Tag: Energy Policies

A New Path To Bi-Partisanship

In case you are wondering…..Hell is in the process of freezing over!

That is the buzz word for Washington….Dems say they are trying to form an alliance with the Right….the Right accuses the Dems of NOT working in a bi-partisan way…..bi-partisanship….will it ever change?

Well, a quick answer is yes…it will…..I know…How can I say that with all the polarization in the nation’s capital?

Hebert and Cappiello of the AP have reported:

Senators trying to craft bipartisan climate legislation offered a revised proposal Thursday that would add incentives for building nuclear power plants and open the way for expanded oil and gas drilling off the nation’s coastlines in hopes of attracting wider support.The new framework for a Senate climate bill would ease back requirements for early reductions of greenhouse gases. It calls for cuts in the range of 17 percent by 2020, instead of 20 percent, similar to reductions already approved by the House and what Obama will call for at an international climate conference in Copenhagen.

The senators said the bill would include tax credits and a substantial increase in government loan guarantees for building nuclear reactors as well as some streamlining of the reactor permitting process. Currently loan guarantees for new reactors — which can cost $9 billion or more each — are limited to a total of $18.5 billion, and even those have yet to be awarded by the Energy Department.

The framework provided only a broad view of what a compromise bill would include with details to emerge early next year. But it reflects a widespread view that the climate bill that advanced out of committee in early November would need to be significantly revised for any hope of getting bipartisan support from at least 60 senators.

Are the Dems this desperate that they will water down an important bill just so they can say it was bi-partisan?  Or is it just an attempt to make the delegates think that the Washington crowd is serious about climate change?  Once again there are the ever present tax breaks….that seems to be the standard answer for all the country’s problems….tax breaks and the sun will shine again……personally, I think all this is pure manure!

A new path to bi-partisanship?  Why not?  The majority has been a limp penis so far….why take your Viagra now?  God forbid that the people doing the most damage to the climate should have to pay to repair it….hell that would be down right Un-American!

The Energy Debate

The next great side show coming from Washington will be the energy bill….after the health debate runs its course then energy will replace it as the stuff lies are built on…will it be the same as the health debate?  Or will it be a civil discussion?  It will most likely be a lot of things but civil is not one of them.

I would like to help my readers be prepared for the song and the dance of the next “great” debate…..ENERGY.

But I will bet that you, my reader, is asking what is the debate going to be?  A good question and I have a good answer for you.  There are three plans that should be considered; one from the Dems, then one from the GOP and then l;astly the yellow dogs…oh my bad the Blue Dogs……

First, the Dems plan:

The most aggressive provision in the legislation aimed at curtailing U.S. oil consumption is language requiring auto manufacturers to build cars that use less fuel. But the language requiring an increase in corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards for vehicles and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020s is expected to face fierce opposition from Democratic lawmakers hailing from Michigan, home to the domestic auto industry.

The bill’s other significant provision would ramp up the federal renewable fuels mandate enacted in the 2005 energy bill and require 36 billion gallons of renewable biofuels to replace fossil fuels in the nation’s fuel supplies annually by 2022. The current standard sets a goal of 8.5 billion gallons per year in 2008.

The biofuels proposal would also move production away from corn-based ethanol, which was the big winner under the Republican-drafted biofuels agreement. The legislation would require cellulosic ethanol alternatives that rely on grasses and agricultural waste to be used to meet 60% of the increase in renewable fuel production in 2022.

The bill contains a host of other modest conservation and efficiency measures that would improve energy efficiency for light bulbs and home appliances, encourage research for so-called clean-coal technology, and set a national goal for reducing gasoline consumption.

The bill is also noteworthy for what it doesn’t contain — language addressing climate change and a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Democrats have steadfastly pushed for climate-change provisions in past Republican energy bills.

This bill is similar to the health bill and the financial bill…it is a tweak not a REFORM.

