Climate Politics

Obama says there’s no need to choose between sustainability and the economy

“Throughout our history, there’s been a tension between those who’ve sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I’m here to tell you this is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve […]

Reps reintroduce Clean Water Protection Act, aiming to curb mountaintop-removal mining

It's official: The first shot has been fired in the legislative battle to end the devastating practice of mountaintop-removal coal mining in central Appalachia.

With the quickly growing and extraordinary nationwide support of 117 cosponsors, including 17 members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. John Yarmuth (D) from the embattled coal state of Kentucky joined Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in reintroducing the Clean Water Protection Act on Wednesday.

The act was introduced originally to challenge the outrageous executive rule change by the Bush administration to redefine "fill material" in the Clean Water Act, which has allowed coal companies to blast hundreds of mountains to bits, dump millions of tons of "excess spoil" into nearby valleys, and bury hundreds of miles of streams. An estimated 1,200 miles of waterways have been destroyed by this extreme mining process.

The end result: Toxic black waters and poisoned aquifers that have denied American citizens in the coalfields the basic right of a glass of clean water.

‘Clean coal’ flack won’t say whether coal contributes to global warming

CNN aired a segment on Wednesday morning on the “clean coal” debate. Highlights include commentary from Sierra Club coal guy Bruce Nilles, footage from the big Capitol Power Plant protest on Monday, and a clip of the Coen brothers ad that debunks the notion of “clean coal.” But the real treat is Joe Lucas, vice […]

Congress takes a step toward regulating coal waste, but what about the EPA?

A bill aimed at reining in mountaintop-removal coal mining has been reintroduced in the House. The Clean Water Protection Act, sponsored by Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), would outlaw the dumping of mining waste into streams, which would make it significantly more difficult for mining companies to blast […]

A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no.

The new mantra in energy circles is "national smart grid."

In the New York Times, Al Gore insists the new president should give the highest priority to "the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid." President Barack Obama, responding to a question by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, declares that one of "the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid ... a smart grid."

We lump together the two words, "national" and "smart" as if they were joined at the hip, but in fact each describes and enables a very different electricity future. The word "national" in these discussions refers to the construction of tens of thousands of miles of new national ultra-high-voltage transmission lines, an initiative that would further separate power plants from consumers, and those who make the electricity decisions from those who feel the impact of those decisions.

The word "smart," on the other hand, refers to upgrading the existing network to make it more resilient and efficient. A smart grid can decentralize both generation and authority. Sophisticated electronic sensors, wireless communication, software and ever-more powerful computers will connect electricity customers and suppliers in real time, making possible a future in which tens of millions of households and businesses actively interact with the electricity network as both consumers and producers.

Advocates of a new national ultra-high-voltage transmission network offer three main arguments:

1. New high-voltage transmission lines are needed to decrease electric grid congestion and therefore increase reliability and security.

There is indeed congestion on some parts of our distribution and transmission networks. Congestion reveals a problem; it doesn't demand a specific solution. It can be addressed by reducing demand through increasing energy efficiency or by increasing on-site or local energy production. Both strategies are often less costly and quicker to implement than building new transmission lines. An analogy from the solid-waste sector may be appropriate. Exhausting nearby landfills does not inevitably require us to send our garbage to new and more distant landfills. We can emphasize recycling, composting, scrap-based manufacturing and reuse.

2. A new national high-voltage transmission network is necessary to dramatically increase renewable energy.

President Obama wants to build new transmission lines because, "I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago." Writing in Vanity Fair, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants a new high-voltage transmission system to "deliver solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy across the country."

But do we really need to deliver renewable energy across the country? The distinguishing characteristic of renewable energy is its availability in abundant quantities virtually everywhere.

Washington new center of global warming battle

WASHINGTON — European ministers are flocking to Washington drawn by the new administration’s pledge to help lead the fight against climate change, an issue largely put on ice for eight years here. Ministers from across Europe as well as Canada are taking part in a whirl of meetings here this week to gauge prospects of […]

Los Angelenos narrowly reject city-wide solar plan

Los Angeles voters yesterday rejected the Green Energy Good Jobs ballot initiative (AKA Measure B), according unofficial results from the city clerk’s office. The plan, which failed by about 1,000 votes, would have led to the installation of thousands of solar panels on rooftops and parking lots throughout the city. It would have required the […]

Obama’s budget would cut subsidies to oil companies and change transport funding

With all the buzz last week about the climate plan and green spending incorporated into President Obama’s proposed budget, we almost missed a few other environmental aspects. The budget also kills funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, as David noted, and it cuts subsidies for Big Oil and changes how transportation funds are […]

The NYT asks: are we shaming our politicians about their lifestyles enough?

Eager to find new ways to trivialize the warming of the planet, the New York Times has been reporting on the carbon footprint of individual politicians and legislatures.

They are abetted in this effort by Terra Eco, a French environmental magazine that has calculated British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's footprint to be -- quelle horreur! -- 8,400 tons of CO2 per year. By my calcs, that's about 0.0001 percent of America's carbon footprint, so as soon as Brown buys a bicycle, we should have the climate problem pretty well licked.

In the meantime, I applaud Terra Eco's work on this important issue, and look forward to their upcoming report on the size of Al Gore's swimming pool.

EPA to host public hearing on the California waiver

The Environmental Protection Agency will host a public hearing this week on California’s request for a waiver to set tougher tailpipe emissions standards. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 5, in Arlington, Va. It is part of the public comment process on their decision to reconsider the state’s petition. Here are the deets, […]