Let's not forget about energy infrastructure

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM MST

U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, wrapping up his second year in office, said Wednesday that an economic stimulus package that focuses on infrastructure projects is a top priority for him when Congress convenes in 2009....

...Tester said that among the biggest priorities should be job creation through federal funding for infrastructure projects. In Montana, that would cover such projects as rural water delivery, highways and bridges, he said.

Tester said a long list of worthy projects already exists. Federal funding for them would not only create jobs; it would also help spur the economy with better infrastructure, he said.

That's what we need, of course. Good jobs building infrastructure, and the economic benefits that accompany good infrastructure. Still, I don't think Tester goes far enough, or identifies all of what our infrastructure money should be spent on.

Here's the University of Montana's Thomas Michael Power:

Ideally, the spending would focus on important public needs that have been starved for funds despite past economic expansions: Infrastructure investments, repairing our deteriorating roads, bridges, schools, and parks are most often mentioned. But there are also dramatic opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of our homes and businesses, including the energy efficiency of our appliances, heating and air conditioning systems, industrial processes, motor vehicles, and transportation systems. Finally there are opportunities to seriously explore the expansion in our use of clean renewable energy sources.

Focusing government expenditures on these "green" sources of energy services allows us to pursue multiple high priority public policies. Because the pursuit of improved energy efficiency tends to be labor intensive and make use of workers in the building trades and manufacturing where job losses have been so high, expenditure on improving energy efficiency would make a greater contribution to putting Americans back to work.

Because this focus on energy efficiency and renewables would cut the use of fossil fuels, it would help put us on the path to reducing global warming. At the same time, it would involve investments in the research and development of green technologies that the entire world will soon be demanding. It provides an opportunity for the United States to build a leadership position in these green technologies rather than yielding this growth area to other nations. It will reduce our reliance of foreign sources of oil and improve the choices we face when we are next blackmailed by a hostile nation and are forced to contemplate again sending our young people to war.

Power begins the piece -- which you should read in its entirety, by the way -- talking about how the plunge of world oil prices will probably slow down or halt the cries for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects, setting us up for the next, bigger upward spiral in energy prices the next time the pendulum swings against us.

That's the irony of $200 fuel: it presented us with an opportunity in the form of a costly wake-up call. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas made folks rethink their trips, their cars. Looming heating prices made folks consider home energy efficiency. Yes, I'm thrilled oil prices plummeted just in time for winter for consumers' sake, but will we forget the lesson of the past summer?

Infrastructure

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 06:57:37 AM MST

Robert Reich:

So the crucial questions become (1) how much will the government have to spend to get the economy back on track? and (2) what sort of spending will have the biggest impact on jobs and incomes?

The answer to the first question is "a lot." Given the magnitude of the mess and the amount of underutilized capacity in the economy-- people who are or will soon be unemployed, those who are underemployed, factories shuttered, offices empty, trucks and containers idled -- government may have to spend $600 or $700 billion next year to reverse the downward cycle we're in.

The answer to the second question is mostly "infrastructure" -- repairing roads and bridges, levees and ports; investing in light rail, electrical grids, new sources of energy, more energy conservation. Even conservative economists like Harvard's Martin Feldstein are calling for government to stimulate the economy through infrastructure spending. Infrastructure projects like these pack a double-whammy: they create lots of jobs, and they make the economy work better in the future....

Government should also spend on health care and child care. These expenditures are also double whammies: they, too, create lots of jobs, and they fulfill vital public needs.

Bingo. These Wall St. bailouts prop up the existing financial hierarchy of the country. They seem to be aimed to ensure that there's money available to be lent. But the bailouts don't address the recent spate of lost jobs, the accelerating decline of wages for the middle and working classes aggravated by unjust taxation, the shrinking number of people interested in borrowing money.

Investment in infrastructure provides jobs and gives people money to buy houses and health care and consumer goods. And investment in green infrastructure would create good manufacturing jobs around the country. And investment in infrastructure actually provides us with tangible, useful things like bridges, schools, and windmills.

