- Energy and Global Warming News for September 11: New York City braces for risk of higher seas; EU environment chief sees 100% chance of deal in Copenhagen
- Dirty coal group's 14th forgery impersonated American veterans. Real vets support strong efforts to action on climate and clean energy — as does GOP Senator John Warner, former Armed Services Committee chair
- Obama to speak at U.N. special session on global warming; Todd Stern testifies "Nothing the U.S. can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible…. President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration, are committed to action on this issue."
- Energy and Global Warming News for September 10: Nukes will be part of Senate energy bill, Boxer says
- EIA: Clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would make America more energy independent, cutting U.S. foreign oil bill $650 billion through 2030, saving $5,600 per household
Posted: 11 Sep 2009 09:10 AM PDT
On a day of remembrance for that epic tragedy to hit New York, here's a story about how New York is preparing for the tragedy ever knows is coming..
Dirty coal group's 14th forgery impersonated American veterans. Real vets support strong efforts to action on climate and clean energy — as does GOP Senator John Warner, former Armed Services Committee chair
Posted: 11 Sep 2009 07:01 AM PDT
Climate change is a major threat to U.S. Security. The clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would enhance our security by reducing oil dependence and environmental harm. That's why the conservative Virgina Republican, John Warner, is pushing hard to pass the bill — because he is a former Navy secretary and former Senate Armed Services Committee chair and because he is a former Forest Service firefighter now "just absolutely heartbroken" because "the old forest, the white pine forest in which I worked, was absolutely gone, devastated, standing there dead from the bark beetle" thanks in large part to global warming (see interview below).
So it's no surprise the deniers and delayers spread disinformation to try to undercut this core message. As Brad Johnson reports at Think Progress:
As the Washington Post reported:
Also yesterday, we saw Alstom quit the scandal-ridden coal industry front group, ACCCE, joining Duke and Alcoa.
Real veterans of the Iraq War explain their support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act in this new advertisement from VoteVets.org:
Yesterday, more than 150 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — real ones — visited the White House and the Congress to argue that "climate change legislation is absolutely critical." E&E Daily (subs. req'd) has the full story:
Warner's is a remarkable story — a hard-core conservative Republican aggressively supporting the climate and clean energy bill. He is "trying to build grass-roots support for congressional action to limit global warming," as Politics Daily reports. "He is traveling the country to discuss military research that shows climate change is a threat to U.S. national security, and this fall he'll testify to Congress on the issue for the fourth time." PD has a long interview with him, which I excerpt below:
It's knowledge of the facts that makes people climate science realists.
Obama to speak at U.N. special session on global warming; Todd Stern testifies "Nothing the U.S. can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible…. President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration, are committed to action on this issue."
Posted: 10 Sep 2009 03:15 PM PDT
Obama's (first) big speech on global warming is going to come sooner than expected.
And all the nonsensical media reporting on how the administration is supposedly backing away from a sense of urgency on the climate issue — urgency on passing the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill and getting a global deal — should be dispelled by reading today's House testimony from our top climate negotiator, Todd Stern (here, excerpted below). Every word in that testimony is signed off on by the administration, so when Stern presses Congress for a bill ASAP and says Obama is committed to action, that comes from the White House.
E&E News PM reports:
I think he'll still need to give a more political speech before the Senate vote. When will that vote be? A key administration witness testified in front of a House Committee today that it really needs to be before a certain big international climate conference in Europe this December:
Worth noting is that Stern doesn't pull his punches on the cost of inaction or the historical . As he testified:
Posted: 10 Sep 2009 02:40 PM PDT
File this under Duh!
Yes, the nuclear title will mostly be MDT (Money Down the Toilet) stuff, but other than the taxpayers actually doling out $10 billion (or more!) per plant, I can't see many nukes being built no matter what is in the nuclear title because they just cost too damn much (see "Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid") — no matter what EPA and some other models say. Nukes appear to be the minimum price for admission for some moderate Democrats and a few Republicans ("Lamar Alexander (R-TN) calls nuclear "the cheap clean energy solution," renews GOP call for 100 new nukes, which would cost some $1 trillion") — particularly McCain.
I take this as a good sign that Boxer is it really trying to start with a bill that could ultimately be passed. I'd also expect a modified 'price collar', which could be both a useful addition to the bill and a key way to get more votes, depending on how it is written.
I don't, however, think you are going to see nuclear power included in the renewable energy standard — but you might see an addition to the standard that goes beyond the renewable and efficiency standard and includes low carbon energy.
Posted: 10 Sep 2009 10:37 AM PDT
Although the House-passed clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill doesn't have a big focus on the transportation sector, it does achieve real benefits in oil savings at low cost (see "EIA analysis of climate bill finds 23 cents a day cost to families, massive retirement of dirty coal plants and 119 GW of new renewables by 2030 — plus a million barrels a day oil savings"). Some people have asked me for more detail on this, which I provide courtesy of this guest post from Jeremy Symons, Senior Vice President, Conservation and Education, National Wildlife Federation (bio here).
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA's) recent analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) includes the first government estimates of the legislation's impact directly on oil imports. A number of models, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have determined that ACES would save significant amounts of oil, but EIA is the first to project the specific impact on oil imports so that we can more directly assess the security and financial implications.
Overall oil imports would decline by 590,000 barrels per day by the year 2020 under ACES, according to EIA . This is roughly equivalent to the total amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2008 (620,000 barrels per day). Over the next twenty years, America would save $650 billion on foreign oil (cumulatively through 2030). This is in constant 2007 dollars, and is calculated by applying EIA's forecast of oil prices to EIA's projected savings in oil imports.
ACES has many features to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, including strong investments to promote vehicle battery technologies and household smart grid connections to power our cars with electricity. EIA acknowledges that it wasn't able to model a number of these features, so the actual oil savings would likely be larger.
[JR: I'd add that EIA, unlike the IEA doesn't get peak oil (see World's top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: "We have to leave oil before oil leaves us"). So it lowballs future prices. You can probably increase the numbers in this psot 50% for actual savings.]
In the meantime, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has reached new heights in misinformation by claiming that oil imports of refined oil products would go up under ACES. That is, we might import less crude oil but we will have to import more diesel or gasoline. Let's set the record straight: EIA's study of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act determined that the bill would reduce imports of refined oil products by 20% by the year 2025. Environmental Defense Fund has valuable information on this topic at http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/08/25/api-misses-the-mark-why-refineries-will-do-just-fine-under-aces/ — see also (see "Even fantasy-filled API study finds no significant impact of climate bill on US refining").
|You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|