China Kicking America’s Ass in Race to Go Solar
August 26, 2009
Leave it to China to find a way to produce just about anything on the cheap, and do it really quickly. Despite the Obama administration’s dedication to getting America’s clean energy industry off the ground, China is leaving us in the dust and it’s looking unlikely that we’ll get a good chance to catch up.
In fact, the Chinese are preparing to build plants right here in the United States to assemble their products, to get around protectionist legislation.
From The New York Times:
The Obama administration is determined to help the American industry. The energy and Treasury departments announced this month that they would give $2.3 billion in tax credits to clean energy equipment manufacturers. But even in the solar industry, many worry that Western companies may have fragile prospects when competing with Chinese companies that have cheap loans, electricity and labor, paying recent college graduates in engineering $7,000 a year.
“I don’t see Europe or the United States becoming major producers of solar products — they’ll be consumers,” said Thomas M. Zarrella, the chief executive of GT Solar International, a company in Merrimack, N.H., that sells specialized factory equipment to solar panel makers around the world.
China’s commitment to solar energy isn’t likely to make a big dent in the fight against global warming, especially given the country’s own skyrocketing emissions, much of which are caused by the pollution that goes hand-in-hand with running ultra-low-cost factories.
America still has the world’s largest supplier of photovoltaic cells – First Solar in Tempe, Arizona – but China’s Suntech is not far behind. Suntech plans to build a solar panel assembly plant in the United States “to facilitate sales — ‘buy American’ and things like that”, according to the company’s president for global sales and marketing.
Link [The New York Times]
Photo credit: OregonDOT
Jon Stewart’s Illustrated Guide to Cap and Trade
July 23, 2009
The Daily Show was almost entirely green-themed on Tuesday night, with host Jon Stewart guiding us through the climate change bill passing through the Senate and interviewing Energy Secretary Chu.
Check out these two hilarious clips:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Jon Stewart Jizz-Ams in Front of Children – Cap’n Trade | ||||
|
||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Steven Chu | ||||
|
||||
There’s another one up at The Huffington Post.
Link [The Huffington Post]
Obama Administration Orders 14,105 Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
June 13, 2009
President Obama has lived up to his word on greening the federal fleet, ordering 14,105 fuel-efficient vehicles worth $210 million. The vehicles will be paid for with funds from the Recovery Act. The U.S. General Services Administration said that it ordered the vehicles from GM, Chrysler and Ford last week.
From GreenBiz.com:
“GSA is committed to spending Recovery dollars quickly and wisely,” Commissioner James A. Williams of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service said in a statement. “Simultaneously, we are focused on acquiring vehicles that will provide long-term environmental benefits and savings by increasing the fuel efficiency of the federal fleet.”
On March 30, Obama directed his administration to purchase about 17,600 commercially available, fuel efficient vehicles from American auto companies by June 1, to use funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — and to get the job done swiftly to boost the nation’s auto industry and replace aging vehicles with greener ones.
As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement, the vehicle orders is “good for our economy, good for our workers, and good for our environment”. Way to go green and give people jobs at the same time – a fantastic way to approach both the economic and climate crises.
Link [GreenBiz.com]
Photo credit: The Huffington Post
Obama Picks Superfund Polluter Lawyer for Environmental Post
May 19, 2009
President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer who has spent much of her career defending major polluters to a sensitive environmental post.
Yes, you read that correctly.
If you feel like you’re experiencing an especially vivid and painful flashback to the days of former President Bush’s environmental follies, you’re not alone. It was common Bush administration practice to put the fox in charge of the hen house. The term ‘conflict of interest’ was seemingly meaningless to an administration that put nepotism ahead of the interests of the people and the land.
But it’s not something that most liberals would expect from President Obama, who has sought to separate himself from such practices.
From Think Progress:
On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S. Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter“: Number five in the Fortune 500 with revenues of $89.3 billion and earnings of $8.2 billion in 1997, General Electric has been a leader in the effort to roll back the Superfund law and stave off any requirements for full cleanup and restoration of sites they helped create.