Call it "trickle up" economics.

Western governors urge Obama to take action on global warming

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 19:33:12 PM MST

So...what's going on with global warming lately? Kevin Drum has the latest reports - and they're not good. Global warming is actually advancing quicker than our "canonical" IPCC model, which some have decried as too pessimistic.

Drum:

This is why climate scientists have been running around with their hair on fire for the past couple of years. It would be nice to think that perhaps our current climate models are too pessimistic; or even that they're right but maybe we'll end up at the low end of the predicted warming ranges; or at worst that the models are right and we'll end up right at the center. But that just doesn't seem to be the case. What it really looks like is that our current models aren't pessimistic enough and that the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is exceeding even the modelers' highest estimates.

It's probably reports like these that have spurred the Western Governors' Association to issue a four-page letter urging the Obama administration to act on global warming concerns:

Among the recommendations are annually spending tens of billions of dollars to develop clean energy technology, establishing an "aggressive" greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal to help stop global warming and proposing a mandatory national system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through "market-based mechanisms."

Among actions suggested were more investment in mass transportation, clean energy vehicles, expanding the electric grid, and to develop more zero-emission alternative energy sources.

Regardless of what concrete actions the Obama administration undertakes, there's one thing Obama can do, right away, without any effort or taxpayer money involved, and that's to step out of the way of states seeking to implement local plans for, say, emissions standards. That's something the Bush administration has consistently blocked: the toughening of environmental regulations on the state level...a thumb to the nose to states' rights, and another reminder that contemporary conservatism isn't about small government, low taxes, or states' rights, it's about sucking up to big business. Period.

The interesting thing about this particular letter is that the Western Governors' Association is distinctly bipartisan. The chair of the group is Republican Jon Huntsman of Utah, and he admits that Republicans "have been too unwilling to champion the environment as an important issue." Now, a cynic might think this new embrace - at least in a letter - is merely a reaction to the GOP's slipping grip on the Rocky Mountain West, which may, in part, be due to its cavalier attitude towards conservation. Regardless, it's good to see that the energy-producing Western states are not only on board with an Obama green policy, but are needling him to act swiftly and to implement sweeping changes.  

The world in 2025 according to the NIC

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM MST

One factor that could mitigate the socio-economic impact of aging workforces in many countries over the next two decades is the economic empowerment of women....

Experts expect HIV/AIDS to remain a global pandemic through 2025, with Sub-Saharan Africa continuing to be the "epicenter of infection"....

Even with a massive effort to develop clean fossil fuels and renewable energy sources, all current technologies "are inadequate for replacing traditional energy architectures on the scale needed," according to the report. "New energy technologies will probably not be commercially viable and widespread by 2025," it continued....

Experts currently consider 21 countries, whose combined populations total 600 million people, to have shortages of arrable land or fresh water. That number is forecast to rise to 36 countries, whose populations will total about 1.4 billion people, by 2025. "Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching unprecedented proportions in many areas of the world and is likely to grow worse owing to rapid urbanization and population growth," the report said.

In short, the solutions to what will ail us in 2025 include intense investment in alternative energy, the promotion of women's rights worldwide, addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, and protecting our water from urban sprawl.

Hm...sounds suspiciously like a good, progressive platform.

Rehberg votes against offshore drilling, alternative energy tax credits

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 14:12:58 PM MST

Meet House Bill 6899, the "Comprehensive American Energy Security & Consumer Protection Act."

Among other things, HB 6899 allows offshore drilling, spurs more domestic oil drilling, advance carbon capture and sequestration technologies, and gives tax credits to renewable energy projects, like solar and wind.

Dennis Rehberg voted against the bill.

Now we've been down this road before with Real ID, CHIP and Mother's Day. You know the drill: Dennis Rehberg votes down a bill, trash talks it, then when he realizes people are paying attention, he turns around, supports the bill and claims he was for it all along.

