Environmental Action
«
April 2007
| Main
| June 2007
»
May 30, 2007
How Do You Spell Irony?
Posted by Dan Stafford at 11:33 AM
C-O-A-L as alternative fuel. A story in the NY Times today digs into the ridiculous support in Congress for liquid coal technology.
By far the best quote comes from Nick Rahall (D-WV), who said, "For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word. These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand."
Ok Nick, I'm going out on a limb, pulling my head out of the sand and suggesting that filthy coal is, to use your words, filthy.
The story, however is quite good, and points out the obvious flaws in liquid coal technology, such as the promise of lowered CO2 emissions is based on technology that doesn't yet exist. It also point out that the coal industry has spent over $6 million on federal lobbying in '05 and '06, three times what it spent for each of the previous five years.
And there are tons of bad proposals making the rounds in Congress right now - so it appears they're getting what they paid for :
Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.
I'm just going to throw out the irony of this being the week the United States used more oil than it will produce all year, and the solutions proposed by Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are Nazi-era technologies that may make us less dependent on forein oil (though, frankly even that is up for debate) but will surely worsen our air quality, lead to more destructive mining, and increase our already gigantic contribution to global warming.
May 29, 2007
Dependence Day is Here
Posted by Dan Stafford at 09:44 AM
As people dusted off their barbecues, brought out their white shoes, and watched fireworks all across the country this weekend, another milestone hit - Dependence Day. We've been talking about it for weeks, but that day when we've consumed more oil than we will produce in all of 2007 is here. For the rest of the year, every time we fill up a tank of gas, fly on an airplane, or anything is driven anywhere, we're living beyond our energy means.
This dependence forces us to support foreign countries often hostile to the U.S. with our oil dollars, and allows the anti-environmental forces to push for opening up pristine places like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and the coasts of Virginia.
The truth, however, is that we can never drill our way to energy independence. With less than 2% of the world's remaining oil, we need new solutions to break free from oil, not a reliance on past ways that got us into the jam in the first place.
Solutions like doubling our national gas mileage standard, which we're calling on all 2008 presidential candidates to support. Solutions like better funding for public transit, support of clean alternative fuels, and much stronger energy conservation programs.
Thankfully, the solutions are right in front of us - doubling the mileage standard would save us 3.5 times the oil available from drilling off the coast of Virginia each year. Biofuels like cellolosic ethanol are showing the potential to generate six times as much energy as it takes to produce. And with gas prices so high, people are clamoring for public transit. But until our leaders take these solutions seriously, Dependence Day is going to fall earlier and earlier every year.
May 25, 2007
From the 'Losing All Respectability' File....
Posted by Dan Stafford at 04:34 PM
We need to set up a 'turkey-of-the-week' award. Yesterday, there was a story in the NY Times titled, 'Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at the Pump'.
Yes folks, that's right - you're now paying up to $4 a gallon because of -- the environmentalists!
I actually couldn't finish the article at first because I was laughing so hard at this ridiculous premise. But, they're serious. The basic argument is that because of the intense push for biofuels, oil companies and investors don't want to invest in oil refinery upgrades needed to produce more domestic oil, thus raising the prices.
So, let's look at what we're talking about. This year, we'll consume 7.64 billion barrels of oil, and about 143 million barrels of biofuel. Our biofuel use amounts to 1.9% of our oil use. The current plan is to double our current biofuel use, meaning oil is still a 25-1 heavyweight in the oil-vs-biofuel debate.
This claim ranks up there with the 'environmentalists cost jobs, environmentalists endanger kids, and nobody wants a fuel efficient car' arguments we've heard for decades from corporate America. All I know is, they must be paying their spokespeople a lot so they don't crack up during press statements.
May 24, 2007
Rep. Markey Comes out on Smithsonian Issue
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:08 AM
Over the last couple days, we've been talking a bit about the Smithsonian's 'alterations' of their exhibit on global warming in an attempt to placate the Bush Administration.