Then we move on to the plan of the GOP…..their proposal is called the American Energy Act:

Both the Presidential and Congressional moratoriums were lifted last year and the previous Administration published a draft leasing program to lease previously unavailable Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas. The current Administration has delayed the draft leasing program. This bill would put the leasing program in place immediately to facilitate the environmentally responsible development of these additional OCS areas.

Directs the Interior Secretary to establish a competitive oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic Coastal Plain to be conducted in an environmentally-sound manner. The bill repeals a prohibition against the production of oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Before conducting the first lease sale, the Secretary would prepare a NEPA impact statement with respect to the actions authorized by this subtitle.

Requires the Secretary to hold a lease sale within 180 days of enactment, offering 10 parcels for lease for research, development, and demonstration of oil shale resources, under the terms offered in the solicitation of bids published on January 15, 2009.

Allows the EPA Administrator to authorize financial assistance to facilitate the hiring of personnel with experience in fields relevant to consideration of Federal refinery authorizations. A Federal agency would also be able to provide technical, legal, or other nonfinancial assistance to a State or tribe to facilitate its consideration of Federal refinery authorizations.

Provides competitively awarded cash prizes to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of innovative energy technologies and new energy sources. The bill allows funding for the prizes to come from appropriated funds, provided by the administering entity, or funds raised through grants or donations. The bill prohibits the Federal government from being entitled to any intellectual property rights derived as a consequence of awarding a prize. The bill requires that a portion of the funds in the American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund be available to carry out the prize program. Finally, the bill prohibits any prize money from being taxed by any Federal, State, or local authority.

Authorizes an accelerated regulatory process for new reactor applicants, which meet certain conditions, in order to cut the time needed to permit new plants by roughly 50 percent. Under the two-year program, eligible applications must:

Include a design already certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC);

Include a site at a location already licensed for operating reactors,

Be submitted by an operator in good standing with the NRC;

Have a full and complete Combined Operations and Construction License application; and

Demonstrate a financial commitment to secure long-lead components.

Expands an existing energy investment tax credit for renewable energy equipment to include nuclear and clean-coal equipment. The bill clarifies that no “double benefit” can be received by collecting both the investment tax credit and the existing production credit for nuclear power.

There you go Repubs are heavy on helping the oil industry retain its strangle hold on the economy and as usual, there is the proposal for tax cuts and incentives.  And as usual they are in the pocket of the nuke industry.

Even Obama is talking about clean coal….there is NO such thing….one can try to clean up the emissions but NO coal is clean burning.  The term “clean coal” is referring to the technology of controlling the emissions.

Analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF) of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed in the House, explained why the bill is so popular. Provisions in the bill designed to offset higher energy prices for typical consumers would reduce energy bills by $63 billion between 2012 and 2020, if implemented this year.
According to recent media reports, right-wing led business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have financed congressional lobbying and national media campaigns to block the bill, claiming that controlling pollution would harm profit margins.

The impact of this multi-million dollar campaign has been felt. A Senate version of the climate change bill excludes mandatory renewable energy standards. And in a call for “bipartisanship,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., is pushing for a climate change bill far weaker than the bill he supported in the last session of Congress and that provides major exceptions for the coal and nuclear energy sectors.
A recent survey released earlier this month revealed that more than six in 10 voters in the home states of 16 Senators who may cast key votes on climate change legislation support a bill like the one already passed by the House of Representatives. Voters also said they would be likely to vote for their Senator in the 2010 elections if they voted for such a bill.

My point is when this debate heats up it will be an argument for  retaining coal or helping the environment…the health bill and debate may be a precursor to the next great debate…ENERGY.

Should We Tweak Or Reform?

My post was originally posted on Progressive Independence, which is a good sight and all should visit and get involved…..just go to blogroll and enjoy.

Health Care….this one subject is at the heart of the country right now…..72% of the American people want reform and about none of the politicians seem to want reform…now they are playing the cowards game of tweaking the system so that it will play well in Congress.

$3.66 trillion budget deficit…..or is it a $2 trillion….or $1.2 trillion…just what is the deficit and when does it get out of control?  Or do you really care?  I mean your elected officials are telling the country that you care….but do do you?