So, to help Representative Rehberg and his staff out, I've created a little template for his use in these situations. I call it, "the Double Backflip" statement:

Montanans have heard a lot about [insert legislation/issue/statement here] in the news lately. Since it was [begun/introduced/invented] in [year], it has done wonders for [special interest group/children/seniors/working Americans].

Last week, House Democrats brought to the floor their version of [issue/bill name/solution]. Sadly, their plan was just [cliche about Democratic party and/or liberalism]. Additionally, [invoke specter of taxes/national security/gays].

Also, [invoke obscure technicality in the bill that won't make any sense to anyone reading this, but that sounds authoritative].

The bill contains nothing for [business/guns/special interest group/lobbyist I like].

Furthermore the bill would disproportionately benefit [scary brown people/poor people/scary brown poor people/gays].

As the Democrats continue to [expand government/raise taxes/cave in to Islamic extremists/other topic talking point from Rove's daily FAX], they threaten the sanctity of [profits/business/working Americans]. Knowing they can't win this debate in open sunlight, House Democrats are resorting to sabotaging [Pledge of Allegiance/marriage/gun rights].

Ultimately, I support [insert legislation/issue/statement here]. The legislation does indeed [acheive goal/benefit special interest group/benefit children/benefit seniors], and I hope Democrats' insisentence to follow their narrow, partisan interests as expressed [in minor, meaningless technical detail of bill] can be overcome, and we can sit down and work together on this crucial piece of legislation.

Montana [kids/seniors/gun owners/working Americans] deserve to have [pandering remark/vague promise of reform].

There you go. And don't say I never supported a Republican!

Tester's Energy Almanac

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 21:47:17 PM MST

In the speech he reiterates the importance of alternative and renewable energy sources, but also advocates drilling as a short-term "bridge" to a better energy infrastructure, comprised of wind, solar, geothermal, and cellusic ethanol.

T. Boone Pickens - An oilman turns to wind power

by: Pimley

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:51:20 AM MST

Everyone seems to have a solution these days.  There are a plethora of ideas from all sectors - some are feasible, some are not.  Some want to stop using fossil fuels immediately, while others want to drill as many holes in the earth as possible and suck out every last drop of oil.  One thing we all agree on: something needs to be done. And  soon.  

One of the more unique, achievable, and downright interesting ideas comes from a very unlikely source -- an oilman who unequivocally states this is one crisis we "cannot drill our way out of."  T. Boone Pickens has made $4 billion in his 60-plus years in the oil industry.  He knows perhaps better than anyone where the oil is, how much is there and how to get it out. However,  according to his energy plan, we shouldn't waste our time or recourses.  
 

Energy thoughts from a dumb Liberal Arts major

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:57:12 PM MST

Engineer:

In order for "alternate energy" to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:

1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)
2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)
3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)
4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently
5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).

Excellent criteria - if the question is, how do we completely replace our current energy infrastructure with an alternative energy infrastructure. But while engineers are decent at solving given engineering problems, they're pretty crappy at coming up with the questions. That's why there are architects; otherwise all of our buildings would look like this.

For one, while coal is the cheapest source of energy to burn, it's not the cheapest to use. Ignored here are the external costs of using coal. Not only does the emissions from burning coal contain harmful toxins responsible for the degradation of human health, it greatly contributes to global warming, which, by some accounts will eventually mean losing 5% of GDP of the worldwide economy, every year.

Yes, coal is plentiful and cheap, but...who cares? We shouldn't use it.

It's not over until the bearded lady eats a cockroach

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM MST

It seems -- and stop me if I get this wrong -- House Republicans met in the empty chambers demanding a vote on energy legislation (that presumably features lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling) and protestng Speaker Pelosi's decision to send the House on a five-week recess. Right? Have I got it?

The right, of course, is depicting this as an act of heroism on behalf of the American people; the left, a stunt.

