AvailableGreenEnergy

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

By Mark Kimbrell. Note, this post does not necessarily represent the opinions or priorities of Focus the Nation, and instead represents the author’s sentiments alone. Last week represented defeat after defeat for the climate movement and progressive forces in American Politics. One of the most left-leaning members of the Senate (RIP) has been replaced by Republican Scott Brown, thus disrupting the Democrats’ majority and the prospects for health and climate legislation. Not that the Democrats have necessarily been honoring their campaign promises, or representing the wishes of our movement- nevertheless it’s a wound. The Supreme Court has opened the floodgates on Corporate giving, and rolled back all progress made through past campaign finance reform. A decision that will no doubt increase the already massive influence of coal and oil interests over the US government and US public . Climate Change has once again been buried in the issue dog pile under health care, military adventures, and Wall Street reform. All while the coal industry’s iron hammer – Senator Murkowski has launched an all out blitzkrieg on the EPA’s ability to regulate under the Clean Air Act. And to top it all off, wouldn’t you know it- it looks like global climate talks won’t reach a pact by year’s end . Surprise, surprise…. After last week’s bludgeoning, it’s pretty clear that the writing is on the wall. With corporate money flooding into political coffers and misinformation campaigns with more ease, and Brown’s election signaling trouble ahead for democrats, our window of opportunity to make progress on our issue seems to be prematurely closing. It raises an important question: the game has changed- have we? Taking a quick glance at the upcoming activities and priorities of the youth ranks it’s clear that we haven’t changed enough, and it seems to be time for our movement to take a long hard look in the mirror. COP15 exhibited two very clear facts for the climate movement: we need a larger and more diverse movement (at least according to Jonathan Pershing ), and we need to hone in on a strategy that will allow us to reduce US emissions without depending on weak Senate legislation or international treaty, who’s prospects seem to fade every day. In order to address both of these ominous facts, I propose the youth movement add a very important arrow to the organizing quiver- engagement and action around clean energy investment . Here it is in a nutshell- the youth climate movement should make a seismic shift towards making clean energy cheaper, rather than devoting all focus towards the difficult road of making carbon more expensive (an opinion that has been continually stated here). That’s not to say we should abandon all aspects of the pollution paradigm. Our movement should always have a legislative cap/tax of carbon as a top priority. This strategy does not represent an eviction of that principle, but instead an addition that may eventually make a significant cap on carbon accessible within the American political gauntlet. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger said it best – “…no effort to achieve deep reductions in carbon emissions, domestic or international, will succeed as long as low-carbon energy technologies cost vastly more than current fossil fuel-based energy.” They also lay out the most important fortifications that an organizing strategy devoted solely to a carbon cap/tax will have to overcome: “the political power of incumbent energy interests, low consumer tolerance for high energy prices, the economic impacts that substantially raising energy prices will have on key energy-intensive sectors of the economy, and — most importantly — the substantial price gap that continues to exist between fossil fuels and clean-energy alternatives.” It’s clear to even the most skeptical that the first step to reducing American emissions and improving the prospect for significant legislative carbon control is to reduce the price gap between clean energy and carbon, as well as the consumer crunch that will ride the coat tails of any carbon legislation. By achieving significant investment in clean energy technologies we can quickly and effectively reduce the price gap as well as the consumer crunch by making clean energy technologies cheaper and able to withstand competition with carbon. Also, by showcasing the benefits of clean energy investment in reducing emissions, we can not only improve our chances at legislative action, but also pave the road for eventual revenue generated from carbon regulation to be funneled into clean energy technology. If you dig below the surface you find multiple peripheral benefits to this strategy as well. Reducing the price of clean energy in the American marketplace will serve as a visible counter to any arguments launched by the right that portray carbon regulations as an unbearable expense on American households. There it will be- affordable clean energy- to be used as a weapon by our movement to prove the possibility of a real societal shift away from a carbon based economy. Not to mention the thousands of new jobs that will be created as the clean energy sector begins to boom. This will no doubt increase our ability to recruit new and unique American participants in our call for climate legislation that puts a real price on carbon; thus fulfilling the wish of Jonathan Pershing and eliminating one more excuse the Obama administration or Congress may invoke. A move towards prioritizing clean energy investment will give us something our movement (and most progressive movements) has never had- an industry lobby (clean tech). A whole sector of our economy, ripe for growth and in need of federal support, will join our call and aid our efforts. A new honed message around immediate clean energy investment will bring the leverage of a future economic powerhouse into our corner. So the benefits are clear, but what does clean energy investment organizing strategy look like? The first step to injecting clean energy investment into the top of our movement priority list is a change in messaging. We should reduce the emphasis on passing weak legislation and instead focus on: 1. Immediate funding of clean energy technologies in any way possible- stimulus/ jobs bill, appropriations bill, as a rider on any legislation. 2. Investment in altering our infrastructure to be able to facilitate a boom in clean energy. An easily attainable goal when you consider what we spend on our Middle East occupations or bailouts. 3. Clean energy investment as a deal breaker in any climate legislation. If the bill doesn’t work to level the playing field between carbon and clean energy it’s not a step forward. This spring’s campaigns, initiatives and actions should push clean energy investment to the forefront of asks. All civic engagement activities should push clean energy investment as an immediate need and a necessary preface to climate legislation while utilizing the leverage of actors from the clean energy sector. All communication with Congress or the White House should center on the injection of clean energy funding in any and all upcoming legislation. Regional organizing activities and conferences should push for statewide funding of local clean energy technologies and businesses as their primary purpose. Spring is the perfect time to back away from cap and trade a bit, and instead develop town halls, forums, call in/write in campaigns to target both federal and local elected officials around economic revitalization through clean energy investment. I can see the campaign slogans now- A Clean Energy New Deal; Investing in America’s Climate Future; Awakening America’s Clean Energy Giant; Clean Energy- the Common Man’s Bailout… The militant/direct action wing of the movement should move to identify the US’s largest investments- corporate bailouts/subsidies, and war, and target them with creative actions and visuals to attract the American public’s attention towards funding clean energy instead. Here come the visuals- War the life taker, Clean Energy the job maker – you choose; Corporate Bailouts= bigger yachts, Clean Energy investment= Jobs and energy security … Greenpeace will do a better job than I can. We, as a movement, must immediately change our paradigm to consider a strong political push for clean energy investment, on both the local and federal level, as a necessary table setter for any effective climate legislation. If we are willing to really consider the economic and political reality, and re-examine our paradigm and strategies – a long look in the mirror- this new model could pave our way to success. Photo courtesy of www.rudecactus.com Jesse Jenkins contributed to this post through many informative discussions and a comprehensive suggested reading list.