Our country is in serious straits noe…health care needs fining…..Wall Street needs to be bitch slapped…..the environment needs fixing….lots of problems need fixing…..why?…they ALL have been ignored for decades and now it is come calling.

If you are old enough…think back to the ’70’s there were a wealth of plans to help make the US energy independent….but they were not popular with the new administrations so the problem was tweaked, if anything was done at all.  The in the 90’s health care was important and instead of refom and fixing the problem…all settled for a tweaking and the problem got worse….which seems to be a common thread to ALL Washington’s past tweakings.

Politician’s always settle for a tweaking instead of a real solution to pressing problems.  Why?  A wealth of reasons….keeping contributors happy….looking to re-election…..there is a number of reasons….and NONE of them actually helps the people they represent.  And unfortunately, all the tweaking has cost more money in the “much mentioned” long run than it would have if they had had the guts to pass real reform.

Basically all the BS about the deficit is a smoke screen to cover the cowardice of the elected representatives.  Yes, I said cowardice!  Tweaking is a coward’s way out.

If the American people truly want reform then they need to find politicians with guts and brains….two qualities that are sadly missing in the flock of cowards we now have in Washington.

Palin Inserts Herself

A Daily Agitation

Our fav right wing nut, Sarah Palin,  is trying to insert herself into the national dialog, she has written an editorial for the Washington Post.  She is trying to help set policy but so far she is a failure.  And why would she want to use the “elite” press to make her point unless she had broader plans for hewr future.  I guess she began with an energy statement since she was the governor of a state with lots of oil, she dealt with oil companies and all that somehow makes her an authority on energy issues.

In an op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post, she critiques the energy plan that President Obama and Democratic allies in Congress are pushing through.

After reading her op-ed one will see that she used a 1000 words to say “no”.  She is a true Repub….she is turning a complex issue like the cal and trade debate into a slogan…hers is “cap and tax”, the new name for the conservatives to use in attacking the program.

She did nothing to offer an alternative to the Obama plan, just said no.  She did use another tried and true Repub tactic ……fear.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

All Americans are worried about their jobs, the economy and their savings and she tries to scare the people into thinking one way without offering real alternatives or proof of what she is saying.

Read the op-ed and ask the question–what is her alternative?  Wait!  Do not hurt yourself.

Anyone can say “no” and anyone can make up a slogan and anyone can ……..but to be a statesman one needs to offer alternatives to complex issues and that my friend eliminates Palin from such a title.

Is There An Energy Crisis Brewing?

I am sorry everyone remembers the oil at $150 a barrel or that gas was over $5 a gallon and what are the chances that it will come again?

Canadian economist Jeff Rubin has a somewhat oracular reputation. Since 2000, he has predicted a massive oil-price spike, and he was among the first in 2007 to prophesy that oil would soar over $100 per barrel (a few months later, he said $150 a barrel and was basically proved right again). Now, even though oil has dropped considerably from its peak, Rubin warns that it’s bound to skyrocket once more and cause another, even greater economic crisis. In his new book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, he lays out how this energy crunch will occur—and why it will spell the end of globalization.

The scenario goes something like this: the ongoing depletion of the world’s oil resources, coupled with soaring demand from emerging economies like India and China, will send the price of crude through the roof, Rubin says. This will seriously escalate transportation costs, which in turn will cripple international trade, reverse commercial interdependence and disable the global economy. The resulting age will be one in which nations are isolated, technological progress is sluggish and travel is infrequent. The Middle East will be less relevant than it is today, and food scarcity will emerge as the foremost international problem. Countries with a shortage of arable land will scramble and compete to buy agricultural real estate from other nations (for example, as Saudi Arabia is already now doing in Sudan) to alleviate their ever-worsening food crises.

Rubin’s future isn’t all bad. To offset the effects of the energy crisis, governments will have to invest heavily in national infrastructure (especially public-transportation systems); national industries once hurt by outsourcing and foreign competition will thrive; and the environment will become cleaner as people are forced to use less fossil fuel and as cars disappear from the streets. But Rubin warns that governments can do only so much—successful adaptation to an energy-starved world will largely depend on individuals altering their energy-consumption norms. Still, he is willing to bet that people will make the right choices. All in all, he says, “don’t be surprised if the new, smaller world that emerges isn’t a lot more liveable and enjoyable than the one we are about to leave behind.”