At risk of sounding like a partisan hack...well...it's hard to believe the protest is anything but a stunt. As Hunter  points out (hat tip Lamnidae), House Republicans aren't known for waxing hysterical over serious issues:

Food for thought: the last eight years have seen numerous acts of terrorism, here and elsewhere, two wars, a catastrophic hurricane, floods, multiple violations of law by officials in government, confirmation of actually occurring global climate change, children's toys contaminated with ingestible lead, and a collapse of the mortgage market that has had nationwide housing and banking impacts. To name a few.

During this time, I believe there have been only two circumstances that have riled Republican congressmen enough for them to demand returning to Washington during a recess. The first was done so that 535 legislators plus the President of the United States could play collective doctor to Terri Schiavo based on a videotape and the pronouncements of Senator Bill Frist.

For me, the icing on the cake was news that the House Republican leader, John Boehner, skipped the protest for a couple games of golf.

But why the protest anyway? What good would offshore drilling do for the price of gas? (Ignoring for now the external costs -- oil spills, the impact on marine ecosystems, etc -- that offshore drilling would entail.) The Spiegel International article Pete Talbot dug up is pretty explicit that offshore drilling wouldn't even get underway for years:

The reality, as usual, is far more complicated. Drilling in the now-restricted areas would require years of extensive seismic research before a single rig could operate. Even then, companies would not embark on such massive projects unless the profitability were clear. What's more, the federal Energy Information Administration estimates that access to new US deposits would not significantly affect overall domestic production for 22 years.

Oil comanies and Bush's Department of Energy admit the same.

No wonder the House protest pushed Krugman into calling the GOP "the party of the stupid."

What I mean...is that know-nothingism - the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise - has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through."

That's so true, isn't it? The denial of global warming, the touting of increased use of fossil fuels for energy production, neocon hawkishness on Iran and Iran, stubborn support for torture and domestic spying, and on and on and on. In our two-party system, one party has become the bearded lady of politics, hoping its freak show antics will draw a crowd. Tattoo your tongue! Wrap a snake around your neck! Swallow a sword! Forget solutions. Forget coherent ideology. Forget responsible government.

Again, all that is left up to the Democratic party and, frankly, I'm not sure if I like that.

Update: Apologies to Wulfgar!, but I just got around to reading his take on the "energy protest," which basically accuses Republicans of begging for "momma government" to get us out of the energy crisis, not your usual Republican rhetoric, eh?

Crow Announce Coal Liquefaction Deal

by: Matt Singer

Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM MST

The Crow Tribe struck an agreement Thursday with an Australian company's subsidiary to pursue a $7 billion plant to convert coal into liquid fuels, which would be among the first such projects in the nation.

Capping months of negotiations, the Crow Legislature ratified a 50-year development agreement with Australian-American Energy Co., a subsidiary of Australian Energy Co.

The Many Stars coal-to-liquids plant initially would produce 50,000 barrels a day of diesel and other fuels. Construction would begin in several years, and coal for the project would come from a mine yet to be developed by the tribe on the reservation, Crow leaders said.

Still, there are problems with coal liquefaction -- carbon dioxide created in the process and inevitable problems with large-scale mining. The Crow have announced plans to mitigate at least one of those issues:

Hoping to defuse opposition, tribal leaders said the Many Stars plant would be built to capture 95 percent of the carbon dioxide it produces. That gas would be stored in underground geologic formations or sold to the oil industry, which pumps carbon dioxide into aging oil wells to squeeze additional production out of them.

My understanding is that coal-to-gas also requires large quantities of water. Where will those come from? No idea.

Still, big money -- and $7 billion is big money -- doesn't typically chase waterfalls.

Who knows more about this than I do?

Congratulations, Exxon. From our pockets to yours.

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM MST

Big Oil reaped record-setting profits this quarter, thanks to rising gas prices. According to the New York Times, Exxon-Mobil made $11.68 billion this quarter, an increase of 14 percent.

In other news, economic growth was weaker this quarter than expected. Experts guess that whatever growth we did experience this quarter was mostly the result of emergency stimulus packages, and, as "the bracing tonic of the tax rebates fades, the economy could be in for another rough patch this year." Layoffs "rose sharply," unemployment claims "jumped," and workers' wages remained stagnant, despite a relatively high rate of inflation, especially at the pump.