Before General Electric, Moreno worked as a corporate attorney at Spriggs and Hollingsworth. Moreno’s name is found in the Westlaw database as an attorney defending General Motors in another Superfund case, the GM Powertrain facility in Bedford, Indiana: Historical uses and management of PCB containing hydraulic oils and PCB impacted materials has contaminated on-site areas as well as the sediment and floodplain soil within Bailey’s Branch and the Pleasant Run Creek watershed.
If confirmed, Moreno will be in charge of the office that enforces environmental laws and defends federal regulations in lawsuits. Her experience lies in defending polluters, not enforcing environmental justice. And considering the particularly heinous nature of the crimes she has defended – like GM’s PCBs – can she really be expected to do the right thing?
Some say that Moreno’s industry experience could actually help her enforce the law, including Eric Schaeffer, director of the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. Schaeffer, who resigned as chief of the EPA’s enforcement office in 2002 in protest of the Bush administration’s enforcement tactics, thinks that Moreno can use her knowledge to the government’s advantage. But who’s to say that Moreno has had a change of heart?
It’s an understatement to say that environmentalists are concerned about this nomination. I think ‘sputtering outrage’ more accurately captures the general sentiment. We expect better than this from President Obama.
Link [Think Progress] + [The New York Times]
Photo credit: The Daily Mail
Dirty Industries Seek Free Pollution Credits from Government
May 6, 2009
The very same industries that have helped get the world into this global warming mess in the first place are now asking the government for free passes to keep on polluting under legislation for capping greenhouse gases. Electric utilities, automakers, oil companies and natural gas refineries are among the industries that believe they should get pollution credits, complements of the Obama administration.
From the Wall Street Journal:
The measure by Reps. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) and Edward Markey (D., Mass.) calls for reducing U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions roughly 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by mid-century. It is largely silent on how much companies would have to pay for pollution permits under a proposed cap-and-trade system that would allow companies to buy and sell such permits.
“There are a lot of things in the bill I need to have changed,” said Rep. Gene Green (D., Texas). Mr. Green, whose district is home to the largest petrochemical complex in the world, wants Mr. Waxman to give some pollution permits to oil refiners for free. “If that’s not in the bill, I can’t vote for it,” he said.
Refiners are lobbying to get for free 30% of the pollution permits, an amount that corresponds roughly to the share of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions produced by transportation fuel. Without such allowances, the industry says, it will lose out to refineries in India and the Middle East that ship their product to the U.S. and don’t operate under carbon caps at home.
“The electric utilities want 40%, and if they’re getting 40%, the refiners say ‘Why shouldn’t we get 30%?”‘ Mr. Green said. Mr. Green said he has asked Mr. Waxman to give the refining industry a smaller share of the allowances — roughly 5%.
These industries have had years to prepare – they should have known that greenhouse gas caps would go into effect eventually. Instead of being proactive and starting a long time ago to slowly reduce their emissions, they’re now finding themselves in the desperate situation of being forced into major changes in a short amount of time.
Link [Wall Street Journal]
Industry-Funded Report Inflates Cost of Obama Green Jobs Plan
May 1, 2009
Surprise, surprise: a new study sponsored by a group of energy-intensive industries claims that President Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system and to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would result in 1.9 million job losses and would cost the average American household $1,400 a year. If those figures sound off to you, you’re on to something.
Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog explains at The Huffington Post:
These industry estimates are wildly off the mark, of course. The Environmental Protection Agency last week concluded that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation being debated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would cost the average household just $98 to $140 a year through 2050.
The Coalition for Affordable American Energy, which commissioned the study, was formed in June 2008 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors, and 73 other industry trade associations.
The group currently claims more than 180 associations as members, including dozens of local chapters of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. and such noteworthy partners as the International Association of Ice Cream Vendors and the Association for Hose and Accessories Distribution. (The group has no website of its own, all of its online communications are hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which calls itself a “key player” in CAAE.)
The Coalition for Affordable American Energy last made headlines when the group’s leaders met with former President Bush in August 2008 to lobby for increased domestic oil and gas drilling both offshore and in environmentally sensitive areas of Alaska. “I agree with them,” Bush said at the time.