Well, it looks like Rep. Markey and his Select Committee on Energy Independence And Global Warming are looking to take the Smithsonian to task over the issue.
In a letter sent to the Smithsonian, Markey said :
I am deeply disturbed by allegations that the Smithsonian Institute would alter publicly presented scientific information in response to real or perceived pressure from the White House or Members of Congress to suppress evidence that human activity is contributing to global warming. The need to confront the challenge of global warming has been delayed significantly by a concerted effort to deny the scientific consensus regarding the dangers of climate change. It would be a tragedy if one of our nation’s most revered scientific institutions were somehow complicit in this activity.
And then proceeded to ask for a whole mess of documents to get to the bottom of the issue. We say Go Markey Go!
Hat tip to Think Progress for alerting folks on this one.
May 23, 2007
Oklahoma Senator Just Crazy for DDT
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:51 AM
The Washington Post reports today that Oklahoma has reason to hang its head a little - Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has effectively blocked an attempt by the Senate to honor the 100th birthday of environmental pioneer Rachel Carson.
Rachel Carson, who published 'Silent Spring' and alerted the nation to the dangers of DDT, is widely regarded as the Godmother of the modern environmental movement. The Senate, whose attempt to name a post office after Carson was shot down last year, wanted to commemorate what would have been her 100th birthday this past Sunday.
But, Sen. Coburn, in a statement on his website, blames Carson for using "junk science" to turn public opinion against chemicals, including DDT, that could prevent the spread of insect-borne diseases such as malaria, which is spread by mosquitoes.
Of course, it's been reported that there were 118 malaria deaths in the United States between 1979 and 1998, with the CDC reporting four malaria deaths in 2004.
I just want to throw out there that Sen. Coburn has received $273,497 from agribusiness since 1994. I'll let you do the math and figure out how concerned he actually is about malaria spreading through OK vs. making sure one of the top industries in OK has access to any and all pesticides, regardless of longterm health problems associated with them.
May 22, 2007
Smithsonian 'Toned Down' Global Warming Exhibit
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:11 AM
There have been stories coming out all day about the Smithsonian 'toning down' its global warming exhibit last year.
Robert Sullivan, formerly the associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently came forward to say that the text of the exhibit was 'toned down' to cast doubt on global warming.
According to Sullivan, the move came from within the Smithsonian brass, rather than from Congress or the White House. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully," he said.
If you check out the online version of the exhibit 'Forces of Change', you'll see what he was talking about.
For example the 'Climate Rollercoaster', which lists the effects of global warming in the northeastern U.S. as:
- Warm weather sports, like hiking, increase; cold weather sports, like skiing, decrease
- Summer heat index intensifies
- Warmer winters reduce heating costs
- Forest species change - fewer conifers, more hardwoods
- Increased storm frequency increases coastal erosion
Well, gosh, that doesn't seem so bad, does it? More hardwoods to build houses, more hiking, and smaller heating bills.
When it gets to the effect of global warming on the arctic, it titles the section, 'Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely', when a more appropriate heading may have been, 'The Arctic : Why are we beating up one of our best friends?'
To be honest, I'm more angry (and scared) that the White House exerted no pressure on the Smithsonian than if they had. We know the Bush Administration are climate bullies - but the fact that the Smithsonian felt intimated enough by them to alter an exhibit with no express coercion shows how deeply fear of the truth runs.
May 21, 2007
When GM Has Its Head in the Sand, the U.S.......
Posted by Dan Stafford at 09:34 AM
There was a great article today in The Ledger from Lakeland Fla. today.
Evidently, Walter McManus, a fuel-economy analyst with GM from 1989-99, told MSNBC that the brass at GM refused to believe Americans wanted more fuel efficient vehicles, even as their polling data told them exactly this and sales of SUVs plummeted - and according to McManus, 'We had data about consumers' preference about fuel economy, but we chose to ignore it. We thought it was an anomaly.'
Awesome. As more and more information like this comes out, I find it increasingly difficult to have any sympathy for the big-3 automakers.
