Suffice it to say that, regardless of your politics, you had to be proud to be an American last night. We are truly the land of promise and opportunity.

And it is opportunity that I hope President Obama will focus on when he takes office in January.

Now is the opportunity to transform our economy from one based upon greed, deception, and pollution to one of green, transparency, and solutions.

We heard a lot from both candidates about the new green economy, a new energy economy, during the campaign. Much of it was aspirational and not entirely pragmatic.

As he moves forward with his plans, I'd like Mr. Obama to live up to this statement from his speech last night:

"I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree"

It is time for us to get a realistic path forward for the new green economy, which is the best way to turn this economy around and move America forward again.

But it is important to take pragmatic steps within the limitations of the current economic climate.

We need real answers about how Mr. Obama plans to move this economy toward its green future. The goals he outlined in the campaign -- 5 million jobs and $150 Bn -- may not be realistic in the short term.

But in tempering his ambitious goals, I hope Mr. Obama will stick to his guns on going green.

It is important to our future that we have realistic, measurable goals and strong leadership at this time -- now more than ever -- especially on alternative energy, climate change, and overhauling the financial sector.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Barack Obama First African-American President
• Barack Obama: Reaction from the world's media
• Senator Obama the 44th President - Some of my thoughts
• What Change Should The Web World Expect Now That Obama Has Won?
• Technology in the Obama Era

On McCain, Obama, Energy & the Environment

(This post is the text from a talk I gave today at St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church in Philadelphia, as part of their Election '08 Forum.)

I've spent the past few weeks researching John McCain and Barack Obama on the issues of energy and the environment. I've looked at their published platforms, reviewed their speeches and debate appearances, and scanned the opinions of a gaggle of pundits.

And, after all that research, I'm reminded of a TV commercial from the 70s, the one with the French chef comparing margarine and butter. "There is no differ-ance…" he exclaimed.

Well, there's not exactly no difference between the two on energy and the environment, but the similarities outweigh the differences, with the differences mostly in the details and ideology.

Senators McCain and Obama have been talking the good talk in terms of the environment. And their focus on energy independence has, along with last summer's high gas prices, raised awareness about the need for alternatives, including wind, solar, and even clean coal and nuclear.

McCain and Obama both support a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions, which uses a limit on carbon emissions to force reductions and provides emissions permits (or the right to emit CO2) to be traded between sources.

McCain would give away some of the carbon credits, while Obama wants to auction the credits off to the highest bidder. Both would use profits from the sale of credits for investments in clean energy technologies.

Both candidates acknowledge that "human-caused climate change is real and urgent," which has some expecting a sea-change in climate legislation, green energy investments, and leadership on setting a new global climate agreement.

Critics of Senator Obama say that he has not yet put forth any major legislation or initiative on the environment, while Senator McCain was the lead sponsor of the first climate change legislation, McCain-Lieberman, which called for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain is still a leader in this regard, calling for 60 percent reductions by 2050; Obama wants an 80 percent reduction in that same time frame, which is closer to the UN recommendation.

I'm not sure setting the higher target -- or even McCain's lower target – is feasible early in the next administration, so we may see them change their positions once elected.

On a number of issues, McCain and Obama have already backtracked on earlier positions. Obama originally opposed offshore drilling; he later embraced it when it was clear a majority of Americans were in favor. McCain has long opposed renewable energy tax credits, which provide incentives for renewable energy generation, but voted for them in the $700B bailout package. (His objection, apparently, is not to the concept, but the structure of the existing tax credits.)

Back in May, McCain said offshore drilling would have little impact on gas prices; by the convention he was chanting "Drill Baby Drill." Obama also initially supported subsidies for ethanol; in part, to please his corn-rich state of Illinois. He now says he would consider withdrawing that support if it proves to have negative impact on food prices.

Both candidates support drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska's Central North Slope – the 23 million acres set aside by President Harding in 1923 as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy. And they both oppose drilling in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge on the eastern end of the slope. (Governor Palin vows to "work on John" about ANWR, but I don't think she'll get very far with it – he's long been against this political hot potato.)

Surprisingly, Obama and McCain have both come out in support of clean coal technologies. This is something many environmentalists are strongly against and may be another issue where the candidates could reverse their position once elected. "Clean coal" has a lot of baggage – even within the utility industry, with its haphazard approach to exploring options such as Carbon Capture and Storage, Coal-to-Liquid conversion, and scrubbers for existing coal plants.