Now, the Coalition is updating their report based on the Waxman-Markey bill, but that hasn’t stopped people (hellooo, Fox News) from taking the incorrect figures and running with them. The CAAE study has been widely published and cited since its release.
Naturally, conservatives and corporations were up in arms about these inflated figures, saying the cost was too high – but as The Hill pointed out, the economic consequences of a warming planet could be even greater. That’s one thing that so many on the right don’t seem to get: they’re not looking past here and now to consider what’s looming in the future.
Link [The Huffington Post]
Energy Secretary Chu Describes Climate Doomsday Scenario
April 21, 2009
There will be “huge” consequences if warming is left unchecked, warned Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the “Summit of the Americas” in Trinidad and Tobago on Sunday. Chu, a Nobel Prize winner, discussed some of the most dramatic impacts that could be expected if the world fails to unite to fight global climate change.
An excerpt from The Huffington Post:
I think for the most part this debate is over. It’s something — yes, it’s changing; that’s a demonstrable fact. If one looks at the latest IPCC reports, there’s very, very convincing evidence — very high probability it was caused predominantly by greenhouse gas emissions. And what is not known with certainty is what are the range of effects that might happen, and — because that, quite frankly, also depends on what the world does.
And so let me remind you that the Earth has already warmed up by about 0.8 degrees Centigrade; that the experts acknowledge that there is another 1 degree Centigrade already built into the system, even if humans stopped carbon emissions today flat. That’s because we put enough greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere, the sun continues to warm up the Earth, and until you reach a new equilibrium or the heat from the Earth then reaches the equilibrium — what’s coming in and what’s getting reflected back — there’s 1 degree change already; that there’s a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more. That means we have a — there’s a reasonable probability, and certainly in business-as-usual scenario, we can go to 5 or 6 degrees Centigrade.
Now, what does that mean? The last ice age, we were 6 degrees Centigrade colder than we are today — a very different world. Okay, only 6 degrees Centigrade means, in North America, ice sheet from Canada down to Pennsylvania, Ohio — year round in ice. So imagine a world 6 degrees warmer. It’s not going to recognize geographical boundaries. It’s not going to recognize anything. So agriculture regions today will be wiped out. Yes, there are parts of Canada will be — can grow more food, but, you know, the other thing is, the Earth is spherical and the sun hits at an angle up north. So there are going to be huge consequences if we go up to that 4, 5, 6 degrees.
Chu notes that one of the most distressing scenarios would be the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet as well as Antarctica. If Greenland melts, there would be a seven-meter level sea rise around the world which would cause some island nations, like the Maldives, to disappear entirely.
Read the rest of Chu’s statements at The Huffington Post.
Link [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Ahmed Zahid
Offshore Wind Power Could Replace Coal, says Salazar
April 8, 2009
Wind power has the ability to not just supplement but possibly entirely replace coal-fired power plants if it were fully developed off the East Coast, says Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Salazar spoke on Monday at a public hearing in Atlantic City on how America’s offshore areas can be used to meet our energy needs.
And who was the first to pipe up that this is impossible, but a coal industry group?
From Yahoo News:
“The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility,” he said. “It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.”
Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now operating in the United States, according to the Energy Department.
Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, said he was puzzled by Salazar’s projections. He said wind power plants face roadblocks including local opposition, concerns about their impact on wildlife, and problems in efficiently transmitting power from far offshore.
“It really is a stretch,” he said of Salazar’s estimate. “How you put that many new (wind) plants up, especially in deep water, is confusing. Even if you could do what he said, you still need to deal with the fact that the best wind plants generate power about 30 percent of the time. There’s got to be something to back that up.”
Salazar’s spokesperson clarified that the secretary does not expect wind power to be fully developed, but was speaking about its potential. Of course, it would take time – but the point is that it’s possible. And, given the environmental benefits, why shouldn’t we push wind power technology to its limits? Unless [shudder] a Republican wins the next election and we’re back to Bush-era policies within 5 years, the coal industry is already speaking from beyond the grave and they know it.
