Latest Articles

Vilsack chats up reporters about climate and ethanol

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack talked about climate change, renewable energy and ethanol blends during a conference call with reporters on Monday. Here are excerpts from the transcript:

From Vilsack's opening comments on the call:

I also want this Department to be a national leader in climate change mitigation, adaptation efforts. This of course will involve conservation, greater efficiency with the energy that we have, as well as new technologies and expanded opportunities in biofuels and renewable energy. I'm going to work to advance research and development and pursue opportunities to support the development of additional biofuels, wind power, and other renewable energy sources.

We need to make sure that the biofuels industry has the necessary support to survive the recent downturn while at the same time promoting policies that will speed up the development of second and third-generation feedstocks for those biofuels that have the potential to significantly improve America's energy security and independence.

I expect our farmers and ranchers will play a role in making progress on the great challenge of climate change and on other major environmental challenges. It's important to me that the USDA lead efforts to incentivize management practices that promote and provide clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat, and to help farmers participate in markets that reward them for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

It is my hope that the Farm Bill's provisions in terms of energy and conservation can be implemented promptly and properly and that we see the Forest Service as a new opportunity for us to engage in climate change mitigation/adaptation strategies.

...

We also want the USDA to be a supporter of 21st century rural communities. We'll be looking at promoting the expansion of modern infrastructure, expanded broadband opportunities, affordable, energy-efficient housing in rural communities, expanded small business opportunities, and improving the quality of life through community facilities.

Senate stimulus plan looking even better for clean energy investments

Dan Weiss and Alexandra Kougentakis at the Center for American Progress take a look at the Senate's version of the stimulus plan and conclude that, on the whole, it's better in terms of clean energy investments and incentives than the House version.

While several not-so-green programs would get funding in the Senate plan -- including $50 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry and $4.6 billion for the coal industry -- green projects overall would get approximately $7 billion more in spending.

The Senate's American Investment and Recovery Plan (not to be confused with the House's "American Reinvestment and Recover Act") includes $78 billion in clean energy spending as part of their $365 billion recovery package. The tax package also has $31 billion in tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency, compared to $20 billion in the House plan.

Grid improvement funds are higher in the Senate version -- $21 billion compared with the House's $19 billion. Same with funds for renewables -- $7.6 billion, to the House's $5.1 billion.

We mistakenly wrote yesterday that mass transit fares worse in the Senate version of the bill when compared with the House's $14.6 billion. But transit gets a better deal in the Senate overall, at $17 billion. Amtrak especially fares better -- $3.1 billion to the House's $1.1 billion.

Investments in building and appliance efficiency, meanwhile, did better in the House version -- $5 billion more than the Senate plan.

Of course, the Senate's version could still change when it moves to floor for debate next week, and any differences between the bills the two chambers pass would have to be worked out in a conference committee.

New energy drink is fair-trade, organic

Youguysomigodomigodhaveyouheardaboutthisnewenergyshot? It'sorganicandit'sfair-tradeandthatmeansit'sgoodforyouANDfortheplanetnottoMENTIONthefacthtatitgivesy ouawickedsweetbuzzomigodomigodI'vebeenwaitingforthisallmylife.

Shorter work week as stimulus

Economist Dean Baker (co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one of the good guys in that dismal profession) takes up one of my pet obsessions: a shorter work week:

One innovative policy that would provide a quick boost to the economy and jobs -- and lasting gains in reduced unemployment -- is a tax incentive for shorter workweeks or work years.

...

How would this help the economy? The tax break would allow the employer to compensate workers for fewer hours up to some limit, say a maximum of $2,500 per worker. That would cut work hours but maintain staffing levels.

As a result, workers would be getting just as much money as before the reduction in hours -- but putting in 10% fewer hours. If workers have the same amount of money, then demand in the economy will be the same. At the same time, firms would then need to hire more workers to meet this demand, since they would be getting 10% fewer hours from each worker.

I once did a column in Fast Company on the ecological benefits of a shorter work week. This seems like one of those things that's substantively win-win but sociopolitically completely out of reach. People have weird attitudes about work.

Denier duo tried to tarnish Hansen and utterly misquoted Revkin

Once again, the office of Sen. James Inhofe (Denier-Okla.) has put out a press release riddled with misstatements, this one attacking the nation's top climate scientist James Hansen.