The article goes on to point out that Congress is currently considering legislation to increase our national fuel economy to 35mpg by 2018. This, of course, is also known as the 'we-hope-our-children-have-more-guts-than-us-to-solve-the-problem plan'. A ten mpg increase eleven years from now?
But, as the Ledger points out, "According to the Civil Society Institute, an energy and environmental think tank, 113 vehicles on the market in Europe exceed 40 mpg. Two-thirds of those vehicles are built by U.S.-based manufacturers or by foreign automakers with substantial sales in our country."
Hmm - U.S. manufacturers are making cars that get 40mpg....for Europe? Does that seem ridiculous to anyone beside me? I certainly hope so, and I can only hope Congress gets the message, and takes real action on our fuel economy, and doubles the standard.
May 17, 2007
Virginia is for Lovers, Not Oil Rigs
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:49 AM
Everybody knows that oil drilling is dirty and dangerous and is brought about by our addiction to oil. To feed that addiction, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne recently announced a plan to open up 48 million acres off Virginia's coast to oil and gas drilling. Just imagine how this one move could threaten places like the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, an 8,500 acre wildlife sanctuary in southeastern Virginia.
Drilling off the coast of Virginia means more oil spills, more closed beaches, and continued dependence on oil. And for what? About 3% of the oil we use and that only for a few decades. It's a short-sighted, dim-witted plan that completely fails to get to the heart of the issue. We need to break free from oil, and we need to start now.
Thankfully, in order to open up the coast of Virginia, Governor Kaine has to sign off on the plan - which he hasn't done yet. So this week we're collecting over 2,000 petition signatures to the Governor, asking him to keep oil and gas drilling out of Virginia's coastal waters. To add your name, click here.
This action is what Dependence Day is all about. Because we import close to two-thirds of our oil each year, Dependence Day is that day when we effectively run out of domestic oil, and are dependent on foreign oil for the rest of the year.
Instead of recognizing the reality that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, the Bush Administration is clinging to the belief that we should drill every last drop of domestic oil before taking any real action to reduce our dependence on it.
So we're heading them off at the pass - this week, we're sending a couple thousand messages to the Governor of Virginia - one of the people with the power to stop this offshore drilling proposal.
Take a moment right now, and sign the petition to Gov. Kaine.
May 16, 2007
Beyond Accountability
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:41 AM
Last year, Alaska adopted 'The Petroleum Profits Tax'. This allows oil companies to deduct the cost of upgrades to their infrastructure. Now forget the fact that if I tried to write off the seeds for the garden I planted two weeks ago, I'd probably get a call from the IRS.
BP (and to be clear, that's 'P for Petroleum' folks), the company responsible for the largest oil spill on the north slope of Alaska, wants to write off the cost of upgrading pipes they had negligently let corrode.
So the Senate in Alaska introduce SB 80, which exempts writing off upgrades needed because of corporate negligence. Guess what? BP, who's denying negligence (despite Federal findings) still pushed to kill the bill. And even though the Senate passed it 20-0, it looks like it will die in the House Finance Committee in the next 24 hours, though nobody can quite explain why.
Thankfully, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is considering a special session to deal with this issue. We'll see what happens.
May 15, 2007
Bush Unveils Bold Steps in Tackling Global Warming
Posted by Dan Stafford at 09:48 AM
I couldn't write that title without laughing - did you make it through?
Yesterday, President Bush responded to the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA had a responsibility to act on global warming. First, Bush said that he wanted his agencies to put their heads together and come up with a plan by the end of 2008. Doesn't something else happen then? Oh, that's right, his presidency will be over. Any 16-year old who's taken a final the last week of school will tell you how likely it is that the President will push hard on this.
The rest of Bush's plan were just a re-hashing from his SOTU address - American drivers need to be using 35 billion gallons of renewable and 'other alternative' fuels by 2017. This seems like a lot, but by 2017, will likely be around 7% of our annual consumption.
