global warming

Sarah Palin gave a 2,585-word energy policy speech today in Ohio, and didn't breathe the words "climate" or "global warming," according to the prepared remarks available on the McCain campaign Web site.

She mentioned "energy independence," "energy security" and similar phrases dozens of times, and repeatedly promised to increase drilling for oil and natural gas, champion coal mining and "clean coal" technology, build new nuclear power plants ... and, to round out the "all of the above" approach, support renewable energy.

Though she was speaking to workers at the Toledo, OH, solar firm Xunlight Energy, she mentioned renewable energy less than any of the other options.

The most remarkable phrase in the speech may have been this one, because it comes so close to being worthy of praise:

Energy security, she said "tests our ability to confront and solve hard problems in Washington, instead of constantly putting things off. And it brings together so many other issues -- from the value of our pay checks to ..."

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

So I managed to avoid all but press accounts of the Couric-Palin interview for far too long, and when I finally sat down to watch it, I was impressed all over again about the Alaskan governor's ideas about global warming.

Just a month or so before being tapped as John McCain's vice presidential running mate, she said she didn't attribute it to being man-made". Then, in her interview with Charles Gibson in mid-September, she unveiled her new talking point, that global warming may be caused, in part, by humans, but that what matters is that we do something about it, specifically: "cut down on pollution".

She more or less repeated that in her interview last week with Katie Couric. Here's what she said:

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

The Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday published standards for protecting health and the environment at the proposed nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, where the nation may bury radioactive waste from its fleet of 100+ nuclear power plants, and from Defense Department nuclear weapons sites.

The details -- how many millirem of radiation can safely leak out -- would be meaningless to most people, who don't often think about their daily dose of radiation.

The bottom line on that, according to EPA as quoted by the Las Vegas Sun, is that the standards are in line with international radioactive waste management guidelines. Nevada's senators and other opponents of the Yucca Mountain storage plan vociferously objected to the rules, calling them dangerous and based on flawed science.

For argument's sake, assume that the millirem limit is safe. What still gives skeptics pause about a central waste storage site, and nuclear power in general, is the time scale it must remain secure.

The EPA set a low leak limit for the first 10,000 years, and then set a standard more than six times higher for the next million years (though still less than one-third the average annual dose of radiation that Americans receive from the sun and other sources today).

A million years.

That's how long radioactive waste from nuclear power plants remains dangerous, how long it must be safely stored, how long people must be wary about coming into contact with too many millirem of radiation.

It may well be, however, that global warming can't be solved without making this bargain with future generations. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

The meltdown in the financial markets, prompted by the bankruptcy of Wall Street powerhouse Lehman Brothers and the weakness of insurance giant AIG, could have a far-reaching effect, not only for the U.S. economy, but for the world environment.

Even before the latest meltdown, which has even more talking about a deepening recession, New York Gov. David Paterson had cast doubt on New York's fortitude on a groundbreaking global warming regulation.

Under former Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, New York developed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and got nine other Northeastern states, from Maryland to Maine, to agree to join it in capping carbon emissions from power plants, setting up a regional market for carbon credits and ultimately driving down pollution that causes global warming from a major source.

The regulation doesn't go as far as other regional proposals in other parts of the country, like in the West, which is working on an economy-wide carbon cap. And it has been criticized for being too lenient -- allotting so many pollution credits, for instance, that a two-year decline in carbon emissions could be reversed without exceeding the cap, and aiming only for a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants below 2009 levels by 2020.

But its importance as a pioneer in the field of government regulation of carbon emissions can't be overstated: It was the first on the books, it will control emissions in a part of the country that produces a huge percentage of the nation's pollution, and it is to be the first to market, when it begins next week.

Did I say when it starts next week? If may be the operative term. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

"I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."
Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, to Newsmax, August 2008.

"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change."
Sarah Palin, vice presidential candidate, to ABC's Charlie Gibson, September 2008.

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

One measure of John McCain's decision to pick Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate can be seen on the governor's biography page on the Alaska state Web site. Or, not seen. There was so much interest -- suddenly -- in the outside-the-Beltway choice, that the servers have, by all appearances, crashed.

The political calculus that led McCain to Palin appears to be that outsider status, in an election year when changing Washington is key; her executive experience, with two major party tickets otherwise chockablock with Senators; and her sex, in an election that has some Hillary Clinton Democrats leaning Republican; and even her age (she was the youngest governor ever elected in Alaska) at a time when Obama's youth and McCain's age have been campaign issues.

From a green perspective, McCain's choice further distances him from the maverick policies that had made him a favorite Republican among environmentalists that typically support Democrats. McCain's early championship of a global warming cap-and-trade bill in the Senate, in 2003, is the hallmark of his environmental credibility. It helped push the GOP's platform to acknowledge the reality of global warming, and to shy away from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, despite the centrality of offshore drilling to McCain's energy agenda.

