Gristmill

Lieberman-Warner supporter Gregg says Obama climate proposal spends too much on 'special interests'

In 2007, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) supported the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. Widely regarded as something of a Frankenstein bill, it directed revenue at every conceivable constituency, based on sometimes tenuous connections to the climate issue. He said his "one reservation" was that more revenue wasn't returned to taxpayers.

Well! Obama just released a budget proposal that would return vastly more of the revenue -- around 82 percent -- to taxpayers. Gregg, who prides himself on being Mr. Moderate Bipartisan, would surely celebrate this development, right?

Nope:

"It's a stalking horse for raising taxes and spending it on special interests." Gregg said of the Obama plan in a telephone interview. "It's a non-starter."

Again, Obama's plan spends far less on "special interests" (Republican code for public investments) than a bill Gregg already supported. The only difference is that Obama's plan is Obama's.

Gregg has talked his way inside the carbon policy tent and now he's trying to burn it down. He's got lots of company.

What can families do to reduce home energy use?

My name is not Earl. I've crossed everything off my list, and I'd like to share what I have learned about home weatherization.

I'll start with my results to date. I spent roughly $400 and achieved a 60 percent reduction in my gas-heating bill for the month of February. That huge reduction is testimony to what an energy hog my house was before I started this project.

My goal is an 80 percent reduction but that last 20 percent isn't going to come easy. To obtain that I will need to install a solar hot water panel in the one sunny patch of yard I have, a heat exchanger on the first floor shower drain, and possibly one of these bad-boy heat pumps. Our hot water accounts for almost 20 percent of our gas use.

Here's my list of weatherized add-ons:

A mileage tax may be the best idea that everyone loves to hate

This sort of flew under the radar, but a few weeks ago a federal commission floated the idea of eventually replacing the gas tax with a tax based on the number of miles driven each year. What happened next was odd: progressives, conservatives, and wonks banded together to proclaim a mileage tax to be a stupid idea.

A mileage tax is not a stupid idea. It may prove to be unworkable for technical, political, or even cultural reasons, but at root a mileage tax is both a very good idea and also possibly a necessary one as we undertake a shift away from the internal combustion engine. It's no surprise to see politicians (like Obama) run screaming from this proposal, but why are the pundits piling on?

Before delving into the specific arguments for and against a mileage tax, it's worth noting that the entire country of Holland is doing exactly what commentators have deemed stupid or impossible: starting in 2011, the Netherlands will phase in a vehicle-tracking scheme that applies dynamic pricing to every mile driven. Pricing will vary by vehicle type, time of day, and location, in order to curb both congestion and carbon emissions. The program is designed to be revenue-neutral, and because the government is simultaneously phasing out a steep motor vehicle tax, the plan should end up reducing the burden on low-income drivers. I mention this not to suggest that the U.S. can or should do exactly as Holland does, but just to point out that the concept isn't quite as crazily unworkable as some seem to think.

Thomas Friedman's rock-star status

"If rock stars get room keys, I get business cards. I hear the craziest stuff. But it is a sign of a country that is actually exploding with innovation from the ground up."

-- The Mustache on collecting cards from clean-energy entrepreneurs

RFK Jr. addresses green building conference in Seattle

“[Americans are] probably the best entertained and least informed people in the world,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said Friday at the BuiltGreen Conference in Seattle, noting that we know more about the decline of Britney Spears than we do about global warming. It was one grim truth among many that he shared with the audience […]

Can the problems of the developing world be solved by ignoring global warming?

Salon has published my article on the biggest flaw in the strategy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I'm going to expand on that article in a two-parter here.

The timing could not be better with the Tom Friedman "Ponzi scheme" discussion. For while the the richest foundation in the world certainly has taken on the noblest and greatest of challenges -- to help billions of people who "never even have the chance to live a healthy, productive life" (see here) reach that opportunity themselves -- its efforts are ultimately doomed to fail if we don't stop catastrophic warming.

Also, the two men who have donated much of their vast wealth to make it possible, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are Exhibits One and Two of the "very serious people who are perceived as essentially nonpartisan opinion leaders" who must speak out on climate change if we are to avert the worst (see here).