There will always be a boom or bust cycle in the oil industry.  I do not know if I agree with Rubin on the statement that the people will make the right choice in the long run.  Especially in the US, if they do make the right choice then the oil crisis, the energy crisis, would have been avoided in the 70’s.  It is possible that the people could make a good choice, however the government and industry does not give them the chance to do so.

IMO, I do not see oil companies allowing anything that would harm their profits or their stranglehold on the economy.

I Have Gas!

Quick run to the car!

This is a novel idea to help break the dependence on foreign oil or coal, for that matter.  Reuters is reporting a innovated idea.

Manchester’s toilets will soon be contributing to the local gas network under a green energy project planned by United Utilities Group Plc and National Grid Plc.In a UK first, the two companies plan to turn a by-product of the wastewater treatment plant at Davyhulme in Manchester, northwest England into gas for the local network and fuel for a fleet of sludge tankers.

The Mancunian biogas will be upgraded to remove carbon dioxide and trace elements, leaving biomethane which will be conditioned with propane and odorants before being pumped into the network and back into their homes.

“Biomethane is a fuel for the future,” Janine Freeman, head of National Grid‘s Sustainable Gas Group said. “Not only are we reusing a waste product, but biomethane is a renewable fuel, so we helping to meet the country’s target of 15 percent of all our energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.”

Biogas is produced through a process called “anaerobic digestion” when wastewater sludge is broken down by the action of microbes.

“It is a very valuable resource and it’s completely renewable. By harnessing this free energy we can reduce our fuel bills and reduce our carbon footprint.”

One of United Utilities’ sludge tankers has already been converted to run on the gas and the company expects to save hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in fuel costs with the 24 tankers it aims to convert initially.

It was not clear whether Manchester’s home-made gas suppliers will get a discount on their own bills for their efforts.

IMO, this is an excellent idea….any idea that can generate enough product to keep the use of foreign oil down; is an excellent idea.

GOP Plan For An Energy Policy

The conversation….well that is not quite accurate…the debate on an Energy policy has geared up….along with the debate on Health care.

Take a seat for their is a GOP plan for energy……surprise!

Let us begin…they, the GOP, do not like the Obama “cap and trade” deal…..why?  The main reason is they say it will cost the consumer more money for power.  I like it that their first concern is for the consumer….yeah right…and if you believe that then I have land in Florida I would like to sell by the gallon.

The NY Times has reported on the Repub plan.

The Republican proposal, drafted by a group led by Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, leans heavily on nuclear power, setting a goal of building 100 reactors over the next 20 years.

The bill also provides incentives for increased oil and gas production on public and private lands and offshore. It would also authorize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

The Republican measure does not include any mandatory cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases, relying instead on nuclear energy, natural gas and renewable fuels like wind, solar and biomass power to reduce production of the gases, which have been linked to global warming.

Republican officials said they were intending to offer the proposal, known as the American Energy Act, as a substitute for the bill sponsored by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. The Waxman-Markey bill has been through hundreds of hours of public hearings and committee deliberations and passed the Energy and Commerce Committee last month on a 33-to-25 vote.

What part of this plan is not the same as it has been for 10 years?  Once again, the GOP has nothing new to offer the people of this country….just a rehash of tired old proposals from the past.

There Is Always An Environmental Trade-Off

When the new light bulbs became vogue, my daughter said that there had to be a trade off for something good.  She was right!  The new lights bulbs contain mercury and in the future there is a good possibilty for the mercury to make it into the water table.

Using that same question I checked into wind power….would there be a trade off for the good that the power source would be providing?  Of course there is!

Reuters has a pretty good article on the subjust:

For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.