Secondly, Bush is proposing we change the cafe standard. Instead of having a fleet average, we should have it be a model by model standard. His plan would raise fuel economy by a whopping 4%.
So, not surprisingly, the President has proposed nothing new, nothing truly innovative, and continues to ignore common sense solution, like carbon caps.
May 14, 2007
Announcement Coming from Bush on Air Pollition
Posted by Dan Stafford at 12:11 PM
Later today, President Bush is going to announce his new rules on air pollution.
You'll remember that the Supreme Court recently ruled the Bush Administration's EPA was dragging its feet on issuing air pollution guidelines to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And thank goodness, Bush is springing into (in)action yet again.
As you probably know, President Bush has two conditions to reducing GHGs in the US. Firstly, he won't do anything that remotely impacts the economy. Secondly, he won't do anything unless China, India, and other developing nations do something too. You'll notice the 'do nothing' concept to be high on the to-do list for the Bush Administration.
According to Tony Snow, "The market-based approach seems to work. The question is: do you try to set up a mandatory system or do you try to set up an innovation-based system. The president prefers innovation." Of course, I have no clue when or where market-based approaches have worked in terms of pollution.
Snow went on to say that the President's announcement will be "his latest effort to ensure that the nation's taking aggressive steps to reduce gas consumption and to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources."
I want to point out that there have been no aggressive steps taken by the Bush Administration in regards to fuel efficiency or emission standards, and that his efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil seem in no way geared towards reducing our CO2 emissions.
The hilarious part of Snow's announcement, however, is this nugget, "He [Bush] will ask the administration to start implementing the 20-in-10 program through regulatory action..at the same time, he will continue to urge Congress to pass legislation to advance the goal."
Uh, Mr. Snow, didn't you just say that mandatory enforcement didn't work?
Can't wait for the actual announcement.
May 11, 2007
Hot Fun in the Summertime
Posted by Dan Stafford at 11:35 AM
Well, not exactly. NASA has released its findings that average summer temperatures in the eastern part of the United States could increase as much as 10 degrees by 2080, if global climate change is left unchecked.
This prediction is worse than the predictions from the IPCC, largely because NASA included rainfall data - the severity of temperature increasing in years with less rainfall.
For anyone thinking, 'well, I'm not going to be around in 2080, and heck, I like it warmer!', NASA also created the video below which shows global temperature change from 1884 through 2006. And it's pretty frightening.
I can pull two good pieces from this report. First, it's based on what happens if we do nothing, which at this point would be insane. Secondly, it's nice to see some solid information coming out of NASA after the censorship debacle of the last couple years.
Happy Mother's Day everyone - and don't forget to call your mom!
May 10, 2007
Ask Speaker Pelosi to Support Dependence Day
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:00 AM
We all know that we need bold solutions to break free from oil. The bottom line is we need to double our gas mileage standard, and we have to invest in public transit and legitimate alternative fuels. And we need to start now.
But what the government wants to give us is more drilling, more mining, and frankly, more of the same old same old that got us into this mess in the first place. And that's what Dependence Day is all about. By highlighting that we are dependent on oil for eight months of the year, and that we simply cannot drill our way to independence, we are doing what Environmental Action does best : shining a spotlight on the problem, and speaking truth to power.
Right now, Environmental Action is working to get thousands of messages to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to officially recognize Dependence Day. Click here to send Speaker Pelosi this message.
Dependence Day is that day each year when we effectively run out of domestic oil, and become dependent on foreign imports for the rest of the year - and because each year we use more oil, Dependence Day is happening earlier every year, worsening global warming, forcing destructive drilling to happen, and leaving us open to serious national security threats.
By recognizing Dependence Day each year, we're able to put important issues on the table for discussion, like our fuel economy and our need for real energy alternatives. And we believe Speaker Pelosi wants to combat our addiction to oil, but if she's going to take actual steps, she needs our support and encouragement right now.