All three approaches are expensive, unproven propositions; environmentalists argue the money is better spent on renewables.

Then there is nuclear. McCain is calling for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, with an ultimate goal of 100. Setting aside the unresolved questions about waste storage, which is an area in need of serious investment, in my opinion, this position is not without controversy. (McCain, by the way, supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility in Nevada; Obama opposes it.)

Energy analysts who have looked at McCain's goal think it wildly ambitious, given the costs to build such plants, permitting hurdles, opposition, and the time frame for construction. Obama is willing to consider nuclear as part of the mix, but wants to emphasize renewables.

Obama is equally ambitious when he claims "we can create 5 million new jobs, easily," if we subscribe to his proposed investment of $150B over ten years in clean energy and infrastructure. A worthy goal and one that is not without some research to back it up. But I'm not sure how this can be paid for, especially with recently high levels of government spending associated with the "Surge" and "Splurge" – the war in Iraq and the bailout.

One area that has been only tacitly addressed and could potentially have the largest impact on meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets and stimulating the economy is energy efficiency. Unfortunately, efficiency is about as sexy as Jimmy Carter's cardigan sweater, thus the candidates have not been talking about it on the Campaign Trail. Nevertheless Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute and others have argued that efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama and McCain both want to set building efficiency goals. Obama proposes weatherizing 1 million low-income homes annually and McCain wants to start by "greening" the federal government, which has over 3.3 B square feet of offices.

Obama also wants to expand the federal grant program to help states and municipalities build more efficient schools, libraries and police stations that adopt the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles. He also wants to get rid of traditional incandescent lights by 2014, which should be a boon to CFL and LED producers.

Both support efforts to improve the grid and increase percentages of electricity from renewables: Obama envisions 25% of consumer electricity coming from renewables by 2025 (renewables recently topped 10%, according to the Energy Information Association) and McCain has commented that wind could provide 1/5 of electricity supply by 2030 with the right tax credit structure.

On automobiles, McCain has voted against Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, while Obama supports raising and perhaps doubling those standards (currently 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks) over the next 20 years.

And, finally, the two candidates don't see eye-to-eye on two environmental tax issues: renewal of the Superfund clean-up tax on polluting industries (McCain = nay; Obama = yea) and Obama's proposed Windfall Profits Tax, taking "excess" profits away from oil companies to support alternatives and offer a "rebate" to individuals and couples ($500/1000) to help offset fuel costs.

In the end, there are a lot of overlaps in their positions, with a few critical differences, mostly in the details or ideology. It is clear that the potential for leadership on energy and the environment is the strongest since Clinton and Nixon.

Both candidates believe that climate change is an urgent issue, are committed to energy independence and investments in alternatives, and want to make green jobs a reality. Senator McCain has long been a conservationist, in the Teddy Roosevelt Republican mold, and Senator Obama has been engaged in environmentally friendly proposals since his time in the Illinois Senate.

The big question is the economy. There are troubling signs that the double edged sword of the economy and war may impede progress on the environment and a new energy economy in the coming administration. Oil could go as low as $50/barrel before it bounces back, which it will, and the financial crisis is likely to drag on, if it hasn't already moved from Recession to Depression.

Unfortunately, the environment and all things green tend to thrive in positive economic times; it is still considered a luxury issue. That may all change if oil and gas supplies have indeed hit peak – Russia, Norway, and Saudi Arabia are all in decline -- if the impacts of climate change begin to be felt more acutely, and, frankly, if we can demonstrate that the best way to rebuild our economy is to do it around something more sustainable than new home sales, consumer spending, toxic mortgages, and credit default swaps.

In my view, the next President must stay the course in his pursuit of a new green economy, but be realistic about costs and timing. Right now, we've heard mostly platitudes.

Practical solutions exist and we need to accelerate the adoption of low-carbon energy sources, raise efficiency standards to spur development of energy efficient products, and improve the electricity grid and energy infrastructure. This will require a laser-like focus on the lowest cost solutions and make trade-offs where necessary.

In the end, policy action is only a partial solution, innovation and entrepreneurship is critical. We can't expect the government to do it all – especially now that they are taking over the entire financial services sector.

Let's hope the next president, whoever he is, heeds the words of Oxford professor Steve Rayner, to paraphrase, "We don't need a silver bullet, but rather silver buckshot" to tackle these issues.