Wind turbines emit inaudible sound waves in the low end of the sound spectrum and rhythmic vibrations caused by the spinning blades. These are suspected to cause a host of adverse health effects in some people that live in close proximity to the turbines, including:

insomnia,
headaches,
acute hypertensive episodes,
cardiac arrhythmia,
heart palpitations,
high blood pressure,
the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin,
humming in the head,
continuous ringing in the ears,
dizziness

My daughter seems to be always right….when something good and environmentally friendly is considered, there will always be a trade off.

How About Greenhouse Gases?

Jake Tapper reports on the discovery of an internal EPA memo that admits what everyone knows about cap-and-trade systems and regulation of CO2.  The memo advises the White House that any attempt to regulate output of CO2 in energy production will likely have “serious economic consequences.

This memo destroys the argument made by Obama often over the last two years that cap-and-trade would wind up being an economic boon.  Obama had argued that a renewed emphasis on green energy production would be akin to landing on the moon, a big government program that boosted employment in pursuit of an ambitious goal.  The difference between the two is that the space program didn’t impose massive burdens on the airline industry to pay for it, or on the auto industry, or Amtrak.

Since the discovery of the memo there has been movement in the Congress.House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) has been negotiating with a group of Southern and Midwestern Democrats on his committee who have withheld support for his bill because they feared it would hurt the economies in their states.

Mr. Waxman’s bill calls for capping emissions of greenhouse gases, and requiring companies to hold permits in order to emit such gases. But the original version of the proposal was silent on the degree to which companies would have to pay for those permits, versus being given them free. Utilities dependent on coal and other carbon-intensive industries such as steel plants or oil refineries have been lobbying Congress to give them the permits for free, at least initially.

Republicans and other interest groups were already turning up the heat on Democrats and the Obama administration ahead of Tuesday’s deal. Earlier in the day, Republicans pounced on a White House document that says regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said the OMB memo “suggests that a political decision was made to put special interests ahead of middle-class families and small businesses struggling in this recession.”

So the compromises have begun and most of the pie in the sky bills that have been promised will become a watered down pale reflection of any real change.  People!  The planet is dying, now is NOT the time for lame ass compromises!

Is The Environment As Important As They Say?

With the win of Obama last November I have heard many in the environmental movement say that a better day was coming for the planet and for programs to save us from ourselves.  I pray all are correct…but so far I have not seen that change that was coming.
In his budget, Obama included a serious proposal for a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. While a cap-and-trade system at best can only slow the rate of increase, it can be one important part of a more broadly-based climate change program. This is one of the proposals expected to have the most difficulty passing Congress this year. As a kicker, however, the Environmental Protection Agency has finally declared that global warming is a hazard to human health and welfare and that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity should be regulated. Even if the cap-and-trade system doesn’t pass Congress, the EPA can play a crucial role in starting to tackle climate challenges. (In one of the more ridiculous examples of Bush White House bumbling, the White House dealt with an earlier EPA report on carbon, which had been ordered by the Supreme Court, by refusing to open the e-mail to which the report was attached!). It will be possible for the EPA to take a larger role on these issues due in part to a large increase in its budget, another policy Obama deserves major credit for.

The commitment to “clean coal,” something which we should indeed put money into researching but which for the present is just an illusion. His administration also leans too much toward the development of more nuclear power plants, even though there is no realistic plan to deal with nuclear waste, not to mention the potential for accidents (like the Japanese nuclear reactor which was damaged in an earthquake recently), and not to mention the health risks for miners and their families and communities who dig up and process the uranium.
We also need to be mindful that ice at the poles is melting faster than the worst predictions of a few years ago, carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are still increasing, and that no president or administration by itself can accomplish what needs to be done. The environmental movement and organizations, in alliance with labor, civil rights, and other mass movements, need to apply pressure on Congress, including on many Democrats, to get with the program, to seriously tackle the life-threatening nature of the environmental challenges that face the whole world. The Obama administration does not act in a vacuum, it acts based in part on public understanding, public pressure, international pressure, and the necessity of saving humanity.

The Dems have the power to make a difference in climate change–will they do the right thing or the most profitable thing?