Link [Yahoo]
Photo credit: EarthFirst composite/Wikimedia Commons
Obama Seeks to Out-Do Clinton in Greening the White House
March 31, 2009
President Obama wants to green the White House, and though it’s been done before, he’s going to one-up former Presidents Carter, Clinton and Bush in every way he can. Carter installed solar panels, Clinton embarked on an ambitious effort that successfully improved the efficiency of lighting, heating, A/C, insulation and water use and even anti-environment Bush installed a few solar energy systems. But Obama is focused on reducing the White House’s behemoth carbon footprint, and that will take a lot more work.
From The Huffington Post:
Obama isn’t ready to give details of his broader go-green plans for the White House, but administration officials report that small steps are under way: The housekeeping staff is making the switch to greener cleaning supplies, and complex managers have asked engineers and groundskeepers to use greener products whenever possible. Efforts are afoot to improve and promote recycling.
As for what more can be done, outside experts on green buildings report that the administration is seeking out information about what’s feasible. Given the priority Obama placed on renewable energy in his economic stimulus package and budget, environmentalists are chattering about what further steps he will take at the White House.
Prior to taking office, Obama promised to lead by example and show Americans that it’s really not that hard to go green. The small steps they’re currently taking may not seem all that impressive on the surface, but so far, each thing they’ve done – from the kitchen garden to the eco-friendly playground – can be easily imitated by most Americans. And, there’s undoubtedly much more to come.
Link [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: WhiteHouseMuseum.org
The Future of Sustainable Food: Are we on the Edge of a New Era?
March 24, 2009
Following a huge grassroots effort to get a victory garden reestablished on the White House lawn, Michelle Obama made it official last week: an organic kitchen garden is now in progress near the fountain on the South Lawn. As we had hoped, Mrs. Obama is helping to elevate awareness of healthy, locally and sustainably grown food. So, does that mean that sustainable food revolution is about to sweep the country?
During World War II, victory gardens became a necessity as the government rationed foods like sugar, cheese and meats and labor and transportation shortages affected the ability to harvest and transport fruits and vegetables to markets. The government asked citizens to shoulder some of the burden of food production, and what resulted was a nation where nearly every yard supplied fresh produce. But, it didn’t last. Once the war was over, we went back to our lawns.
The importance of sustainable food can’t be overstated. Our food system is a mess. The vast majority of the foods we consume are grown thousands of miles away from our homes with liberal use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, processed heavily and then shipped to our local supermarkets. It’s hard to even tell where the foods we eat come from anymore. We’re so far removed from the source of our food, it’s really kind of disturbing. Children hardly even realize that food comes from nature, as opposed to the store down the street.
Food recalls are becoming more and more commonplace as farms and processing centers cut corners and fail to properly oversee operations. Contamination is widespread and has reached stomach-turning heights in recent years. Most of what’s found in grocery stores is loaded with empty calories, preservatives, sodium and fat. Conventional farming practices are robbing our soil and our food of nutrients, polluting our waterways and causing vast oxygen-deprived ‘dead zones’ in our oceans.
People are beginning to realize the value of authentic food – thanks in large part to a receptive First Lady and skyrocketing interest in the green, eco-friendly lifestyle – but making the dream of a sustainable food revolution into reality on a nationwide scale is a gargantuan task, and one that may still take many years to be fully realized.
Advocates of conventional agriculture – including, naturally, the powerful National Corn Growers Association – are pushing back, arguing that organic farming can’t provide enough food because yields tend to be lower.
From The New York Times:
“We think there’s a place for organic, but don’t think we can feed ourselves and the world with organic,” says Rick Tolman, chief executive of the National Corn Growers Association. “It’s not as productive, more labor-intensive and tends to be more expensive.”
Although some people argue that there are hidden costs to cheap food, from environmental damage caused by factory farms and fertilizer runoff to the health costs associated with eating highly processed, calorie-laden food, the fact remains that commercially produced food is relatively inexpensive.
As the Obama administration took over in January, many advocates of organic, sustainable food had hoped to see an ally appointed as secretary of agriculture and were angry at the appointment of Tom Vilsack, who has been called a Monsanto shill. Obama’s choice to put Vilsack in charge of the USDA was seen as a devastating blow to the movement.
