Latest Articles

Stop

This is also bouncing around the tubes, and while I can’t think of a plausible green connection, what the hell, it’s pretty cool:

Green energy projects bloom in California

Right on the heels of Tappergate, The New York Times comes out with a couple of articles exploring the economic benefits of fighting global warming. As is evident to anyone but a Taphole, the energy business is the largest business there ever is or was or will be, and therein lies not only enormous money-making opportunities but jobs, jobs, jobs. These things, we hear, are good for the economy.

So, take California, which decided to get serious about developing a solar industry. The state committed $3 billion in declining incentives over a 10-year period, and in return leveraged a lot more than that in private equity. Venture capitalists have put $625 million into California solar companies in 2007 alone. Manufacturers are feverishly commercializing new technologies, and if you can spell solar you can get a job out here.

So, how does an enterprising young state get a piece of that action? I'm glad you asked. Last Wednesday, in Denver, with Governor Ritter on hand, we released a report that we developed with the Center for American Progress titled "Developing State Photovoltaic Markets" (PDF). It's a blueprint for making a solar market work. The premise here is that the key to lowering solar's costs -- and generating good jobs while you are at it -- is creating markets. The folks at NREL have done a great job in developing the technology; photovoltaics work great. Government R&D efforts should be redoubled, but using policy to open markets will leverage orders of magnitude more in private equity and further accelerate solar's entry into the mainstream.

Secondly, without an extension of the federal investment tax credit, everything we are trying to do gets 30 percent harder -- and it's quite hard enough as it is, thank you very much. There's a great argument to be made for putting an extension in the financial stimulus package, as the Senate is currently considering. Congress, if you are reading this, won't you please consider a very easy action that will jumpstart the economy, fight global warming, and establish energy independence all at the same time? These things are popular with voters, we hear.

British military may obstruct planned wind farms due to radar fears

Echoing recent concerns of the U.S. military, the British Ministry of Defense has stepped up its opposition to some wind power projects due to concerns over turbines’ impact on radar installations. The Ministry of Defense has lately objected to at least four proposed wind farms claiming they’d cause radar troubles; wind farm proponents fear more […]

Vaporware

It’s a few days old now, but don’t miss Tyler Hamilton’s column on CCS in the Toronto Star. It focuses on Canada, but the story is basically the same: despite all the talk and hype, carbon capture and storage is a long, long way off, subject to enormous logistics problems, and uncertain to succeed even […]

Three Wall Street banks announce funding restrictions for new coal power plants

Photo: iStockphoto Three major investment banks, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, will announce new environmental standards today that are expected to make it more difficult for large coal-fired power plants in the United States to get funding. The standards anticipate some form of cap-and-trade program becoming law in the U.S. in coming years […]

It’s alive!

A Philadelphia newspaper picks up Jake "Hack" Tapper’s Bill Clinton grotesque and makes it even more stupid. This is officially a ‘Winger Zombie. Aim for the head. (Via Horse’s Mouth)

Obama talks about fighting the nuclear industry, but his record is less strident

Barack Obama talks on the campaign trail about fighting the nuclear power industry, but the real story is more complicated, reports The New York Times in a front-page story. In 2006, Illinois residents were up in arms after finding out that Exelon Corp. had not informed them about radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear […]

Our command-and-control air-pollution regulations are working against our climate policy

With the climate policy discussion now settling into lines of cap & trade vs. carbon tax, and allocation vs. auction, it has implicitly moved beyond the top-down, command-and-control models favored by early plans (and in particular the multi-pollutant, "4P" bills).

This market focus is a good thing, on balance. What isn't good is that it's only being applied to greenhouse gas pollution. Our existing air pollution laws create disincentives to GHG reduction. Modernization of these (non-carbon) pollution laws may be the single most important thing the federal government can do to lower GHG emissions. As we head out of the harbor, it's time to haul up the anchor.

Relevant history

The Clean Air Act, coupled with New Source Review, has dramatically lowered SOx, NOx, and particulate emissions. It has also substantially increased GHG emissions. The reasons why are three-fold:

1. The rules were set on a so-called "input basis." Come under a certain parts-per-million of exhaust and you are OK. Exceed it and you're in violation.

This has the perverse effect of discouraging energy efficiency: if I lower absolute pollution (tons/yr) by 40% and cut fuel use by 50%, I have reduced the flow of fuel and combustion air by more than I've reduced pollution (e.g., the "millions" in the parts-per-million formulation). Thus my ppm actually increases and I can't get a permit anymore.

Where are the environmental messengers in the South?

Via Sam Smith, this important insight from "Facing South:"

Obama Super Bowl ad

Far as I know, Obama was the only candidate to buy an ad during the Super Bowl today, one that ran in 24 states, to the tune of $250,000. It’s interesting to me that in perhaps the highest profile, highest stakes ad the Obama campaign has ever run, the focus is on two strongly progressive […]