Barack Obama

'Clean coal' non-debate produces fake rift among lefties!

Wow, this is one craptastic piece of journalism. It's about "the clean coal debate," but you can get all the way through it without stumbling across a single fact about the purported subject. Al Gore and environmentalists "portray" "clean coal" as a mirage. Is it? Are there clean coal power plants somewhere? The reader never knows.

Dumber than that is the whole frame of the article, which pits Al Gore against Barack Obama, despite the fact that they recommend identical approaches to "clean coal" -- research it, but don't rely on it, and don't build dirty coal plants while waiting for it.

The fact is, the average citizen trying to find out more about "clean coal" by consuming U.S. media is likely to emerge from that effort knowing and understanding less. Nice job, media.

Announcing energy efficiency order, Obama goes on stimulus attack

President Obama today used a visit to the Department of Energy to blast Republican opposition to energy efficiency measures contained in the economic stimulus legislation. Obama, who was at DOE to sign a memorandum [PDF] ordering the department to set new energy efficiency standards for appliances, rebutted GOP complaints about a proposal to use some […]

Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1)

A radioactive dirty bomb has been dropped on the Senate stimulus package. As WonkRoom reported:

On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to increase nuclear loan guarantees by $50 billion in the economic recovery package (S. 336). This staggering sum "would more than double the current loan guarantee cap of $38 billion" for "clean energy" technology.

Yet this provision would not create a single job for many, many years, but would saddle the public with tens of millions of dollars more in toxic loans. As I noted in my 2008 report, "The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power":

In August 2007, Tulsa World reported that American Electric Power Co. CEO Michael Morris was not planning to build any new nuclear power plants. He was quoted as saying, "I'm not convinced we'll see a new nuclear station before probably the 2020 timeline,"

Morris further noted, "Builders would also have to queue for certain parts."

Indeed, the nuclear industry is riddled with bottlenecks. For instance, Japan Steel Works is "the only plant in the world ... capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak." And they have a backlog of a few years already.

The additional loans would probably not even result in a single new signed contract for a plant over the next two years, let alone produce a single job in Obama's first term -- other than maybe a few high-priced lawyers and lobbyists to twist the arms of state Public Utility Commissioners to shove the inevitable rate increase down the throats of consumers (see "Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power"). Turkey seems smarter than that (see "Turkey's only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour"). Are we?

Why are we still propping up an industry that can't survive without the taxpayer swallowing both the economic risk of an actual meltdown and the risk of the new nukes melting down financially -- all for a mature technology that has already received more than $100 billion in direct and indirect subsidies (see "Nuclear Pork -- Enough is Enough")?

Here is the proposed language for this nuclear bomb:

John Podesta talks tough on Obama’s energy plan

“If people want to continue in practices that were more appropriate in the 1950s than today, then I think that they’re going to have to understand that Obama campaigned on a promise of energy transformation. And he intends to fulfill it.” — John Podesta, Obama’s transition chief and president of the Center for American Progress

This might be my all-time favorite

Certainly in the top five:

As meaningful as his presidency is, Obama will not act fast enough on the climate crisis

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lowered about our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

-- William Shakespeare, King Richard the Third

To complain that President Barack Obama is not serious enough about climate strikes most U.S. environmentalists as strange, almost incomprehensible behavior. This is a time for celebration and new beginnings and any small doubts we harbor are easily assuaged by our confidence in the man who is president. Those who are not swept up in the new optimism seem small -- either nit-pickers of detail who miss the big picture (what did he mean by "harness the sun and the winds and the soil"?) or the Gloster's of our victory -- cramped and parsimonious in spirit, prone to petty grievance.

Our feelings now are in accord with our conduct over the last decade and more. We are always optimistic, it is our nature. When politicians send mixed signals we embrace the positive and accept the troubling as pragmatic, necessary concessions. When offered half a loaf we take it and proclaim ourselves full.