As politicians are debating opening up Virginia and more of Alaska to drilling, and coming up with hare-brained schemes like liquid coal, we need to make sure the Congressional leadership knows that we need real solutions. If you haven't done so, please send the Speaker this message.
Two Species Went Extinct Under Bush
Posted by Glenn Hurowitz at 05:02 AM
Two species have gone extinct while waiting for protection under the Endangered Species Act from the Bush administration. The two are the Hawaiian haha plant and the summer run of the Lake Sammamish Kokonee salmon (pictured below):
Both went extinct because the Bush administration refused to act even after being urged to by scientists and citizens worried about their fates.
Bush has protected fewer species (57) under the Endangered Species Act than any other administration in history (Clinton protected 512 and the first Bush administration 234). Indeed, May 9 marks one year since they've protected any endangered species, the first time that's happened since the Interior Department was run by anti-environment extremist James Watt.
Details from the Center for Biological Diversity:
Bush Administration Sets All-time Record for Denying Protection to
Endangered Species: Zero New Listings in Past Year
Report Documents Rampant Executive Interference in Protection of Rare Wildlife
WASHINGTON-- Today marks exactly one year since the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service last protected any new U.S. species under the Endangered Species Act. Fittingly, on this same day, the House Natural Resources Committee is holding important oversight hearings on implementation of the Endangered Species Act by a recalcitrant Bush administration. The last time the agency went an entire year without protecting a single species was in 1981, when the infamous James Watt was Secretary of Interior. There are currently 279 highly imperiled species that are designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered and that face potential extinction.
"The Bush administration has closed the doors on endangered species," said Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "With the pressing threats of rapid habitat destruction and global climate change, it's an outrage that not a single new species has been protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an entire year."
The last species protected by the administration were 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies listed in a single rule on May 9, 2006. Overall, according to a report released today by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bush administration has listed fewer species under the Endangered Species Act than any other administration since the law was enacted in 1973, to date only listing 57 species compared to 512 under the Clinton administration and 234 under the first Bush administration.
"The Bush administration has killed the program for protecting new species as endangered," says Greenwald, "and in the process has contributed to the extinction of at least two species. This government's war on science is also a war against wildlife."
In October of last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the Hawaiian plant Haha (Cyanea eleeleensis) is likely extinct and thus is being considered for removal from the candidate list. The summer run of Lake Sammamish Kokonee salmon in Washington state are also believed extinct. In 2001, a group of concerned citizens petitioned to have the population protected as endangered, but despite pleas from county officials and the dire status of the fish, the Bush administration never took action. Many more species are at increased risk of extinction because of the Bush administration's lack of action.
The Center's report documents administration interference in two other key aspects of the Endangered Species Act: designation of critical habitat and development of species recovery plans. According to the report, interference by Bush political appointees, such as discredited former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald, has led to the reduction of as much as 90 percent of all critical habitats designated under the administration and to widespread tampering with the scientific conclusions of recovery plans for the Apache trout, Northern spotted owl and West Virginia flying squirrel, among others.
"The Bush administration is systematically undermining the recovery of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and plants," said William Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Not only is it refusing to list species in need of protection, it is also ignoring or undercutting recovery plans at the request of its political supporters in industry."
Not coincidentally, these actions are consistent with recently leaked draft regulations that would allow the Departments of Interior and Commerce to gut every significant protection contained in the statute. Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, Senate committee chairs Barbara Boxer and Joe Lieberman, and Republicans such as Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and Rep. Jim Saxton have all publicly complained about these problematic draft regulations.
In the Apache trout case, three scientists on the recovery team dissented from the clandestine changes made by Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall that lowered population targets and removed genetic-diversity requirements. The fish experts stated they "do not believe the Plan's revised recovery strategies and objectives are sufficient to allow the species to be delisted" and that the changes will result in "further genetic degradation and possible extinction." In another recent example concerning the Northern spotted owl, a "Washington, DC review team" that included Julie MacDonald has sought to undermine the well-established system of old-growth forest reserves so as to give favorable access to the timber industry. In the case of the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, the administration has again ignored the best available science on habitat degradation, global warming and recovery targets by prematurely moving to delist the species.
