Climate Progress

Polluters pay McCain, that is, when he flip flops.

“Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling” blares the Washington Post headline today:

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month — three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban — compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

(more…)

Mapping out policy work for the next couple of months and pushing aside today’s hottest energy issues for tomorrow’s, one topic is emerging as a painfully true, slumbering giant - the rising costs of home heating during the winter and the additional financial burden on Americans.

I could explain more, but I don’t really have to. The New York Times editorial team took care of it in this morning’s paper, and it’s worth reiterating here, there and everywhere:

(more…)

Some of us had high hopes for Stephen Johnson when President Bush appointed him in March 2005 as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Johnson was not a former oil-industry lobbyist or Halliburton executive. He was a career civil servant who had been with the federal government for 24 years. He was a scientist, not a political hack, and he had served under both Democrat and Republican presidents.

I could relate, although my federal career was the reverse of Johnson’s:

(more…)

Texas Arizona tea.

How far we have come from the principled maverick of the 2000 campaign:

Republican John McCain on Wednesday credited the recent $10-a-barrel drop in the price of oil to President Bush’s lifting of a presidential ban on offshore drilling.

That’s right, the man who wants to be the next President of the United States believes that doing absolutely nothing — which is what Bush did when he reversed his father’s ban, since the congressional ban is still in place — dropped oil prices $10.

You know you have jumped the shark nuked the fridge (see below) as a candidate when even the White House paid shill press secretary won’t go that far:

(more…)

The House GOP has made shale a cornerstone of their energy plan, and now AP reports:

The Bush administration wants to set the stage before leaving office for developing oil shale, rocky deposits in the western U.S. that could eventually yield 800 billion barrels of oil, according to government estimates.

The Interior Department is scheduled to unveil proposed regulations Tuesday for a program to sell oil shale leases on federal lands, similar to the leases sold now for oil and natural gas both on and offshore.

Shale appears to be the most destructive alternative fuel imaginable from a climate perspective, worse even than liquid coal, as I discussed here. With one-third the energy density of Cap’n Crunch, you have to put huge amounts of energy into heating the shale to turn it into a useful liquid fossil fuel. If we were to try to extract and refine as much shale oil as Bush and the conservatives want, “an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day” or more, that would all but guarantee a climate-destroying concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1000 ppm.

It would also destroy much of the state of Colorado, where most of the shale is, and the Colorado River basin. This is clear from an exhaustive 2005 Rand Corporation study, “Oil Shale Development in the United States.” The study finds:

(more…)

I have received the text of an Alice-in-Wonderland memo (below) that House Republican leaders will circulate Tuesday on legislation they plan to offer. It claims:

To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:
* Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day;
* Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil per day; and
* Allow development of our nation’s shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day

First off, we opened the vast majority of our deep water ocean resources to drilling two years ago and oil prices doubled (see “Offshore drilling raises oil prices*“).

Second, according to the Bush administration’s own energy analysts ending the federal moratorium on coastal drilling would add perhaps 150,000 barrels of oil per day in the 2020s and have no impact on prices through 2030, unless, as seems likely, California blocks drilling off its coast, in which case it would add well under 100,000 barrels of oil per day in the 2020s (see “The cruel offshore-drilling hoax“).

Third, opening up the “Arctic coastal plain” (GOP-speak for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) would also have no impact on prices, according to the Bush administration’s own energy analysts (see “Opening ANWR cuts gas prices TWO cents in 2025“).

Fourth, you can’t develop U.S. shale in environmentally sound ways (see Senate GOP: “balance” = climate-destroying shale, RNC: “balance” = “a climate in crisis”).

(more…)

That bastion of enlightened thinking known as the US Chamber of Commerce has assembled every éminence grise they could disinter find to tell us “Don’t just stand there, do nothing. ” Their open letter begins:

America is facing a long-term energy crisis, one which could become one of the most significant economic and national security challenges of the 21st century.

[Note to the grises: Next time, spring for an editor who would cut the first “one” and punch up the first sentence for more impact — “America is facing a long-term energy crisis that could become one of the most significant….]

We strongly recommend that you attach the highest priority to developing and implementing a strategic energy policy that has a long-term, commonsense vision and the full attention of our national leadership.

In short: “The sky is falling. Do something now.” So naturally they urgently recommend very specific policies, a 20% renewable portfolio standard by 2020, fuel economy standards to 55 mpg by 2030, 20% of new cars must be plug ins by 2020, an 80% cut in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, monkeys fly out of Joe Romm’s butt. Well, maybe not the first four. In fact, here is the kind of “pillar” they propose:

Reduce the Environmental Impact of Energy Consumption and Production

We must address the impact of our growing energy consumption on the environment and climate, while recognizing that any approach must be both economically viable and environmentally effective. We must not set targets for which technology does not yet exist or which threatens major economic displacement. We must give industry a predictable investment climate and incentives for innovation in clean energy. Costs and benefits must be transparent to consumers. We must commit to a course that promotes global participation while considering the priorities of the developing world.

How helpful. Let’s start with the unbelievable confusion in the notion of giving industry “incentives for innovation in clean energy” when earlier in this short letter they had written “We need to resist the temptation to rely on taxes or subsidies as the solutions of choice to meet our energy challenges.” I hope you are listening next President — we need incentives for innovation that aren’t subsidies and aren’t targets for technology.

[Note to the grises: Next time, actually read what you are signing.]

So who signed their name to this mush? Mostly conservative democrats and members of the BOP — Bland Old Party. It is simply inconceivable that these guys could endorse anything both useful and specific:

(more…)

More from the nuclear hearing.

Sen. Sanders (I): Public safety must be job #1. I must express serious concerns about aging fleet of 104 plants. Need more oversight of those first. Oversight is quite weak. I think many people don’t know what is going on. Nuclear plant in VT. “Failure of NRC oversight.” August 21, 2007 — a water tower collapsed. How much did Entergy pay for that mishap? None.

Then Aug. 30 emergency shutdown. Last week — leaking coolant pipe. End result. Confidence is not high. People have concerns. I share them. Inexplicable there were no fines. Confidence requires more oversight. We are grossly underestimating the role of energy efficiency and renewables. Within 15 years, 20% of power could be from solar thermal alone.

And then we have everybody’s favorite global warming denier.

(more…)

You only get 5 minutes of oral testimony for the Senate or the House, about 700 to 750 words if you talk reasonably fast. I have done a fair amount of testifying over the years, so now I always write out my oral testimony and then read it.

Yes, reading text is not as ideal as simply speaking extemporaneously — but five minutes is so short that if you don’t write it out, you’ll end up saying a lot less and certainly leave out a bunch of important things.

How many times do you actually get to talk to a member of Congress when they (technically) have to listen — it is a “hearing” after all? Not bloody often, so make your best of it.

One important note — most Congressional testimony is so unbelievably bland that members tune out almost immediately. Like any story or pitch, you either catch people’s interest in the opening seconds or you are wasting your time (and theirs). This goes double for a speech that is read.

You should be able to find a link to the webcast on the Senate Environment and Public Works homepage. You can read more about the hearing here.

My written testimony is mostly a shortened version of my Center for American Progress report, “The Self-limiting Future of Nuclear Power.” The oral testimony is below. Since I am going last or next-to-last on the second panel, I may change some of these remarks at the last minute to rebut or respond to other points.

(more…)