Of course middle-class earnings and economic well-being have been stagnant, or worse, throughout the Bush years.

But, as today's jousting news articles clearly attest, the economy has not been stagnant for everybody in the world of trickle-down economics.

DNRC: Drill the Yellowstone River!

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:52:29 PM MST

Surely drilling in riverbeds would have a negative effect on our rivers...right?

Sheer genius!

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM MST

...Campaign for Change staff and volunteers will be approaching motorists who, according to AAA, will be paying an average of $4.19 per gallon for regular unleaded, and $4.67 per gallon for diesel, and make sure that they are registered to vote in November in order to elect a candidate who has put forward real plans to address this critical issue....

"Montanans are rightfully angry that they have to shell out over $4 a gallon for gas to get to work because John McCain and George Bush have chosen to protect the oil companies' record profits instead of reducing our dependence on foreign oil," said Mike Dorsey, Obama's State Director in Montana. "We are going to be out at gas stations talking to drivers about Sen. Obama's plan to address this critical problem and get them registered to vote."

The release goes on to outline Obama's energy plan -- more money for alternative fuel, a windfall tax for Big Oil, reform energy markets to curb rampant speculation, and raise CAFE standards -- but really, this is just an amazing idea, registering voters at gas stations! Get 'em while they're p*ssed off!

These are the little things that the Obama campaign does so well, and why I'm an enthusiastic supporter.

Gore's call for energy independence

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:56:00 AM MST

It's an ambitious challenge, but one that would provide a massive influx of jobs, save consumers money, dramatically reduce pollution, reduce our dependency on "conflict" oil and improve national security, and nearly halt our contribution to global warming.

Much of the pushback has been over cost. US News & World Report's James Pethokoulis, for example, estimates the cost of switching our power infrastructure to non-carbon-emitting sources within the next 10 years to be $5 trillion trillion. Yes, that's a lot of money, even when you consider five years of the Iraq War has cost around 3 trillion dollars.

But does that cost have to be borne solely by taxpayers? The liberal use of tax credits and incentives could help push this along. Or why not low-interest government loans given, say, to homeowners to increase the energy efficiency of their homes? The loans could easily be paid back with the savings in energy costs.

Here in Montana, we're uniquely positioned to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Our state abounds in ideal sites for wind farms; we've got plenty of fuel for biomass furnaces;  and we have great potential to generate energy from hydro and geothermal sources.  But most of all, we have people who want to be independent and self-sufficient. Why not tap that resource?

I would like to get conservatives aboard this project, especially those of the free-market variety. While I think this is a fantastic goal, I do get nervous hearing advocates bandy about terms like "the Apollo Project"; I mean, do you realize what a waste of taxpayer money NASA is right now? The last thing we need is a gargantuan federal agency cooking up plans for centralized control over energy reform.

That's assuming they're not totally subservient to the oil industry.

So...any suggestions on how we could do this here in Montana?

Home a model for energy self-sufficiency

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:37:48 PM MST

The 3,000-square-foot structure is octagon-shaped with wings and is powered by a passive solar system and a wind generator. The house has a basement, main floor and upper floor and includes three bedrooms, 2½ bathrooms, a dining room, laundry room and kitchen.

Gelderloos designed the south-facing house so that it catches all the solar rays as the sun moves across the sky. The north side is well-insulated.

Solar panels and a wind machine generate up to 7 kilowatts of electricity, which is stored in a bank of batteries in the basement. Conventional power from the grid charges the batteries only when needed. The system generates more power than needed for daily use, Gelderloos said.

There it is. Proof that completely self-sufficient homes are possible. And why aren't we working to retrofit more homes like this? State and federal buildings? Every school in the state should be constructed like this. Yes, the up-front price is expensive, but given the savings in energy, it's likely the d*mn structure would pay for itself.