"One shudders to think of the antics this administration will attempt in its waning days of power," concluded Snape. "Now is the time for Congress to step in and prevent eleventh-hour political abuses and special favors that have the potential to destroy species, their habitats, and the opportunity for recovery."
A copy of the Center's report can be found at:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PROGRAMS/esa/pdfs/PoliticizingExtinction.pdf
The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit conservation organization with 35,000 members dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
May 09, 2007
A Closer Look at Obama's Auto Plan
Posted by Glenn Hurowitz at 06:14 PM
Cross-posted at Democratic Courage blog.
Barack Obama got huge coverageyesterday for "standing up" to the auto industry by calling on them to accept tighter fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks - and doing it in their own backyard in Detroit. Although it's encouraging anytime a candidate calls for increasing fuel economy, we have to ask: is Obama's proposal really anything to coo about?
The core of Obama's plan is raising fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2022 - and paying off American auto companies for doing this by funneling $3 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the big auto companies in exchange, primarily to alleviate their high health care costs.
Two problems: first, Obama's plan doesn't move anywhere near fast enough to address the twin challenges of global climate deterioration and reliance on oil. His plan is about the same as that proposed by the Bush administration (although the administration's plan includes huge loopholes that Obama's doesn't). The 2022 deadline is at least ten years behind what is technically feasible and at least that many years behind what is climatologically essential. The latest international climate report concludes that urgent action is needed to avoid mass extinction, melting ice caps, famine and disease. "We don't have the luxury of time," said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What's more, research by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that currently available technology could raise fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2012, while still producing net savings for consumers.
Indeed, that savings points to the second gap in Obama's plan: he focuses on the costs to the auto companies without focusing on the costs of their inaction to the consumer: according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, raising fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon would save each driver between $3500 and $6500 over the life of the vehicle - way more than the $500-$2000 a car might cost with improved technology. If gas prices continue at their current high levels, savings would be even greater, especially for farmers, Westerners, and people who use their vehicles for business - or anyone else who drives long distances. (In fairness, Obama did propose to help consumers with some tax incentives for efficient vehicles).
A third gap is Obama's continuing obsession with promoting ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. Not only are ethanol's cost savings non-existent, it's dubious that ethanol -cellulosic or otherwise - has any real environmental benefit. A recent study in the Environmental Science and Technology journal found that ethanol produces more deadly pollutants than regular old dirty gasoline. And it's benefits for the climate are tiny, and maybe non-existent. Finally, it could have devastating impact on Nature by causing farmers to expand agriculture into formerly pristine wilderness, both here in America and in the world's diminishing tropical forests (which also serve as the planet's lungs).
Worst of all, parts of Obama's approach are proven failures. Bill Clinton and Al Gore tried it in the 1990's with their Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The program gave the auto companies more than $1 billion to spend on research into fuel efficient cars - but after eight years, fuel efficiency had actually declined slightly, causing a bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives to slash funding for the program to succeed (though funding was later restored in negotiations with the White House and the Senate). The Bush administration then recycled the subsidies-for-efficiency plan with its Freedom Car proposal to funnel another $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the auto companies to create a more efficient car, but this program had similar results: more money in auto execs pockets, no improvements in efficiency.
Should U.S. taxpayers should really have to pick up the bill for the auto industry's inefficient health care schemes?" As Malcolm Gladwell discussed in a brilliant August 28, 2006 New Yorker piece, the auto companies are mainly to blame for their high health care costs: they chose a single company-by-company health insurance package instead of economy-wide health care because they were afraid that collective health care - though it might be more efficient - would put too much power into the hands of workers.
Nevertheless, Obama may be justified in trying to bribe the auto companies - after all, their opposition (along with the United Auto Workers' union) has been the main factor preventing Congress from passing significantly higher fuel efficiency standards, despite overwhelming public support. But it's doubtful that it will work. All Obama got from the automakers for his trouble was criticism. "We think it should be based on objective criteria and not politically attractive numbers," Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Vice President Gloria Berquist told The Chicago Tribune. "It's not attainable."
