-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

6.10.2010

BP Oil Spill & Pres Obamam

Obama Pivots on Gulf Disaster From Cleanup to Policy Action

On June 2, a day before BP announced it had sheared through a leaking pipe at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, one of the very few steps forward in the company's 44-day campaign to staunch the worst oil disaster in American history, President Barack Obama finally stopped serving as the cleanup chief and became the commander in chief.

During a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Obama pressed the nation to join him in viewing the catastrophe as a call to arms to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that would begin to limit the need to drill such deep and dangerous wells.

"If we refuse to take into account the full costs of our fossil fuel addiction - if we don't factor in the environmental costs and the national security costs and the true economic costs - we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future," the president said. "The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate - a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans - that would achieve the same goal.

"And, Pittsburgh, I want you to know, the votes may not be there right now," Obama added, "but I intend to find them in the coming months. I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can. I will work with anyone to get this done - and we will get it done. The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century. We are not going to move backwards. We are going to move forward."

Direct, Emphatic, Needed
The president's remarks, the most direct and emphatic links he's yet drawn between the BP Gulf disaster and the need for comprehensive legislation, seem plainly directed at opening a new narrative for national action in the Gulf disaster.

In response to demands that Obama "do something," the president appears to be pivoting from treating the disaster as an exercise in environmental restoration. He is now calling for potentially momentous changes in attitudes and policy at a time of intense domestic interest about oil, the economy, and the environment.

"An America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren," the president said at Carnegie Mellon. "We consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month - including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk."

Cheered By Advocates
Climate and energy advocates this week responded to Obama's new urgency with proposals intended to move considerably farther in reducing fossil fuel consumption and climate change emissions than has been proposed in either the House bill passed almost a year ago, or the Senate bill introduced on May 12.

"The President's speech in Pittsburgh yesterday was the lead story in today's Washington Post," said Dan Lashof, the director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's Climate Center.  "And for good reason. Using the Gulf oil disaster as proof that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, President Obama made his strongest case yet for enacting comprehensive energy reform that includes limits on carbon pollution. And he committed to round up the votes in the Senate to 'get this done.'"

John Podesta and Daniel Weiss of the Center For American Progress this week proposed a nine-step action agenda to change the rules of the game for oil development and use. Their proposal includes stepping up the administration's new fuel economy regulations,  as well as electric vehicle production programs contained in last year stimulus bill to reduce oil consumption by 7 million barrels a day by 2030. That would mean cutting oil use by 37 percent from current rates of consumption. The CAP plan also calls for levying a fee on imported oil to direct new revenues to modern public transit, and to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for oil and other fossil fuel development, a goal embraced last year by leaders of the G20 group of nations.

"The horrible BP oil disaster has reminded Americans that we must reduce our oil use," Podesta and Weiss wrote. "We share the view that this presents an unprecedented opportunity to take bold action to achieve this goal."

More Than What's Been Done By White House So Far
The president's speech also attracted fresh attention to the National Oil Savings Plan proposed by Brendan Bell, who directs the climate change program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Bell's proposal, which was distributed in Washington on May 21, projects reducing oil consumption 7.4 million barrel per day by 2030 by enacting new law and regulations that invest in modernizing and expanding  public transit, accelerating energy efficiency programs for buildings, expanding biofuels production, and going further than the administration already has in raising fuel mileage standards for light and heavy vehicles.

Obama introduced the new direction in energy and climate strategy last week when he met with Senate Republicans and, according to a White House statement, told them "that the gulf oil disaster should heighten our sense of urgency to hasten the development of new, clean energy sources that will promote energy independence and good-paying American jobs. And he asked that they work with him on the promising proposals currently before Congress."

The president also toured Solyndra's solar thin-film manufacturing plant in Fremont, California and noted that even as "we are dealing with this immediate crisis, we've got to remember that the risks our current dependence on oil holds for our environment and our coastal communities is not the only cost involved in our dependence on these fossil fuels.  Around the world, from China to Germany, our competitors are waging a historic effort to lead in developing new energy technologies."

More Steps
White House advisors and aides on Capitol Hill said the president's fresh focus on policy and not soley on oil pollution has produced new momentum for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. Advocates said that to really make a difference in fossil fuel consumption and emissions reductions, the bill would need to incorporate the energy-saving ideas proposed by the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and add several more including:

  1. A national renewable energy standard, similar to those established by more than 30 states, to require utilities to generate a portion their power with wind, solar, geothermal, and other cleaner alternative energy sources.
  2. A cap on carbon that produces at least 80 percent reductions in emissions by 2050. The Senate measure proposed by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman sets a goal of reducing emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, which is generally viewed as a decent start.
  3. A provision that provides substantial funds for developing nations to reduce carbon emissions, preserve forests, and make the transition to a clean energy economy. The Kerry-Lieberman proposal on international climate finance calls for a roughly $500 million a year investment by 2019, which is seen as too little and too late.