But the best part of the story is provided by an anonymous commentator:

If the enviros and liberals would let us drill for oil and build more coal power plants people wouldn't have to build energy efficient houses. Net metering and so called green construction is just another socialist ploy to make the American people self sufficient. Energy conservation is too complicated for Americans to understand.

A "plot to make the American people self sufficient"? This must be satire...right?

Surprise! It is about the oil!

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 22:47:40 PM MST

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

It's pretty obvious what's going on here. As Andrew Sullivan writes, "You don't get to conquer a new province and not get any spoils, do you? Who needs ANWR or a carbon tax when you can drain Iraq at record high oil prices?"

Not only do Exxon and Mobile get a sweet, no-bid deal from the Iraqi government, they'd get a fantastic boost from McCain's proposed corporate tax cuts and loopholes, which may have something to do with massive donations from the industry to McCain's campaign.

There's another connection in the no-bid deal to McCain's candidacy, explained by Matthew Yglesias:

The oil money more plausibly comes into play in explaining the desire to stay at war forever. After all, these companies (or their corporate ancestors) had oil contracts in Iraq in the past and now they're getting them back "36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power." Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries. But a given government is much, much, much less likely to nationalize western countries' assets if it's dependent on external U.S. military support and especially if its security services are nicely enmeshed with the U.S. military.

McCain, of course, wants to stay in Iraq - a hundred years, if need be. His Iraqi policy ties in neatly with ensuring that the Iraqi government - now, or in the future - never gets the pesky idea that it actually owns the oil found in its territory and has a right to determine its fate.

You can almost hear the squeals of delight - hey, this means cheap oil again! But these are people who don't care if burning oil (a) is creating a massive ecological and economic disaster, (b) spews harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, (c) and destroys irreplaceable, pristine wilderness. What's establishing an overseas colony with a permanent military presence to fight an endless war in comparison with cheap gasoline prices?

I admit the economy is bad enough for working families without factoring in rising gas prices, especially in the rural areas of our state. But shouldn't we be doing something about it, instead of pushing the problems off on others that will follow us? I wouldn't be averse to find some short-term temporary relief for gas consumers -- if we simultaneously applied ourselves to finding real long-term solutions to our oil-based economy.

I'm fine with leaving all the policy-making to the left. I know we can get us out of these scrapes. But I guarantee that many rigthies won't like the results...especially if they work.  

Brown's platform: drill, drill, drill!

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM MST

Harper Lawson had the right comeback:

"If Big Oil Roy had his way, we'd probably be drilling in Glacier National Park," Lawson said.

Montana covers more than 90 million acres, Lawson said, yet Brown apparently believes that drilling on 800 acres will lower people's gas prices.

"If increased oil production in Montana meant lower gas prices, then Montana would be paying one of the lowest prices in the country right now," Lawson said, noting that Montana oil production has increased 50 percent since Schweitzer took office.

He said Brown should quit blaming others for high energy prices.

"Backed by his buddies in the oil industry, Brown has consistently voted against measures to increase the development and use of renewable alternative energy right here in Montana," Lawson said.

Drilling in Montana or Alaska or wherever won't make much of a dent on the world's oil prices, and it won't make any difference at the gas pump. The economic situation is fairly simple. The growth of world demand for oil is outpacing the growth of supply. Eventually, supply will decrease.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out where we should spend our resources - not on drilling for oil, but to help the public wean itself off of oil. Alternative energy. Mass transit. More efficient cars and trucks.

Coal embraced by Obama, Clinton

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:33 AM MST

But then you read something that they both kinda suck on...like coal...that reminds us to keep our little inner Mark Tokarskis lit, just in case.

Both Obama and Clinton have rallied environmentalists with their promises to develop windmills, solar power and other renewable energy sources and order mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases from power plants to counter global warming.

It's an energy policy that would seem to target coal, which produces half the country's electricity but also nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, each year.

Instead, "clean coal" has become the mantra of both candidates. Some environmentalists are not too happy with that.