Or should I say, the obviously abhorrent… The incredibly destructive coal mining practice known as ” mountaintop removal ” causes “pervasive and irreversible” damage to human health and the environment, according to an authoritative scientific study released today. The comprehensive and far-reaching scientific review, entitled “Mountaintop Mining Consequences”, was conducted by members of the National Academy of Sciences and is being published in the prestigious journal Science . The study summarized dozens of pre-existing scientific papers analyzing the impacts of mountaintop removal mining, a type of surface coal mining that uses huge amounts of explosives to blast away the tops of mountains to expose coal seams. The resulting debris (aka the former mountain) are typically disposed of through a practice known as “valley fills,” where tons of mining debris are dumped into neighboring valleys, burying miles of headwater streams and valley ecosystems . According to a press release on the study: …the authors outline severe environmental degradation taking place at mining sites and downstream. The practice destroys extensive tracts of deciduous forests and buries small streams that play essential roles in the overall health of entire watersheds. Waterborne contaminants enter streams that remain below valley fills and can be transported great distances into larger bodies of water. Mountaintop removal mining has already buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams and destroyed hundreds of square miles of woodlands in one of America’s biodiversity hotspots, all while both the U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies have allowed the destructive practice to continue . That’s left it to activists to slow these projects down and prevent their irreversible damages. The new scientific study condemned federal and state regulation of mountaintop removal mining operations, concluding that “Current attempts to regulate [mountaintop mining and associated valley fill] practices are inadequate,” and that “Regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science.” Environmental and Appalachian community advocates hailed the study as a powerful indictment against mountaintop removal mining, according to Appalachian Voices , an environmental non-profit working to bring coalfield residents together to end mountain removal. Opponents of mountaintop removal expressed disappointment over the Obama Administration’s fluctuating stance on mountaintop removal , citing inconsistencies with statements made by President Obama about restoring science to a more prominent position in agency decision-making. The new study was released just days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the expansion of the largest mountaintop removal coal mine in West Virginia . Appalachian coalfield residents have long been aware of the obvious and major impacts mountaintop removal mining has on the health of local communities and verdant Appalachian ecosystems. Appalachian Voices is hopeful that the study will embolden the Obama Administration to take more decisive action to ultimately end the practice. In a recent interview the President told the political news organization, Politico, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient-especially when it’s inconvenient.” Yet last year, the Obama Administration released a multi-agency plan that called for more strict enforcement of laws regulating mountaintop removal but stopped short of prohibiting the practice “The scientific study released today comes as little surprise to us living in the Central Appalachian coal mining region,” says Nina McCoy from Martin County, Ky., site of a large coal sludge dam break that overtook the county in 2000. “This should be the evidence the Obama Administration needs to close the floodgates on new mountaintop removal permits and stop the poisoning of our people.” The EPA recently told National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show that the agency does not believe it has the authority to stop permitting mountaintop removal outright. Critics counter that there are other avenues through which the Administration could effectively end the practice. “The EPA has made commendable efforts to reduce the impacts of mountaintop removal on downstream water quality, but this study shows that mitigating and regulating the wholesale destruction of Appalachian Mountains is just not effective,” said Dr. Matthew Wasson, ecologist for Appalachian Voices and director of the campaign to end mountaintop removal on iLoveMountains.org . “The President has the power to end mountaintop removal through any number of agency actions,” Wasson added, “and he should call on Congress to pass the Clean Water Protection Act , a bill designed to end mountaintop removal-but the message from this study is that he’s out of excuses for allowing mountaintop removal to continue.” Ken Ward Jr. has more at Coal Tattoo , and David Roberts has more at Grist . See iLoveMountains.org for more resources on mountaintop removal, and to take action.