From Counterpunch:
“Vilsack’s nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration,” said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of Organic Consumers Association. “Our nation’s future depends on crafting a forward-thinking strategy to promote organic and sustainable food and farming, and address the related crises of climate change, diminishing energy supplies, deteriorating public health, and economic depression.”
Vilsack has taken to fighting that perception, turning a patch of pavement outside his headquarters into a “people’s garden” and claiming sustainable food as one of his main priorities. Among his stated goals are improving the quality of children’s school lunches, helping small farms develop regional distribution networks and overhauling agriculture and food policy to place an emphasis on nutrition and fighting climate change.
Sustainable food activists are wary, and take Vilsack’s statements with a grain of salt given his past, but they’re still hopeful that sweeping changes in the way things are done could push local and sustainable food into the mainstream.
Still, even the most ardent of sustainable food advocates warn that the movement isn’t ready for its closeup. Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and supporter of diversified, regional food networks, told The New York Times “The movement is not ready for prime time. It’s not like we have an infrastructure with legislation ready to go.”
But, momentum is building all the same, and across the country, thousands of people are turning back to that World War II-era tradition of growing their own food. This time, there’s even more at stake – so we’ve got to make sustainable food a reality. Luckily, our fortunes have changed dramatically since the Bush administration left office with its collective tail between its legs. We’ve got friends in powerful places – even Oprah is speaking out for sustainable food.
So, what can you do to help? For starters, consider following Michelle Obama’s example and plant a kitchen garden, start some potted herbs and veggies on your balcony or even take over an abandoned lot. Learn more about growing your own food no matter where you live with our guide to urban gardening, and get more info about the sustainable food movement at SustainableTable.org.
Link [The New York Times] + [CounterPunch]
Photo credit: Slow Food Nation & The Huffington Post
Obama Puts $2.4B into Grants for Electric Vehicles
March 21, 2009
President Obama has announced $2.4 billion dollars in new grants for electric vehicle development. The funds are included in the $787 billion dollar stimulus plan. The plan will also give a $7,500 tax credit to people who buy plug-in vehicles. Obama has vowed to compete with foreign nations in the race to be world leader on renewable energy.
From The Huffington Post:
“We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad or we can create them here in America and lay the foundation for lasting prosperity,” Obama said on the second day of a campaign-style swing in California.
He set a target of putting a million of the environmentally friendly vehicles on US roads by 2015.
But that doesn’t compare favorably to plans by some other, smaller countries. Here at HuffPost Green, we marveled at Spain’s electric vehicle program just yesterday — that country, whose population isn’t quite one-sixth the size of ours — is shooting for a million electric vehicles by 2012, in addition to pilot infrastructure programs in three major cities.
We are definitely way behind, but who do we have to thank for that? 8 years of profits-over-people-and-environment Republican “leadership”. The Bush Administration was all about maintaining the environmentally unfriendly status quo for their buddies in industry, and Obama has done an admirable job thus far helping to make up for lost time.
Is $2.4 billion for electric vehicles enough? Maybe not, but it’s a thrilling start, and at least we’re finally getting somewhere.
Link [The Huffington Post]
Van Jones Explains Why He’s Going to Washington
March 17, 2009
He’s the perfect man for the job, so of course greenies across America are thrilled that Van Jones is joining President Obama’s administration to become a ‘green jobs adviser’. But, there are some who have questioned whether it’s really the best way to put Jones’ expertise to use, and wondered what he’s leaving behind as he heads to Washington. Jones sat down for interviews with E&E News and YES! Magazine to explain.
From Greenwire:
E&E: What will be your new role within CEQ, and why did you decide to join this administration?
Jones: The title is special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. … As we begin to move toward a clean-energy economy, we have an opportunity to have equal opportunity from the very beginning, making sure all Americans can take part.
E&E: Will you also advocate the president’s agenda among the public?
Jones: That’s still in development. Part of my job description does have me available to advocate publicly, but I think we’re going to be focusing primarily internally for the near term.