We need to make the environment and energy part of the economic and national security agenda. I think Senators McCain and Obama both realize this; and whoever wins on November 4th will set aside platitudes for pragmatism.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Synopsis of the Energy Plans of Presidential Candidates Barack Obama and John McCain
• To green the Capitol, lawmakers follow tech titans
• U.S. government giving 'green' buildings a boost
• Obama or McCain: environmental voting records in Congress

O, Canada! There's an Important Election Up North, Too, for Clean Tech

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeFor Canadian Thanksgiving (and because I'm busy with consulting work today and it's a holiday here in the States), I'm going to reblog one of my favorites Canadians Tyler Hamilton's assessment of the Canadian political race (they vote for Prime Minister tomorrow) and the prospects for cleantech and action on climate change.

Tyler recommends Canadian voters choose Liberal Party candidate Stéphane Dion over Conservative incumbent Stephen Harper or even the Green Party, which found some candidates backing out or even backing Dion.

In Tyler's opinion, Dion represents the best hope for clean energy and infrastructure development in the North Country. Read his full column in the Toronto Star (link here or below) for details.

Happy Thanksgiving, Canada! The world can be a crazy place, but we do — in the big picture — have much to be thankful for. Enjoy the time with family and friends, and a week of turkey dinner leftovers.

Today I’ll just post a link to my Clean Break column, which argues that green-minded Canadians heading to the polls tomorrow would be best to vote for the federal Liberals if they hope to see any action on climate change and development of a cleaner, more energy-efficient economy. Now is the time to begin taxing pollution and using that money to tackle poverty, stimulate the economy, and ultimately help Canadian households and businesses operate more efficiently, while at the same time accelerating green innovation that could serve us at home and others abroad.

From the perspective of a green-technology advocate, one could just as easily support the Green Party and, to a lesser extent, NDP on this issue, but the Liberals are the most likely to defeat the federal Conservatives, which have proven in their two years of power that they don’t take green job creation or climate change seriously. This is an important federal election, coming at a time when even the U.S. is likely to vote in a new president — i.e. Obama — who has declared energy and green-economy building as his top priority. -- Tyler Hamilton, Clean Break

Tyler is senior technology reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. His bi-weekly column, Clean Break, is the basis of a blog of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A vote for NDP is a vote for Harper: Dion
• Canada crunch
• Dion attacks Harper's 'conservative ideology'
• Networks exclude Elizabeth May from TV debates

Liars, Pimps, and Thieves. Congress Strikes Again.

Image via WikiIt's bad enough they pimped affordable housing and encouraged lending institutions to give excessive mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

Then they played partisan politics with the financial markets and said to hell with Main Street. (Hey, I have problems with the bailout plan, too; I like Fred Wilson's suggestion on A VC last week.)

Now Congressional leaders are holding renewable energy tax credits hostage.

Who are these people and how did they get elected?

I'm not taking any party sides here, it's happening on both sides of the aisle. They are both to blame.

As The New York Times reported this morning, "The House and the Senate are caught up in a bitter fight over legislation to extend various expiring provisions of federal tax law. The tax breaks for renewable energy are not controversial. But in the current debate, they are tied to many other tax breaks for businesses and individuals, including an extension of the tax credit for research and development, expansion of the child tax credit and relief from the alternative minimum tax, which threatens to snare millions of middle-income families next year."

Tax credits for investing in solar energy and producing wind energy will expire in December unless the stalemate is broken. And that can lead to more jobs lost -- at a time when the country is facing massive layoffs associated with the collapse of the credit market.

Now is the time to act on something that can continue the momentum of investment in renewable energy and in the new green economy.

But instead, Congress is getting caught up in debate and posturing.

"Congress is furthering our dependence on foreign sources of energy — dirty, polluting sources of energy," Rhone Resch, president of the trade group Solar Energy Industries Association, told the Times. "It's scaring away investment, just as our industry is beginning to get a toehold. Solar projects are already being delayed."

The legislation also provides incentives for homeowners and home builders to adopt more energy efficient practices.

"Our members build homes that are significantly more energy efficient than those of a generation ago," Jerry M. Howard, executive vice president of the National Association of Home Builders, told the Times. "But in today's economic climate, home builders need incentives to spur them to even more action."

We need real leadership on this issue in Washington, but it is folly to expect we'll get it from the children playing playground politics in the two chambers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is US renewable tax credit saga finally nearing its end?
• In Easing Offshore Drilling Ban, House Also Expands Energy Exploration Onshore
• Wind, Solar Investments In Jeopardy As Tax Credits Are Set To Expire

If Oil Tumbles Lower, Will It Take Green Energy with It?