But this is no compromise to be swallowed, is it? After eight years in the wilderness, we look out onto a playing field dominated by President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, Senator Boxer, and Congressman Markey, and we see immense promise. In Obama's majestic inaugural address we heard climate mentioned, then mentioned again, and again, and, "he gets it!" we thought. This is what we endured for, this is what we campaigned hard for, and the sweetness in the D.C. air is more glorious than we had imagined.

Except for three things:

1. The time-line for climate action has been cut to four years.
2. The Democratic plan of action is utterly inadequate.
3. Climate is a second-tier problem for President Obama.

Taking a moment to appreciate Obama's words

In the wake of President Barack Obama's speech on Monday, the media -- including our own Kate and Sarah -- have scurried to report on the implications, ramifications, and other -ications of the emissions issue. Good stuff, and important. But could we take a step back for just a moment?

Consider what your president said:

Obama doesn't need to back away from investment to appease conservatives

Conservative pollster Frank Luntz takes to the pages of the L.A. Times to share the news that everyone loves infrastructure:

Last month, I conducted a national survey of 800 registered voters on their attitudes toward infrastructure investment ...

The survey's findings were unlike any other issue I have polled in more than a decade. Iraq, healthcare, taxes, education -- they all predictably divide and polarize Americans into political camps. Not infrastructure.

Consider this: A near unanimous 94% of Americans are concerned about our nation's infrastructure. And this concern cuts across all regions of the country and across urban, suburban and rural communities.

This demonstrates yet another reason why Obama's attempt to appease conservatives by bumping transit infrastructure investments to make room for tax cuts is pointless. The people want infrastructure, they want stimulus, and those two happen to be the same thing, so who gives a f*ck what Republicans want?

Nate Silver follows up with this excellent point:

I'm not sure why Obama isn't doing more to highlight the green portions of the stimulus bill. The public seems to tolerate the spending on bridges and highways -- but they also see it, perhaps not wholly improperly, as make-work. The long-run benefits of the alternative energy programs, on the other hand, are far more intuitively appealing. If the central critique of the stimulus is that the debt we're creating will be burdensome to future generations, that concern could be mitigated if the spending in question is portrayed as a down payment made on behalf of those future generations toward cleaning up the environment and mitigating dependence on fossil fuels. It also provides for some sense of purpose to the stimulus: we'll come out of this, Obama can say, with the greenest, most energy-independent major industrial economy in the world, etc. etc.

Exactly. I really don't see why Obama has to trim his sails one bit on this stuff. It's overwhelmingly popular and substantively correct policy, a combo that doesn't come along very often.

Obama names clean-energy proponent as acting head of FERC

With so much news in Washington this week, we almost forgot to mention big news at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On Friday, President Obama appointed Jon Wellinghoff to be the acting chairman of the agency, where he will oversee interstate electric transmission, gas transportation, and opening wholesale markets to renewables.

The 59-year-old Nevadan is considered the front-runner for a nomination to the top spot at the agency. "I thank President Obama for the opportunity to lead FERC at a time when our nation faces the challenge of providing consumers with access to clean, renewable energy and ensuring that our nation can deliver that energy in the most efficient, smart and technologically sophisticated manner possible," said Wellinghoff in a statement.

This is exciting news for greens, who are big fans of Wellinghoff, an energy law specialist who has been with FERC since 2006. In December 2007, the U.S. Senate reconfirmed him for a full five-year term. While at the agency he has helped create a new division -- the Energy Innovations Sector -- to investigate and promote new efficient technologies and practices.

In his first full day on the job as acting chief, Wellinghoff stressed the need for automobile manufacturers and electric utilities to work together to integrate electric vehicles into the national grid, according to a Dow Jones report.

Exiting chairman Joseph T. Kelliher praised Wellinghoff's appointment: "Jon has the intelligence, experience, judgment and independence to lead FERC as the agency discharges its historic responsibilities and confronts new challenges." Kelliher, who drew fire during the Bush administration for his involvement with Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy task force, stepped down earlier this month.