E&E: Do you consider yourself Obama’s “green-jobs czar,” as some have dubbed you?
Jones: No, I’m the green-jobs handyman. I’m there to serve. I’m there to help as a leader in the field of green jobs, which is a new field. I’m happy to come and serve and be helpful, but there’s no such thing as a green-jobs “czar.”
Jones also answered some pressing questions from YES! Magazine, via GreenBiz.com:
Doug: What happens to Green for All while you’re in DC?
Van: That’s the best news of all, that we have an extraordinary leader in Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, who’s coming on board. Anybody in California knows that she is a truewunderkind. She has been a phenomenal leader of the progressive labor movement, she’s African-American, she’s young — in her early thirties. You just could not dream up a better person to come into Green for All at this time.
Doug: While you’re in DC, what can folks who have been following Green for All and working with you or on your initiatives, what can folks do to keep the movement going?
Van: Continue doing the things we have planned. We’re working to implement the green recovery in a just way. We need to get those recovery dollars out fast and fair. Anybody who’s interested can got to the website greenforall.org and you’ll see lots of opportunities to get involved and also lots of information about how to get those recovery dollars working in your own community. And that’s going to be an important part of what Green for All does going forward. To tell you the truth, I think in that start-up phase the early phase, visioning and initiating, I think I did an extraordinary job. We are in a different world, and Green for All needs a different leader. And it has that leader in Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins.
Jones is passionate about what he does – that’s what makes him such a great pick. So, of course he’s going to make sure that things are taken care of before he leaves Green for All to help Obama tackle the green jobs angle of economic recovery in Washington. I think we’ll see a lot of amazing things come out of this partnership, and Green for All will continue the fantastic work they’ve been doing for so many years now.
Link [Greenwire] + [GreenBiz.com] via [The Huffington Post]
Van Jones, Obama’s New Green Jobs Adviser
March 11, 2009
Over the past few days there’s been a lot of rumors and speculation about Van Jones possibly joining President Obama’s cabinet as ‘Green Jobs Czar’. It was finally confirmed yesterday that while ‘Green Jobs Czar’ is a bit of an overstatement, Jones wil indeed be serving as Obama’s green jobs adviser.
From Google:
Author and activist Van Jones will be a special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation in the Obama administration.
Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a release Monday that Jones will start work next week to help direct the administration’s efforts to create jobs and help the environment. Sutley said Jones will work on “vulnerable communities.”
Jones, who is perhaps the nation’s most high-profile advocate of green jobs, is the founder of Green for All and author of the book ‘The Green Collar Economy’. Grist caught up with him at the Democratic National Convention last August to ask whether he’d be interested in becoming a part of the Obama administration as green jobs czar or something similar, to which he responded “I can’t imagine what position he would offer me except the janitorial recycling staff, which I’d be happy to be a part of.”
Of course, Jones was being modest. He’s a natural choice for such a position, bringing with him years of experience organizing and advocating for green jobs training programs, particularly in poverty-stricken urban areas. When President Obama won the election last November, bringing Jones on staff was one of the first things we asked him to do. We’re confident that Jones has what it takes to help Obama lead this country into a new green collar economy.
NRDC Rounds Up Obama’s Environmental Progress
March 7, 2009
When it was announced last week that Obama was set to reverse Bush-era rules that weakened protection of endangered species, we wondered aloud whether anyone was keeping track of just how much progress the new administration has made thus far in terms of the environment. We should have known that the National Resources Defense Council was on it.
The NRDC, which also kept a comprehensive record of Bush’s environmental crimes, rounded up Obama’s green efforts in a recent article at The Huffington Post:
- January 26, 2009: President Obama directs the EPA to reconsider the agency’s decision to deny California’s strong limits on global warming pollution from cars, and he calls on the Department of Transportation to raise national fuel efficiency standards.February 4, 2009: More than 100,000 acres of Utah wilderness win protection from oil and gas drilling after the Department of Interior announced that it will cancel 77 leases issued under the Bush administration.
- February 5, 2009: President Obama signs a presidential memorandum requesting that the Department of Energy set new efficiency standards for common household appliances. This will save in 30 years the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America over a two-year period.