President Obama is scheduled to return to the Gulf coast on Friday, his third visit to the disaster zone in 5 weeks.

-- Keith Schneider



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Clean Air Act-Most Important Climate and Energy Vote of Year Tests Senate Direction

Most Important Climate and Energy Vote of Year Tests Senate Direction

Late last year when Senator Lisa Murkowski announced she would vigorously oppose any effort to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions, environmental leaders in Washington understood the significance of the Alaska Republican's challenge. A loyal ally of fossil fuel developers, Senator Murkowski attracts more campaign financing from the oil and utility industries than all but two other Senate lawmakers, according to federal election records.  

 

The months-long skirnishing between Senator Murkowski and environmental advocates is now in its final hours, with both sides asserting they will prevail. At stake is a vote in the Senate scheduled for Thursday night on a "resolution of disapproval" introduced by Senator Murkowski last January and meant to disrupt the Obama administration's pioneering work to respond to climate change by limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases in the U.S.

 

Though the Murkowski resolution faces an arduous route through a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House, the Thursday vote will be the most important Congressional test yet this year on where the United States is going on climate action and clean energy.

 

The details of what's been happening look like this: Senator Murkowski's resolution, which has 41 co-sponsors, would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's formal scientific finding on December 7, 2009 that carbon dioxide and five other climate-changing pollutants endanger human health and the environment.

 The EPA's "endangerment finding," introduced at the start of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen last year, was saluted by climate activists and government officials around the world. The finding made it legally possible to use the Clean Air Act, the nation's primary air pollution statute, to set and enforce new manufacturing practices and emissions limits that tamed the U.S. contribution to global climate change.

 

Moment of Reckoning For Both Sides
The vote couldn't come at a more opportune moment for climate advocates and the fossil fuel industry and should provide a helpful sorting out of the relative political influence of both sides.

 

The last six months have been a period of dismay for the American climate action community, challenged by the disappointing results in Copenhagen, and fighting back against the furious attack by pundits and lawmakers on the validity of climate science.

 

The last six weeks have been equally dismal for the oil industry, which has attracted new public scrutiny because of the horrendous oil spill in the Gulf, and the equally destructive environmental consequences of mining and processing oil from Alberta, Canada's tar sands.

 

If the resolution passes, an event seen as unlikely by Democratic Senate staffers, it would almost certainly have the effect of putting an even deeper  trench in the already difficult path that comprehensive climate and energy legislation has in the Senate. Conversely, if the resolution fails by a wide margin, that result would likely build new legislative enthusiasm for a climate and energy bill this year.

 

Important players from both sides are making their cases. Americans United for Change today began three days of cable TV advertising  in Washington, D.C., that explicitly link the BP Gulf disaster to the Murkowski resolution and the assertion that at Republicans are "working to gut the bipartisan Clean Air Act and give big oil a bailout."

Senator Murkowski issued a statement this week that accused critics of the resolution of misrepresenting her intentions. "There has been a great deal of misinformation spread about my effort by groups -- almost all of which are based outside of Alaska -- who want to cut the emissions blamed for climate change no matter what the cost," Murkowski said.  Her spokesman, Robert Dillon, said the resolution is not about debating the science behind climate change. Rather, he told the Associated Press, it's about stopping an "out of control" government agency.

Senator Murkowski's conservative supporters contend that using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions is a regulatory overreach by big government. "Every sector of our economy -- transportation, power generation and manufacturing -- would be subjected to EPA's bureaucratic reach," said Tom Borelli director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

 
Endangerment Finding Put to Use
The Obama administration, meanwhile, has moved quickly to put the endangerment finding and its Clean Air Act authority into effect. In April the administration issued trend-setting fuel mileage and emissions standards for light vehicles that the agency said would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and 900 million tons of carbon emissions from 2012 to 2016.

 Last month, President Obama ordered similar mileage and emissions reduction rules for heavy trucks. The administration has also made plain its intention to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions from some 7,000 industrial installations – refineries, utilities, manufacturers, and mining sites – but leave small businesses alone.