All in all, Obama's "new" proposals is a great example of what's likely to happen with all his other attempts to forge some kind of new center. He'll do lots of reaching out, propose some grand bargains, and find that Republicans and corporations throw them back in his face - all he will have achieved is to move the starting point for negotiations closer to their direction, which opens a broader question: do we want such a terrible negotiator as president?
Meanwhile, both Hillary Clinton and especially John Edwards have supported more aggressive means to reduce global warming and our dangerous reliance on oil. Edwards was on record in favor of 40 mpg standards during his 2003 campaign and has proposed achieving 40 mpg by 2016 (although his plan is more ambitious than Obama's, it includes many of the same weaknesses like support for ethanol and taxpayer subsidies for the auto industry) ; Clinton has generally supported higher fuel efficiency standards as well (usually without the subsidies Obama is asking to go along with them). If past is prologue, the auto industry will fight any and all of these proposals no matter how many sops they're offered until the very last minute. It's what they did with seatbelts, airbags, and catalytic converters.
If we're to truly tackle these problems, we're going to need someone who can organize and beat the auto companies not repeat the failures of coddling them - hopefully, all the candidates will learn this.
Insane Pro-Drilling Arguments
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:28 AM
Yesterday's Washington Post had one of the more bizarre editorials I've ever seen.
The editorial reads like it was written by the oil industry. The tagline is 'We need to find more sources for oil and gas.' But reality shows that the United States has less than 2% of the remaining supply of oil. The argument that we need to exploit all these sources to gain energy independence is not sound. We could drill every last drop of oil in and around the U.S., and still be dangerously addicted to oil, and still need to import the bulk of our current needs.
The article goes on to suggest, "if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria -- where environmental concerns are no less important -- it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out careful drilling off its own coasts"
This is a similarly ridiculous claim. Who has said it's acceptable to be drilling in the Caspian Sea or Nigeria? And don't get me started on the concept of 'careful drilling'.
The bottom line is that we need to drastically reduce our need for oil. We need stronger fuel economy standards, we need a much better public transit system, and we need real alternative fuels if we are to actually break free from oil.
May 08, 2007
Good Riddance
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:30 AM
It looks like Johnnie Burton is retiring. For those of you unfamiliar with Ms. Burton, she is the top federal official overseeing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Under her tenure, the plan to open 48 million acres of offshore drilling off the coast of Virginia was hatched, along with resuming drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay, which had been offlimits after the Exxon Valdez spill but which was reopened a couple years ago by Congress.
But possibly her top claim to fame is that under her watch, oil and gas companies were able to avoid paying $10 billion in drilling royalties. Under the royalty laws, as gas prices rise, so do the royalty payments, and the agency forgot to put that in place. While the error didn't happen under Ms. Burton's watch, she failed to act on it. But it goes further - evidently three auditors in the agency said they "were ordered by superiors to drop their findings that major oil companies intentionally underpaid the government".
Research into Ms. Burton's past shows a darkly ironic history. From 1981-84, she served as the director of the First Wyoming Bank in Casper.
May 07, 2007
Seems BP Isn't Actually Beyond Petroleum At All
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:33 AM
It seems that BP, the oil giant who insists in their ads that they are 'Beyond Petroleum' really should be called 'Bull Practitioners'.
Remember last year when they were responsible for the largest oil spill (200,000 gallons) in the history of the north slope of Alaska? Well the investigation has revealed that corner-cutting in the safety plans in fact led to the corrosion of the pipes responsible for the spill.
And, heads at BP are saying they had no idea. They also claim a 100% clean up of the site, and are of course running ads throughout Alaska to talk themselves up.
Of course, it's a little hard to swallow that the senior folks at BP had no idea these corners were being cut - and thankfully the state of Alaska is taking them to task for it.