Yet when we saw them together last summer, they were touring the Ponzi Canadian tar sands, as The Calgary Herald reported (see here):

A source said Gates and Buffett, who in recent months said he favors investing in the Canadian oil sands because it offers a secure supply of oil for the United States, visited the booming hub to satisfy "their own curiosity" but also "with investment in mind."

The tar sands are an environmental abomination that require huge amounts of natural gas to produce fuel with far higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than oil. They have rightly been called by Greenpeace the "biggest global warming crime ever seen." The Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands posted a scathing pastoral letter in January that challenges the "moral legitimacy" of tar sands production.

Let's look at the Gates Foundation's strategy, and why, despite the noblest of intentions, it is not sustainable (even though, if you search "sustainable" on the Foundation website, you get 96 hits). In the face of the daunting task of helping the world's poor, which has proven such an intractable challenge for national governments and international aid agencies, Bill Gates retains the techno-optimism that drove his unbridled success at Microsoft. In July 2008, Gates went from being full-time at Microsoft to working full-time at the foundation with his wife, Melinda. With about $30 billion in assets as of January, the Gates are targeting U.S. education, childhood deaths, malaria, polio, AIDS and agriculture in poor countries.

On their Web site, Bill and Melinda state that if "scientific and technological advances" are focused on the problems of developing nations, "then within this century billions of people will grow up healthier, get a better education, and gain the power to lift themselves out of poverty." Bill and Melinda go on to make Pollyanna, Pangloss and Paula Abdul seem like realists:

Graphic novel adaptation amps up energy message

I hardly dare to write this post, to even edge my pinky toe toward the waters of Watchmen analysis, but I will say this: as a newcomer to the story, I was intrigued by the emphasis on energy. At one point, a major character blasts a bunch of smarmy oil execs, telling them humanity "deserves better than what you've given them." (I committed the entire line to memory at the time, but the movie was so damn long good that I forgot it.)

I brought this up in our news meeting today, only to be met with the response of two staffers far more Watchmen-ucated than I, who pointed out that the energy chatter in the movie does not stem from the original book. That makes sense, considering the, er, altered denouement. Which is interesting itself, since the film was otherwise slavishly loyal to the book.

Alternative energy in The Watchmen: a nod to the current national dialogue, or a convenient replacement for a giant squid? I shall leave it to others to discuss the finer points.

Wind turbines at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base — thanks to the DOE office I once ran

My recent blog post -- Jack Bauer becomes first-ever carbon-neutral torturer as Murdoch says "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats" -- led one reader to email me that Gitmo has wind turbines. I googled, and indeed they do.

What is doubly interesting is that this project is the direct result of the Federal Energy Management Program, part of DOE's office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that I helped run in the mid-1990s. Since the Gingrich Congress blocked all efforts to ramp up funding for this "no brainer" program that helps reduce the deficit -- by lowering the energy bill of federal agencies -- while saving energy and reducing pollution, we launched a huge effort to leverage private money to pay for the retrofits.

That effort had a classic bureaucratic name -- Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity Super Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) -- you can read about here. The ESPCs avoid the need for any upfront capital by the federal government. Even though Bush has grossly underfunded all such EERE deployment programs, the program continued and Gitmo made use of it (see here [PDF]):

The Department of the Navy partnered with NORESCO to construct a $12 million wind turbine project at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using an energy savings performance contract. Four wind turbines will generate 3,800 kilowatts of electricity -- enough to supply about a quarter of the peak power needed for base operations. The project will not only save taxpayers $1.2 million in annual energy costs, but will also save 650,000 gallons of diesel fuel and reduce air pollution by 26 tons of SO2 and 15 tons of NOX, demonstrating the Navy's commitment to energy conservation and environmental stewardship.

So, no, Gitmo is not carbon neutral.

The Pentagon's news story on this back in 2005 explains how the ESPC made this possible:

EPA announces plans to regulate coal ash

In response to December’s giant coal ash spill in Kingston, Tenn., the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced that it is beginning the process of regulating the waste ponds around the country. The December spill spurred increased attention to coal-waste issues around the country. The 1.1 billion gallons of slurry flooded more than 300 acres […]