Skip to content
Grist home
Grist home

Climate Politics

All Stories

  • Obama talks tough on energy in first prime-time press conference

    President Obama had some firm words for critics of his economic stimulus plan in his first presidential news conference on Monday night, using some of his most forceful comments to defend the green energy investments in the plan. “Why would that be a waste of federal money?” asked Obama. “We’re creating jobs immediately by weatherizing […]

  • Today's leftovers

    A couple of notable things today that I won't be able to give the time they deserve:

    • Brad at the Wonk Room notes that the self-styled Senate "centrists" who carved $100 billion 600,000 jobs out of the stimulus bill -- under the guise of "cutting the fat" -- managed to protect a $50 billion boondoggle for nuclear power, water down loan guarantees for renewable energy and grid projects, and boost subsidies to dirty energy. Nice work, "centrists."
    • Amory Lovins has a guest post on the NYT's Freakonomics blog, making his familiar case that small and smart beats big and powerful when it comes to electricity generation. The comments reflect all the usual misunderstandings Lovins encounters, including the comical demand that he supply statistics to back his case. Whatever Lovins' faults, lack of statistics isn't one of them. He's even quantified the number of hidden economic benefits of micropower: there are exactly 207!
    • Huzzah to Keith Johnson at the WSJ's energy blog for making a point that is too-little understood by the broader body politic: dirty power is "cheaper" than clean power because dirty power doesn't pay for its full costs. This seems incredibly basic and obvious to people who have been studying and writing about energy for a while, but it still hasn't really penetrated the public conversation. Witness the outbreak of dumbassery in the WSJ comments.
    • David Sirota makes a good point: if you tax energy companies to fund good things, you make those good things dependent on energy companies -- perversely, you strengthen the political hand energy companies can play. Careful how you use tax revenue.

    And that was just from today!

  • The players: Obama’s people

    Obama’s green team Joe Romm says, “I honestly don’t know if it is politically possible to preserve a livable climate — but if it is, these are the people to make it happen.” I don’t know if I’d go that far, but Obama has certainly put together a team capable of great things. Coordinating is […]

  • Green spending cuts still on table in Senate, more…

    The Senate is likely to vote Tuesday to move forward with the stimulus package. The fate of the package, now weighing in at $827 billion in new spending and tax cuts, rests on whether or not senators OK a bipartisan compromise amendment from Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). As we reported last week, […]

  • Bingaman unveils draft of renewable energy standard

    Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is passing around a discussion draft [PDF] of a renewable electricity standard (RES) bill that will be taken up by his committee this week. The bill would require 4 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2011, scaling up to […]

  • Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing

    The following is a guest post from Tom Casten, chairman of Recycled Energy Development LLC.

    -----

    Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, along with Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.), has introduced legislation calling for 25 percent of U.S. electricity to come from clean energy by 2025. What will such legislation do to electricity costs?

    Most pundits assume the current system is optimal, and thus claim that any mandate to change this "best of all possible worlds" will raise the price of delivered electricity. It is hilarious to think the protected and regulated electric system is optimal, but depressing to realize no one is laughing. Consider two questions:

    1. Do market forces drive electricity suppliers to lowest-delivered-cost solutions?
    2. What is the delivered cost of clean energy from various generation options?

    What market forces? All electricity distribution systems and many generation plants enjoy monopoly protection. Subsidies abound. Profits are guaranteed. Old plants can legally emit up to 100 times the pollution of a new plant. A century of rules reward and protect yesterday's approaches and the resulting vested interests.

    Congressman Markey has never seen current generation as optimal, and now that he chairs the relevant subcommittee, he proposes to mandate cleaner and, in our view, cheaper electricity generation. Yes, we said cheaper. Anyone interested in some facts?

  • Greenpeace assesses the carbon footprint of Obama’s stimulus plan

    The Obama administration’s original stimulus proposal would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 61 million tons per year, according to an analysis commissioned by Greenpeace from the consulting firm ICF International. (Here’s the summary report and highlights.) The report estimates that reductions resulting from the Obama plan would be equivalent to eliminating the emissions of […]

  • Obama talks tough on the need for investment

    “We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face; that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or falling schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an […]