This is not a bottle of Talisker.
Image via WikipediaToday is Monday, September 29, 2008, a day that will live, well, infamy is not harsh enough for it...the bottom fell out and the Dow dropped to 10,365.45, -777.68 (or -6.98 percent.)

Meanwhile, November crude fell $10.52, or 9.84 percent, to settle at $96.37 a barrel, trading from $95.04 to $106.91.

Could we be heading for $80/barrel? And, if so, what then?

Will it take renewable energy with it?

Or will there be enough of a bounce from renewable energy tax credits to keep up momentum? (That is, if Congress gets back to the energy tax credits Bill again this session! See "Lame Duck and Cover" below.)

Will $80/barrel oil cause a splurge that sends demand sky high and the price back up with it?

And what happens to the new green economy now?

These are just a few of the questions with which I am wrestling this afternoon.

And now to pour that glass of Talisker.

(Note: The photo above is decidedly not a bottle of Talisker.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rep. Jerry McNerney: Spotlight on the House: Now is the Time for Renewable Energy Tax Credits
• Lame duck and cover
• US Energy Sources and American Use of Energy
• Stocks Fall Off Cliff, Dow Dips 777 Points

Clean Tech: Why Some Believe McCain is Best Choice for Clean Tech Investors

Image by Getty Images via Daylife This is not a political blog and I am not going to make an endorsement of either the Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin ticket. (Not yet, anyway.) Cop-out? Nada. Why?

I am decidedly Independent, with a capital "I." I've never been a party man and have never voted a straight party ticket or platform. I have friends on both sides of the aisle -- and more who are in the middle, like the majority of Americans. I have both moderate-Republican (Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite president) or Reagan-Dem leanings (Lincoln and Jefferson share second place).

I believe in free and fair trade; am for free market capitalism and early supports (credits, incentives) for market creation. I think the playing field should be level; so, if we're going to give huge subsidies to one group in a sector, the others should be given the same or similar benes, or no one should. I believe in the production tax credit and am against a windfall profit tax (better to just get rid of the oil subsidies).

I am a globalist who wants to see America lead the new green economy. I believe the US was right not to ratify Kyoto Protocol without concessions from China and India; but I also believe that those countries deserve to accelerate their economies by virtually any means necessary to get their people out of poverty. (And further, I think they can leapfrog their way to it without destroying their environment.)

I also believe that we need a multitude of solutions, what British economists Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner called a "silver buckshot" rather than "silver bullet" approach to energy independence and reducing climate change risks and impacts.

That means wind and nuclear; solar and natural gas; biofuels and clean coal; cellulosic and corn-based ethanol; smart grid and more oil drilling; it means hybrid electric vehicles and stricter CAFE standards; it means a tax credit for R&D and promoting energy efficiency.

In other words, as is true with my politics, it's not an either/or question, but an and/both question.

Which is why I was intrigued by Neal Dikeman's assertion in his Cleantech Blog that the McCain-Palin ticket is the best choice for cleantech investors.

Wow, how can that be? From what I've heard, Obama has the most aggressive energy plan going. He will (according to his website)

• Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

How can McCain beat that?

Dikeman calls Obama's plan the "shiny copper penny" plan, by which he may be referring to the negotiator's art of persuading your opponent to take the nice shiny copper penny and give you the wrinkled old paper money, which has more value.

His conclusion? That while Obama's plan is indeed the most aggressive, that is also one of its faults. Dikeman argues that Obama's plan puts green goals ahead of costs to the economy or the American people and has the US tackling climate change solo, rather than bringing the world together to solve it.

He also notes that Obama has a "very limited resume of actually authoring any legislation on energy or the environment; no experience in domestic energy policy; and was anti-drilling (or was until he realized that like two-thirds of Americans support it)."

Obama, in Dikeman's view "supports [a] climate change plan that would represent a wealth transfer from the central US to the coasts and result in a several hundred billion dollar per year new tax on energy (that's on the order of the Iraq war size)."

On the other hand, McCain's platform includes

• Expanding domestic oil exploration;
• Promoting and expanding the use of domestic supplies of natural gas;
• Changing how we power our transportation sector;
• Becoming a leader in a "New International Green Economy";
• Committing US$2B annually to advancing clean coal technologies;
• Constructing 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with ultimate goal of 100;
• Creating a permanent Tax Credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D;
• Proposing a Cap-and-Trade system that sets limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions while encouraging development of low-cost compliance options;
• Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration.
• Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.
• Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil , but not imposing a windfall profits tax.

