This will all come in time but don’t expect the green energy to be the answer to all.

Clean coal, IMO == oxymoronic pipe dream, buts let’s do the R and D to provide the facts.

Still looking for a Dem to come out strong for nuclear. So many options available to vastly reduce generated waste, reduce construction costs, ease proliferation concerns. Even designs that consume current waste. Do the R&D and get the pilot plants built…just like we should have done in 92/93 when we instead canceled Argonne’s EBR II.

The nuclear bogey man mindset of the 70s needs to end.

I’ve read Obama’s climate plan, and there’s virtually no difference as far as policy between it and his energy plan, as one would expect, so I don’t know what you’re referring to by your comments.

I’m sorry you feel attacked. I don’t think I did so. I criticized a number of elements of Obama’s plan and your support of them. It seems to me that this is the kind of policy-oriented debate we need and that, indeed, Obama talks about as distinct from personal attacks and “Washington politics as usual.”

Ted

[JR: You wrote "Romm does not apparently see a problem that the only goal for emissions reductions by Obama is an 80% by 2050 goal, 42 years from now. There is no 2020 goal anywhere in Obama’s document. This is a problem." Had you read Obama's climate plan as I said, then you would see that it clearly states "he'll also implement a mandate of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020." This is the California target and it is perfectly reasonable. You are entitled to believe that Gore's unattainable (politically and, I'm afraid, practically) 100% renewables target in 10 years is what we need to save the climate, but no one, including Gore, has presented a factual basis for that assertion. Obama's renewables target is a huge stretch given what has been achieved to date at the federal level (which is, of course, zilch). I stand by my analysis.]

Overall comments: This is not a critical analysis of Obama’s plan. There is literally not a single critical word in the entire piece. It reads as if written by a member of Obama’s campaign team, honestly. If you are looking for a piece which puts the most positive face possible on Obama’s plan, this is it.

Notwithstanding this reality, I agree with Romm when he says that “this is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party.” The problem is that it is an energy plan that in no way meets the 1Sky test of matching the solution with the science.

There are without question a number of positive aspects to the Obama plan, specifically the call for 1 million plug-ins by 2015, his commitment to energy efficiency, investing in upgrading the national utility grid, weatherizing one million homes annually, a 100% auction of carbon credits under cap-and-trade and a goal of 5 million new green jobs. These seem to me to be the best of his proposals.

But let me do a critical analysis of points that Romm puts forward as positive:

-He says that an increase of fuel economy standards by 4% a year is good. That’s questionable. The energy bill passed in December last year already mandated that cars and light trucks get 35 mpg by 2020, which is just about what 4% a year will get us to. China and Europe are already at or slightly above that figure as of 2008.

-He projects Obama’s commitment to 60 billion gallons/year of biofuels and building the infrastructure for it as a good thing. There is growing and widespread concern about the effect of biofuels on food prices, agriculture and the economy, and there are serious questions about the extent of ghg emissions reductions from many biofuels. A whole-hog commitment to making this a major element of a program to address the climate crisis seems premature, at least.

-Requiring a 1% a year reduction in the carbon content of fuel is certainly not a bad thing but, given the urgency of the crisis, sure seems to be a case of much too little, much too slow.

-A question: is a 15% reduction of electricity demand from DOE projected levels—not a 15% actual reduction of electricity demand but, instead, 15% less than projected by 2020—really all that is possible? I don’t think so.

-Romm thinks that getting 10 percent of electricity from renewables by 2012, and 25% by 2025, is very good. Yet Al Gore has called for 100% of our electricity to come from renewables by 2018 as a way of really matching the urgency of the crisis with an appropriate response. Gore is on target here, not Obama.

-Romm quotes the Obama program when it says “Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology” but says nothing about it, apparently seeing this as an important part of his program. Given the calls by 1Sky, Al Gore, James Hansen, Lester Brown and many others for a coal moratorium and the fact that Obama makes absolutely no mention of this idea—or any criticism of coal–anywhere in his document, this is a definite problem.

-It could be a positive thing, as Romm may be implying by his quoting Obama at length on the problems with it, that Obama is not making any specific commitments to nuclear power. It would certainly be better if he took nukes off the table as any kind of any answer to climate change, a colossal waste of government resources that are needed to advance genuinely clean and safe energy and energy efficiency.

-Romm does not apparently see a problem that the only goal for emissions reductions by Obama is an 80% by 2050 goal, 42 years from now. There is no 2020 goal anywhere in Obama’s document. This is a problem.

Here is how Romm concludes his article: “This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One.”

I align myself with 1Sky, Al Gore, James Hansen, Lester Brown, Ross Gelbspan, Bill McKibben and others when it comes to what I think is necessary if we’re to avoid catastrophic climate change, and because of that I don’t agree at all with Romm’s conclusion. Besides the points made above, I would also say this about Obama’s plan:

It is questionable, at best, that Obama makes no reference to the Kyoto process while at the same time supporting the Major Economies Meetings process initiated by Bush for the explicit purpose of trying to undercut the negotiations among Kyoto partners for a stronger international treaty post-2012.

Romm says nothing about Obama’s Section 5: Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy, where Obama advocates active support for drilling for oil and natural gas in the U.S., drilling in oil shale areas, the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and pumping carbon dioxide into oil wells “to produce more oil from existing fields.”

Let me be clear: there is no question that Obama’s energy plan is better than McCain’s and a very big improvement over Bush. But I am convinced by my close reading of his energy plan that it is essential that efforts like the 1Sky campaign in particular need to keep ramping up the pressure for a truly science-based program to deal with the climate crisis in the short time-frame we have to do so. Obama (and McCain) need to be pushed now and pushed if he is elected to revise a number of elements of his program to be much more what is urgently needed.

[JR: You might try reading the link to Obama's climate plan, which I included, before attacking his energy plan. You might also try reading some of my other posts before attacking me.]

Thanks for your responses to my last post and sorry for not replying to them sooner.

The dominant force which drive US consumption patterns is “market forces”. Any US citizen should understand this – they have lived by the mantra since the year dot.

Hence, anything which reduces the price of burning fossil fuel will tend to increase consumption (i.e. putting more oil on the market, subsidising prices, etc.). I don’t need to cite a source. Its just basic economics and common sense.

Conversely, shortages will raise prices and crimp consumption. This is the best mechanism for encoraging non-carbon sources of energy and, most importantly, conservation.

In our house we reduced overall gas and electricity consumption by 50% more or less overnight by doing a long list of fairly simple if tedious things – insulation, low energy appliances and lights, line-drying washing, log burning stove, turning things off when not in use… No real reason why the world could not do the same if given the right economic signal.

Is Obama’s plan better then Gore’s when he was the nominee in 2000? (I wasn’t paying attention to this back then.)

Rob

And a massive effort towards mass transit. Light rail, efficient hybrid city busses etc.

And tax the carbon, damnit! Do what Gore says. Tax what we burn, not what we earn. The extra revenue that’s earned by the carbon tax will be lowered in the income tax, making it a budget neutral tax regime. With increasingly greater equity – polluter pays principle is fair and works excellent, because performance (efficiency) is rewarded.