Check out the story here, and for an interesting interactive site showing the worst oil spills since the 1960's, check this out.
May 04, 2007
Act Quickly and Act Big
Posted by Dan Stafford at 08:58 AM
Those of us in the environmental field have been very excited about the set of reports issued this year from the International Panel on Climate Change, first of course was the report on the existence and causes of global warming, second was the impacts of unchecked global warming, and the third, released this week, is the solutions and cost.
There's some good and some bad news.
Stabalising climate change at a two degree increase (which, at this point they say is inevitable), would cost less than three percent of the world's GDP.
The bad news, however, is that, "even limiting global warming to two degrees could mean up to two billion people would suffer water shortages and threaten between 20 and 30 per cent of the world's species."
The key aspect of the report however stresses that we need to act big and act quickly. We need emissions reductions of 50 to 85% by 2050, and that "this can and should be done in many ways and across various industrial sectors, such as reducing fossil fuel subsidies, mandating fuel economy and taxing transport, investing in public transport, creating more efficient buildings, reducing deforestation and putting a cost on carbon." Sound familiar? The other key component is that we must peak our emissions within eight years .
The glaring point of disagreement I have with the report, however, is its suggestion that nuclear power could have an 18% share of global power production.
Aside from that, it's great to see such a wide swath of global scientists refuting the claims that putting a price on carbon and increasing fuel efficiency would have a disastrous effect on the global economy.
May 02, 2007
Dirk Kempthorne Announced Major Drilling Plan
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:45 AM
I wrote about this already once this week, but Secretary of the Interior (we told you he was a bad idea) Dirk Kempthorne has announced plans for a massive amount of offshore oil drilling in Virginia. This move, which would take sign off by the President, Congress, as well as the Virginia governor and legislature, would open up 48 million acres of ocean to 21 drilling leases.
Kempthorne said this effort would bring in 10 billion barrels of oil over the next forty years. Seems like a lot, right? Let's look at how that breaks down.
In 2007, the US will use 7.6 billion barrels of oil. Assuming we stay at exactly the same consumption level (which is a tremendous underestimation) this would mean that each year for the next 40 years, we're getting about 250,000,000 barrels of oil from this project, or about 3.2% of our total demand. When you factor in the actual consumption projections, by 2030, this drilling will account for 2.5% of our total annual consumption.
I don't know how many different ways we can say it, but we simply cannot drill our way to energy independence - and to suggest that opening up the coast of Virginia to drilling will in any way help is ludicrous. It, in fact, will make the problem worse - because in a time when we need to conserve and diversify, we'll be looking to the same old dirty and limited sources of energy that have gotten us where we are today.
May 01, 2007
Dependence Day is Around the Corner
Posted by Dan Stafford at 09:40 AM
It's that time of year again. Dependence Day is coming up in less than a month. In 2007, the United States will import almost two-thirds of it's annual oil needs, meaning that as of May 29th, we will, effectively, be reliant of foreign oil for the rest of the year.
An excellent first step towards breaking free from oil would be doubling our national gas mileage standard for all cars, trucks, and SUVs. This one step would reduce our oil consumption by 900 million barrels a year. For Dependence Day 2007, we're calling on all presidential candidates to support Doubling the Standard.
Take a minute right now, and let all Democratic and Republican candidates know you want them to support this important move:
As our oil imports rise Dependence Day occurs earlier and earlier every year, and the truth is that we cannot drill our way out of dependence. With less than 2% of the world's oil reserves in the U.S., the only answer is to break free from oil altogether.
The reality is that whoever becomes the next president is going to have to deal with our country's oil addiction. Gasoline is the single largest use of oil in this country, and accounts for more than 40% of our total consumption.
We need to make sure that whoever gets elected is in support of doubling our national fuel economy standard - so please send them all this important message today.
Since our success counts on the candidates hearing from thousands of us, after you take action, please take the extra minute to tell your friends and family about this effort - and thanks for your work.
|