Their last release was notable for the outright lies and distortions by Inhofe and his top staffer, Marc Morano.

Now they are making stuff up about Hansen, claiming the Bush Administration did not try to muzzle him, when they clearly did, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee documented in a December 2007 report. Somehow I think that report -- which is based on "over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department," two investigative hearings, and the depositions and interviews of key officials -- is a tad more credible than the words of some former NASA engineer.

It is absurd for Inhofe to have a blaring headline that "Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor" says Hansen "was never muzzled," when this guy does not appear to have been Hansen's supervisor (he "did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation," an authority possessed by every supervisor I ever had in government -- see also NASA's Gavin Schmidt here) -- and in any case, had a position above Hansen only from 1982-1994, a full decade before the muzzling occurred!

I don't want to waste a lot of time debunking pathological make-stuff-uppers like Inhofe and Morano, but let me point out one representative lie. The Morano post blares:

NYT's Revkin chides Hansen for promoting sea level claims that are not 'even physically possible'

But let's go the link and see what Revkin actually wrote.

This is a post by David Lewis of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network on an interview Mike Tidwell did with me and Revkin that turned into a little debate. I meant to blog on this earlier but I didn't have a transcript. It gets further in to some of the disagreements I have with Revkin. But let's cut to the chase.

Revkin replied to the post as follows:

Rep. Mike Pence protests climate research funding in stimulus bill

"What is $400 million for climate change research going to do to put people back to work in Indiana?"

-- Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), speaking on the floor of the House against the stimulus package that he and every other Republican voted against

Asheville developers go big with eco, at the worst time ever

I've just stumbled across this supremely bold (or foolish) eco-project, and I intend to follow it. Background: It's a proposed green condo complex with a green roof, solar panels, and efficient appliances. Yeah, yeah, blah blah ... but! If you buy one (for just $2 million or so) you get a Smart car! Which you park in an underground garage that can fit only Smart cars! Which would be the world's first garage-that-can-fit-only-a-certain-model-of-car!

It's so crazy, I wish to hell it would work. Alas, the developers are up against maybe the worst economic situation possible in which to launch such a scheme. In their county alone (Buncombe County in the Asheville, N.C., area), seven years' worth of high-price homes are hanging out on the market. Sigh.

Growing small houses for the recession age

Taken individually, the economic meltdown and the burst housing bubble are both, to use a technical term, bummers. But together, for certain problem-solving designers, architects, urbanists, and planners, they present an opportunity, especially when meshed with a rising environmental awareness.

Besides building too many houses, we made them too large (not to mention too far away from centers of employment and commerce): they are essentially stick-framed gas-guzzlers. But if advocates have their way, the small house will be the next big thing.

Washington state Senate aims to boost green jobs, construction

As Microsoft, Starbucks, and other Seattle-area giants announce layoffs, Democrats in the Washington state Senate have revealed a package of proposed laws aimed at boosting the number of green jobs in the state -- by speeding up construction projects. (Sound familiar?)

The "Clean Energy, Green Jobs" legislation will funnel money from the anticipated federal stimulus package and the state's construction budget into green building efforts. By 2030, older buildings would have to decrease their greenhouse-gas emissions and new buildings would be required to be emissions-free.

Aimed at "encouraging businesses to become more environmentally friendly," the legislation would also require state vehicles to meet 36 mpg standards, provide provisions for weatherizing low-income homes, and incorporate sales tax breaks for hybrid and electric vehicles.

Oregon rep pens befuddling op-ed on climate legislation

Today's WTF moment sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who writes in the Oregonian that lawmakers should abandon cap-and-trade. He says:

Despite these obvious problems, federal and state lawmakers are poised to move forward with a cap-and-trade system. I'm working in Washington to oppose this proposal and to find an alternative. One option that needs further exploration is to establish a emissions cap and to direct polluters to either reduce emissions or to purchase certified offsets (reductions from other entities) to meet emission targets.

But given the devastating impact of past deregulation on U.S. energy and financial markets, I have serious concerns about using a "market-based approach" to solve serious problems. My colleagues in Congress, and Oregon legislators, would be wise to do their homework on a cap-and-trade system before moving forward with more deregulation.

So, instead of a cap-and-trade system he wants ... a cap, and emissions credits, that can be traded. Huh.

Even more confusing? DeFazio co-sponsored the Safe Climate Act last Congress, a cap-and-trade proposal from Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).