- February 6, 2009: The EPA announces it will reconsider its decision to deny California permission to set standards controlling greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.
- February 6, 2009: On instruction from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to drop the Bush administration’s desperate appeal to resurrect EPA’s illegal and harmful power plant mercury rule.
- February 10, 2009: Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he is going to make a thorough review of the five-year Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program that was announced in the final days of the Bush administration.
That’s not even half of it – check out the rest at The Huffington Post.
What a relief, after the disaster that was George W. Bush’s presidency. It’s so nice to know that we’ve got years of additional progress to look forward to.
Link [The Huffington Post]
Obama Reverses Bush-Era Endangered Species Rule
March 4, 2009
President Obama has shelved a Bush-era rule that weakens protection of endangered species, he announced on Tuesday. The regulations allow agencies to decide for themselves whether projects like highways, dams and mines could harm animals and plants listed under the Endangered Species Act. The rule reduces the mandatory independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years, and prevents federal agencies from assessing whether the construction project contributes to global warming.
From MSNBC:
“We should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it,” Obama said of the Endangered Species Act. He spoke at an Interior Department ceremony to mark the department’s 160th anniversary.
At least for now, the two agencies will resume full scientific reviews of projects that might harm endangered wildlife and plants.
A conservation group that had sued to overturn the Bush-era rule welcomed the news.
“Obama has swiftly delivered on his campaign promise to reverse Bush’s anti-endangered species regulations,” Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told msnbc.com. “He has restored independent, scientific oversight to the heart of the Endangered Species Act.”
Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum to put the regulation on hold until the Interior and Commerce departments complete a review of it. Democrats in Congress are attempting to reverse the rule via legislation. They wrote a provision into a spending bill that passed in January, drawing the predictable ire of Republicans.
Is anyone keeping track of how many of Bush’s environmental offenses Obama has overturned thus far, in less than 60 days in office? Quite impressive. He’s not wasting any time, which is a huge relief to everyone who cried foul when Bush enacted one anti-environment regulation after the other during his presidency. All signs point to Obama keeping the momentum going. That dark cloud that has hovered over us for 8 years? It’s almost a thing of the past. What a relief.
Link [MSNBC]
Obama Shelves Bush-Era Offshore Drilling Plan
February 11, 2009
In yet another victory for environmentalists since Obama took office January 20th, the new president’s administration has put Bush-era offshore drilling plans on hold. The Bush administration had authorized the Interior Department to open areas of both U.S. coasts to oil and gas drilling after a moratorium on drilling there expired last year.
From MSNBC:
“To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside” the plan “and create our own timeline,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced in a statement.
Alleging that the Bush administration “had torpedoed” offshore renewable energy in favor of oil and natural gas, Salazar said he was extending the public comment period by 6 months.
“We need a new, comprehensive energy plan that takes us to the new energy frontier and secures our energy independence,” he added. “We must embrace President Obama’s vision of energy independence for the sake of our national security, our economic security, and our environmental security.”
Republicans are calling for Obama not to close off areas of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines for drilling, saying the 5-year offshore drilling plan put forth by the Bush administration four days before leaving office is “vital to our economy”. The plan would have authorized 31 energy exploration lease sales between 2010 and 2015.
He hasn’t yet been in office for a month and already Obama has reversed several key anti-environment moves by Bush, including canceling oil leases in Utah and striking down Bush administration attempts to ease laws governing mercury emitted from smokestacks. It would almost feel like we’re waking up from a long nightmare, if only the negative effects of Bush’s presidency weren’t still so fresh and painful.
Link [MSNBC]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
Update: Oil Leases in Utah Parklands Canceled
February 6, 2009
The Obama administration is canceling Bush-era oil drilling leases on more than 130,000 acres near two national parks and other protected areas in Utah. Bush’s Interior Department had planned to auction off the land in December for oil and gas drilling, but the auction was disrupted by activist Tim DeChristopher. The land sale had been slammed as a ‘fire sale’ for the oil and gas industry, and would have placed drilling rigs near treasured national landmarks.