Dikeman's conclusion? McCain's "energy plan is balanced, focuses on the force multiplier's like R&D tax credits, batteries, and smart grid, and cleaning up cheap domestic resources like gas, coal, nuke, and ethanol, not the shiny copper pennies like a US Venture Capital Fund, PHEVs, and cool sounding names like 25x25." (Wow, tell us how you really feel, Neal!)

He also notes that McCain is the "only candidate to actually author a climate change bill...[and has] picked a VP with lots of domestic energy experience (the state of Alaska is basically an oil company) who while pro drilling is not pro Big Oil."

Where Dikeman faults McCain is for his spotty legislative record on environmental protection and the fact that he hasn't pushed CAFE to the extent that he should. McCain could also be more aggressive on the production tax credit, according to Dikeman; where Obama supports a five-year extension.

The bottom line, according to Dikeman, a founding partner at the boutique merchant bank focused on cleantech sector, Jane Capital Partners LLC, and chairman of Cleantech.org, is that McCain's plan gets "the crown on energy and cleantech, because it's real and focuses on the long term force multipliers that will keep us competitive, clean and safe in the most economic manner, not Obama's shiny copper penny plan."

Read more at: http://snurl.com/3ofkc

What do you think?

Global Climate Change: Times' Kristof Challenges Bush and Candidates on Climate

Nicholas Kristof challenges President Bush's latest statement about climate change in today's New York Times. According to his Facebook page, he was inspired to write the opinion piece by a recent study in the journal Nature, titled "Dangerous Assumptions" by Roger Pielke, Jr, Tom Wigley, and Christopher Green.

"Imagine if President Bush announced a plan for Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs that declared: They will cease accumulating nuclear weapons by 2025. We will accomplish this through incentives and voluntary action, without mandates.

"Mr. Bush would be ridiculed, but in essence, that’s the plan he announced for climate change on Wednesday. He set a target for halting the growth in carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, without specific mandates to achieve that, and in the meantime he blasted proposed Senate legislation for tougher measures as unnecessary.

"Unnecessary? When scientists detect accelerating melting in the Arctic and confidently predict centuries of coastal retreats and climate shifts, endangering the only planet we have?"

Kristof closes his piece with a call for a new green economy, even if he doesn't call it that:

"So the next president should start a $20 billion-a-year program (financed by a pullout from Iraq) to develop new energy technologies, backed by a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. Each of the presidential candidates favors some form of a cap-and-trade and would mark a step forward from President Bush’s passivity — although John McCain’s recent proposal for a summer holiday from the gas tax would be a deplorable step in exactly the wrong direction, unless he hopes to turn his land in Arizona into coastal property.

"The bottom line is that none of the candidates focus adequately on climate change, for this will be one of humanity’s great tests in the coming decades — and so far we’re failing."

Read the full opinion piece here: Kristof

Clean Tech: Bush Speech; Economy Can't Dim Solar's Bright Rising Star

Venture Beat's Chris Morrison reported yesterday on President George Bush's "environmental speech," indicating that "despite a lack of any real substance, Bush’s speech gave several cleantech stocks a substantial boost."

"The most notable of Bush’s statements," according to Venture Beat, "was that greenhouse gas emissions within the United States should peak in a decade or so, with a total halt in their growth in 2025 and a decline thereafter. Bush also stated that the United States would join an international accord and commit to binding targets if other countries, including developing economies like China and India, also do so."

Bush also suggested that "instead of the climate bills currently on the table, a combination of incentives and caps should be used to avoid 'harming the economy' as legislation forcing emissions cuts would — in effect, a suggestive nudge for industries, rather than an aggressive push. He also noted that a federal approach is needed, rather than state-by-state rules."

Meanwhile, VB's Jeremy Jaquot suggested that "while the market for silicon solar panels appears to be growing at a healthy clip, several factors could either retard or speed its development. A worldwide silicon shortage, government investment credits, energy prices and the existing financing and installation models for solar panels are all in flux. But recent developments in all of those sectors suggest a positive outlook for the sector.

"The Senate’s recent approval of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, which will provide an additional $20 billion to fund renewable energy projects, could, if ratified by both the House and president, encourage further investment. The House passed its own standalone bill, H.R. 5351, to renew an existing tax credit for renewable energy sources set to expire at the end of this year; the bill had previously been struck down twice by the president and faced resistance within the Senate, because it pulled investment credits away from oil companies.