U.S. climate and clean energy organizations anticipated Senator Murkowski's challenge and began building support in January to defeat the resolution, which they called the "Dirty Air Act." Among the allies in the campaign were dozens of environmental organizations, labor unions, governors, President Obama, Democratic senators, and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

Newspaper editorialists also weighed in, noting that the BP Gulf Spill has made it more urgent than ever to curtail the myriad hazards of America's addiction to oil. "Murkowski plans to offer a resolution," said the Washington Post on June 7, "making it less likely we move away from fossil fuels, making it less likely we act to prevent a foreseeable catastrophe (in this case, global warming) from occurring, blocking regulators from doing their jobs, and disrupting one of our best opportunities to prevent climate change rather than scramble to respond after its incalculable effects rip through our atmosphere."

In an article on Monday for the Huffington Post, EPA Administrator Jackson said the Murkowski resolution "abdicates the responsibility we have to move the country forward in a way that creates jobs, increases our security by breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the air and water we rely on."



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Senator Murkowski Thinks Polluters Can Police Themselves


This Thursday, lawmakers will likely vote on Senator Lisa Murkowski's resolution to undercut the government's authority to regulate global warming pollution.

I find it shocking that Senator Murkowski is moving forward with this resolution now--even as oil continues to flow into the Gulf of Mexico seven weeks after BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout.

Not only could the resolution prolong our oil addiction by delaying America's shift to cleaner energy, but it will also undermine one of the government's most effective tools for holding polluters accountable--the Clean Air Act.

Now is not the time to have faith in polluters' ability to police themselves. 

Yet despite all of BP's broken promises about its safety measures and ability to clean up offshore spills, Senator Murkowski thinks we should trust polluters to handle the problem of global warming too. She doesn't want the EPA to get involved with limiting global warming pollution from power plants, oil refineries, and cars.

Indeed, her resolution would void recent EPA efforts to reduce dangerous pollution, including new standards to cut carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency for new cars, SUVs, and light trucks--standards that also will save billions of gallons of gasoline.

Murkowski's resolution would knock the EPA rules of the picture, sacrificing a quarter of the fuel savings expected from standards set together with the Transportation Department.  And that means consumers will buy 18.9 billion gallons of gasoline and spend around $56.7 billion at the pump that they wouldn't have to if the EPA retained its authority.

That may be good for the oil industry, but it's' not good for Americans' health or pocketbooks.

Instead of indulging industry's desire to dump carbon pollution into the air without limit, Senators should be working on cleaner, safer solutions.

They should pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that retains the EPA's ability to enforce pollution reductions. This is the most effective way to cut pollution, protect our oceans, and reduce our dependence on oil. 


Link to original post


--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Cozy Financial Relationships Between Environmentalists and Oil and Natural Gas Companies


A friend who has heard me discuss my theories about the relationships between mainstream Environmental groups and fossil fuel extraction and marketing companies sent me a link to an article titled Polluted by profit: Johann Hari on the real Climategate. He included a rather amusing subject line on the email "Red meat for Rod" and addressed it to a small group of people who also have been subjected to my "wild" and somewhat contra-intuitive theories.

The article discusses how some large environmental groups decided to start taking corporate cash with the good intention of using it as a tool to do more effective advocacy for their particular issue. According to Johann Hari, the actual practice has not worked out as initially envisioned, and some organizations have lost disillusioned members as their coffers have swelled with the polluter's contributions.
Yet as we confront the biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green organizations meant to be leading the fight are busy shovelling up hard cash from the world's worst polluters – and simultaneously burying science-based environmentalism. In the middle of a swirl of bogus climate scandals trumped up by deniers, here is the real Climategate, waiting to be exposed.
There are some juicy bits of evidence and examples in the article. Here is a sample to whet your appetite before you go and read it for yourself.
Christine MacDonald, an idealistic young environmentalist, discovered how deeply this cash had transformed these institutions when she started to work for CI (Conservation International) in 2006. She told me: "About a week or two after I started, I went to the big planning meeting of all the organisation's media teams, and they started talking about this supposedly great new project they were running with BP. But I had read in the newspaper the day before that the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] had condemned BP for running the most polluting plant in the whole country... But nobody in that meeting, or anywhere else in the organization, wanted to talk about it. It was a taboo. You weren't supposed to ask if BP was really green. They were 'helping' us, and that was it."
One quibble that I have is that Johann Hari attributes the trend of accepting contributions from polluters to Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation. My research has revealed decisions by people like Michael McCloskey that predate Hair's tenure with the NWF. McCloskey rose to be the Sierra Club Executive Director before the first Earth Day in 1970 and was an active leader in the organization for more than 40 years. He detailed his actions to place the organization on "firm financial footing" that included accepting corporate donations in his book titled In the Thick of It.


--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

How Two Friends Turned Abandoned CASTLE into a 4☆HOTEL | by @chateaudut...

Join us on an extraordinary journey as two lifelong friends, Francis and Benoit, turn a crumbling, centuries-old castle into a stunning 4-st...