"They keep using the term 'clean coal.' That's really an oxymoron," snaps Brent Blackwelder, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. "They absolutely are pandering the coal industry's propaganda that clean coal is the hope of the future. There's no such animal as clean coal."

("Snaps"?)

Illinois - home of Senator Obama - is a coal state, one of the top ten coal producers in the country. Clinton is learning the talking points very quickly, however, what with another coal state's --  Pennsylvania - primary coming up tomorrow.

Don't hate the wind, Dennis

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:55:34 PM MST

The House last year narrowly approved legislation extending the tax credit, which expires at the end of this year. It amounts to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. Montana Rep. Dennis Rehberg voted with the majority of his fellow Republicans against the extension and plans to vote against it again.

In the Senate, Republicans were able to block the legislation by one vote. President Bush threatened to veto it because it would have been paid for by canceling tax breaks that now go to oil and gas companies.

The rationale behind Rehberg's opposition? Raising tax rates for Big Engery means passing on costs to consumers. Neat, huh? Of course, big corporations never pass on tax cuts to consumers -- and eliminating the tax credit for wind energy will also pass on costs to consumers!

Sweet, huh? Rehberg opposes wind energy tax credits because Big Energy will have to pony up a little more from its record-setting profits to pay into the system from which it derives its wealth, and  Big Energy has deep pockets to ensure it doesn't pay its fair share.

Hm. Makes you wonder exactly who Rehberg is representing in Congress.

Staying ahead of the power curve

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:09:13 AM MST

You might not expect Montana to be a climate change pioneer. Though Montanans emit nearly twice as much greenhouse gases as the average American on a per-capita basis - thanks to the state's long distances and cold weather - the Treasure State accounts for just 0.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. But under Gov. Brian Schweitzer, this often right-leaning state is tackling both the effects of global warming and its causes, in a way that puts the federal government to shame.

The report mentions the findings of the recent climate change advisory committee, which made recommendations that would reduce Montana's "greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020," and our state's involvement in a Western coalition to impose a regional carbon cap-and-trade program.

The interesting part of the report is Schweitzer's nod that investing in alternative energy - and shying away from coal - is good for Montana's economy. Not only is coal an antiquated industry, alternative energy brings in money for the state. For example, while producing biofuels from corn may not be possible in Montana - putting aside the fact that producing corn for fuel negatively impacts food prices - but the state can produce "waste crops for cellulosic ethanol."

One thing for sure is that we don't want to be like Wyoming, as many big energy advocates are saying. From New West's report on the recent state Oil & Gas Symposium:

Wyoming currently has 67,000 gas wells operating, with another 60,000 planned. Photo after photo was shown of the Wyoming gas fields, the drilling rigs and pads, the traffic, the truck-killed antelope, the winter range under the dozer's blade, the sage grouse habitat and mating grounds, or leks, surrounded with dots that represented drilling operations.  And it was freely admitted, over and over, that many of these photos were of one place- the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline developments in the Green River of Wyoming.

Montana is known as the "Last Best Place," not because it's the last place to freely drill for coal and oil. Preserving our wild spaces is paramount. Destroying those same qualities of Montana that drew us and keep us here for a temporary, dead-end infusion of jobs and money is not the answer. Investing in energy technologies sitting on the forefront of development is.

Conrad "Duke" Williams, Louisiana conservationist and lawyer:

"When I was a flier in the Navy, we had a saying: always stay ahead of the power curve, or you'll crash. Well, we started out behind the power curve, and we never caught up, and it is not pretty. Don't make the same mistakes we made down there ... they'll tell you this is no big deal, only a trillion cubic feet of gas, no need to worry. But they are here, leasing all this land, so it must be a big deal ... This oil and gas issue is one of the most important issues this state has ever faced."

Let's not let a few big business advocates push us behind the power curve. If we're going to develop energy, let's do it on our terms that brings the most and best benefit to all Montanans, not to the bottom lines of Big Energy and the bonus payments of a few suits on Wall Street.