Right now 3400 companies sector employ 25000-35000 workers in solar. The Solar Energy Industries Association predicts an increase to over 110000 jobs by 2016 – even more if anticipated tax credits are accelerated. Companies to check out: Akeena Solar; Sungevity; Sunpower; PV2, … We’ll need lots of retrofitters who can recycle the aging US building stock into energy efficient showplaces. The Obama stimulus package supports billions in green building and energy retrofits. …

President Obama gave a speech today on the “Educate to Innovate” Campaign and the Science Teaching and Mentoring Awards, emphasizing the importance of STEM education for maintaining American leadership and successfully competing with the rapidly growing economies of Asia. As we found in our recent report, ” Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant ,” Asian nations like China, South Korea, and Japan are launching massive government investment projects to dominate the clean-tech sector, which promises to be one of the largest new growth sectors of the next few decades. In order to catch up, the United States will need a national clean-tech education strategy on par with the National Defense Education Act of 1958, as my colleague and I wrote back in 2008 . The Obama administration’s RE-ENERGYSE proposal was a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it was rejected by Congress last year . Will the administration and Congress work together on a new proposal in 2010 on the scale we need to win the clean energy race? Stay tuned. Here are some of Obama’s remarks: “Whether it’s improving our health or harnessing clean energy, protecting our security or succeeding in the global economy, our future depends on reaffirming America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in math, science, technology, and engineering. But despite the importance of education in these subjects, we have to admit we are right now being outpaced by our competitors. One assessment shows American 15-year-olds now ranked 21st in science and 25th in math when compared to their peers around the world. Think about that — 21st and 25th. That’s not acceptable. And year after year the gap between the number of teachers we have and the number of teachers we need in these areas is widening. The shortfall is projected to climb past a quarter of a million teachers in the next five years — and that gap is most pronounced in predominately poor and minority schools. And meanwhile, other nations are stepping up — a fact that was plain to see when I visited Asia at the end of last year. The President of South Korea and I were having lunch, and I asked him, what’s the biggest education challenge that you have? He told me his biggest challenge in education wasn’t budget holes, it wasn’t crumbling schools — it was that the parents were too demanding. (Laughter.) He’s had to import thousands of foreign teachers because parents insisted on English language training in elementary school. The mayor of Shanghai, China — a city of over 20 million people — told me that even in such a large city, they had no problem recruiting teachers in whatever subject, but particularly math and science, because teaching is revered and the pay scales are comparable to professions like doctors. So make no mistake: Our future is on the line. The nation that out-educates us today is going to out-compete us tomorrow. To continue to cede our leadership in education is to cede our position in the world. That’s not acceptable to me and I know it’s not acceptable to any of you. And that’s why my administration has set a clear goal: to move from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math education over the next decade.”