In January, a judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing the Bureau of Land Management from moving forward with the leases after several conservation groups sued to challenge long-term management plans that made the sale of the parcels possible.
From MSNBC:
“In the last weeks in office, the Bush administration rushed ahead to sell oil and gas leases near some of our nation’s most precious landscapes in Utah,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters. ““We need to responsibly develop our oil and gas supplies to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we must do so in a thoughtful and balanced way that allows us to protect our signature landscapes and cultural resources.”
“We will take time and a fresh look at these 77 parcels to see if they are appropriate for oil and gas development,” he said, adding that the Bureau of Land Management will return the $6 million in bids from an auction last December.
The 77 leases were for areas near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon, which is sometimes called the world’s longest art gallery for its collection of ancient rock-art panels.
Unsurprisingly, Republicans and the oil industry have responded with claims that the decision will hamper U.S. efforts to reduce reliance on foreign oil. Environmental groups, on the other hand, are thrilled.
Tim DeChristopher isn’t necessarily off the hook – the 27-year-old won $1.7 million in leases despite having no intention to pay, and prosecuters still haven’t decided whether or not to charge him.
This is certainly a victory for conservationists everywhere and for the people of Utah, who can now enjoy the beauty of their state’s national parks without worrying about oil rigs popping up.
Link [MSNBC]
Photo credit: Destination 360
Help Green for All Save Obama’s Green Recovery Plan in the Senate!
February 5, 2009
Green for All has an urgent message for all of us – they need our help now, to save Obama’s visionary green Recovery Plan in the U.S. Senate. The right wing is mobilizing to kill the plan despite broad support among Americans, and our Senators will be voting on it in the next few days.
From Green for All:
THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO ACT. Please call right now:
1. Call 1-866-544-7573 – This will take you to the Congressional switchboard, toll-free. Ask for your Senators’ offices. If you don’t know who your two Senators are, simply tell them which state you live in.
IMPORTANT: Lines may be clogged. Please keep calling back to get through to your two Senators’ offices.
2. What to say: Please pass President Obama’s Recovery Plan, with $500 million in funding for the Green Jobs Act. Thank you!
3. Forward this email to 10 friends.
4. Tell us how it went: Email team@greenforall.org.
Right now, Senators’ offices are counting every single call that comes in either for or against the Recovery Plan. Even if you just leave your zip code and stammer out a line of support for the act, it could have a major impact on how your Senators vote.
This is so important, and it will only take a few minutes of your time. Please take action now! There is also an online form you can fill out, but in these last few days, a call may be more effective.
Link [Green for All]
$100 Billion in the Economic Recovery Bill for Environment and Energy
January 30, 2009
The House passed an enormous $819 billion stimulus bill this week with only Democratic support – the number of votes they got from Republicans was a big fat zero (surprise, surprise). The Senate is expected to pass an even larger (roughly $888 billion) bipartisan bill soon, as well. In case you were wondering just how much of that massive economic recovery package is actually going to go toward the environment and energy, the Natural Resources Defense Council has broken it down.
From The Daily Green:
Environmental groups were fawning over the House bill, which Al Gore had personally lobbied for and which, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s tally, paves the way for:
$3.4 billion for states for clean energy projects
A grants program for renewable energy technologies covered by the renewable energy tax incentives
$6.2 billion for weatherization of low income homes
$3.5 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (supports clean energy projects primarily at the city and county levels)
$2 billion for clean energy research & development
$6 billion for increasing energy efficiency in federal buildings
$12 billion for transit
$2 billion for ready-to-go drinking water infrastructure projects
$6 billion for ready-to-go sanitation infrastructure projects
The Sierra Club and NRDC are have praised the bill for “moving America to a clean energy economy” and creating jobs. Of course, not everything in the bill is green – and there are a few sour notes. The Senate is adding $4.6 billion for coal and $50 billion for nuclear energy.
It’s difficult to even comprehend how much money $888 billion really is. Hopefully it’ll work- a lot of people have their futures riding on its success.
Link [The Daily Green]
Photo credit: National Parks Service