"Supporters in the Senate are applying pressure toward ratification of the new bill, but the lack of a clear funding source for the credits puts it at risk both before the House. However, if passed, the measure will give solar manufacturers and installers a 30% investment tax credit and provide up to $500 to consumers looking to invest in energy-efficient products for their homes."

Read the complete articles: Here and here.

Global Climate Change: World Bank Eyes Global Warming and Clean Tech With New Fund

Readers of this blog know that I'm a WB cynic (and I'm not talking the TV network). I'm not much of a fan of World Bank-directed solutions to the world's most pressing problems. If you haven't read White Man's Burden by William Easterly, you should, and you'll understand why.

So perhaps that's why I'm not jumping for joy at the announcement on Friday that "poor countries will soon receive billions of dollars from a new World Bank fund to help them cut pollution, save energy and fight global warming."

Industrialized (or post-industrialized?) countries like the US want developing countries to do their share to dramatically reducing their emissions. Developing countries want financial help to cut their growing emissions. And there's an obvious gulf between the two positions.

I believe developing countries should be allowed to develop their economies without too much interference from the likes of us. That said, why should those same countries have to do it the old fashioned way?

As with mobile phones and wireless networks, we should encourage developing countries to leapfrog tired, polluting and otherwise wasteful technologies for something better, cleaner, brighter -- and maintain their economic growth.

If the World Bank fund focuses on supporting "publicly and privately financed projects that deploy technologies that can cut emissions, increase efficiency and save energy in developing countries," as the US, British, and Japanese finance ministers said in the Financial Times on Friday, then great. If it goes the way of other World Bank interventions, then we're in trouble. At least the WB seems to be learning from its mistakes.

President Bush will cough up some of the US$2bn that he pledged last month to augment the World Bank clean technology fund, which will be combined with US$1.5bn more from the UK, and at least some of the US$10bn that Japan announced in January, according to Hank Paulson and his colleagues Alistair Darling and Fukushiro Nukaga.

"Without moving growth on to a cleaner technology path, climate change could have a devastating impact on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people," wrote the 3 Tenors of Finance in FT. "The fund will be an important step towards meeting the challenge of creating an environmentally sustainable path to prosperity."

The World Bank says it will establish "a strategic climate investment facility that would accelerate and scale up low carbon and climate-resilient investments in developing countries."

Let's hope the fund focuses on appropriate, local solutions for leapfrogging rather than the large-scale planning exercises we've come to expect from the WB.

Clean Tech: Sen. Finance Committee Adds Renewable Energy Tax Credits to Stimulus Bill

Last Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee included measures to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable energy through the end of the 2009 in its version of an economic stimulus package originally proposed by President Bush.

Under the Committee's bill, wind companies would receive a tax credit, currently 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, for each new wind turbine that goes into operation through 2009.

The tax credit, which also would apply to electricity from solar, geothermal and other sources as well as energy-efficiency rebates, would cost approximately US$5.5 billion. The measures were introduced to the committee by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).

"Renewable energy production depends on investment," Grassley said. "Investors need certainty. They won't put their money out for a wind energy facility unless there's a reasonable expectation that tax incentives will continue into the future. For energy needs and for economic growth, we need to continue renewable energy provisions without interruption."

The bill would also extend for one year a credit, equal to 30 percent of qualifying expenditures, for the purchase for qualified photovoltaic (PV) property and solar water heating property used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming pools and hot tubs.

The proposal extends the energy-efficient existing homes credit, extends the tax credit for the production of energy efficient appliances for two years, extends a credit to holders of clean renewable energy bonds, includes a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings, a credit for the construction of new energy-efficient homes and a credit for residential energy efficient property.

It is being reported that the Finance Committee's version of the stimulus package bill may face opposition in the Senate and from the White House.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) applauded the Finance Committee bill. According to AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher, the bill will be a benefit to wind industry.

"The extension of the production tax credit (PTC) is urgently needed to protect tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing and construction jobs and create tens of thousands more, and to keep investment flowing into one of the fastest-growing and brightest sectors of our economy: renewable electricity," Swisher said.

"We urge the full U.S. Senate to move quickly to adopt the Finance Committee stimulus package that includes the PTC extension," Swisher continued. "Rapid action is pivotal if wind, solar and other renewable energy industries are to continue to grow, attract large-scale manufacturing investment and create jobs for Americans across the country."

Update: A vote in the Senate on the package has been delayed until next week. The Senate will wait until after the Super Tuesday primaries as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are all currently campaining in thier bids for the presidency. -- from Renewable Energy Access