Palin, on environmental issues, embodies a distinctly Alaskan perspective. It's a state that has, after all, run on oil royalties and pork-barrel spending from its favorite son, Sen. Ted Stevens, who's been indicted (and nominated for reelection) for allegedly taking bribe-like gifts from an oil services company. When many states are suffering from record deficits, Alaska, like an oil company, is flush: "Our state government coffers are bursting at the seams because 85% to 90% of our budget comes from oil and gas developments," Palin told Investor's Business Daily in July. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

It's hard not to be a little freaked out by Russia's incursion into Georgia and the new and slippery icy patch it set between the U.S. and our old Cold War adversary.

While I didn't live through under-the-desk air-raid drills, the elementary school in my hometown did proclaim itself a nuclear fallout shelter, and the thought that continent-spanning nations, and not just rogue zealots, are getting back into the game of international belligerence is off-putting, to say the least. (The irony of President Bush's missive against foreign policy "bullying and intimidation" is not lost on me, particularly since our fully-committed military no doubt played a huge strategic role in Russia's decision to use such overwhelming force in Georgia -- but the prospect of some other Superpower, one whose leaders are anointed rather than elected, engaging in bullying and intimidating its way to global hegemony seems even worse.)

But a new war, cold or hot, isn't the only concern we need to have, when it comes to Russia. Consider the climate.

Already, the prospect of a strong new worldwide agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions has dimmed by the failure of economic talks, the faltering economy and Bush's longstanding opposition to a United Nations-led effort.

Russia has never had a strong incentive to participate...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau show a fact I find startling: More babies were born in 2007 than even during the height of the baby boom.

The figures, printed in USA Today, are preliminary, but show a 4.32 million-baby tally for 2007, more than the 4.30 million babies born in 1957.

Experts quoted in the story say it still only amounts to a "boomlet" because the trend in increased births is only growing at a single-digit pace. And the 2.1-child per woman average means that the U.S. isn't doing much more than replacing its population.

Still, 4.32 million new children in the country is a reminder that we have to provide for a new and growing generation. Daily, we're reminded about dwindling supplies of oil and even water, the consequences of a deteriorating climate, as extreme weather takes its toll, and record-high food prices.

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

Sometimes the dots just don't get connected.

It used to be they might not get connected on the same page of the same newspaper, but now we're more apt to get our news delivered one headline at a lightning flash time. The disconnection can be overwhelming.

The headline today is President Bush Lifts Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling (in the Washington Post's formulation. The reasons cited: High gas prices, and politics. The rationale: Drill more oil domestically, and eventually you get cheaper gas at the pump, and highlight the issue now and you favor Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama in November's presidential election.

The story's a wee bit bigger than that, though.

Start by connecting it to another, smaller story making some news today, Polar base evacuated as ice melts early, in the CNN formulation. Russian researchers abandoned their outpost on an Arctic ice floe more than a month ahead of schedule because the ice is melting so rapidly. Some have predicted the North Pole will go ice-free for the first time in history this summer, a year after the most extensive melt ever witnessed.

Drilling for oil means burning oil, means releasing carbon dioxide means more global warming means more ice melting. Consider those dots connected.

President Bush, while agreeing with world leaders last week that we ought to collectively cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 (50% from what level? they didn't say), has otherwise kept his administration's hands off the switch and tied behind its back. The capstone of this achievement of stalling came last week, when the EPA announced it would continue to take public comment on the potential health impacts of global warming for a few more months, effectively ensuring that the next president would be the decider when it comes to carbon dioxide regulation.

It was 1990 (2 years after Congress was first warned about global warming, incidentally) that President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush imposed the executive branch ban on offshore drilling. Congress has its own ban, and seems content to keep it.

The decision whether or not to drill for oil off the coast of the United States is a question of long-term strategy, sort of ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

In a political tactic that seems more appropriate in an elementary school than in the hallowed halls of government, Bush Administration officials allegedly ignored an important email about global warming because they didn't like the looks of the subject line, the New York Times reports today.

Picture a kid with his hands over his ears yelling "Nah Nah Nah Nah! I can't hear you!"

The e-mail in question was the Environmental Protection Agency's response to a Supreme Court decision that deemed carbon dioxide a pollutant because of its role causing global warming. As such, it can be regulated by the EPA today under the authority it has under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA concluded that the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision compelled the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the likes of power plants, factories and automobiles. But when it tried to tell the White House, it was ignored, according to EPA officials who spoke to the Times ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

When dollar figures reach into the millions, eyes tend to widen. Wow! That's a lot of money.

When they reach into the trillions, eyes tend to glaze over. Wow! That's just too big a number to comprehend.

The International Energy Agency said Thursday the world must spend $45 trillion over the next 40 years or so on an "energy technology revolution" if it is to find alternatives to oil and slow or stop global warming.

That's something like $3 billion a day, which brings the enormity of the task into focus. Somewhat. For context, Congress has proposed a U.S. budget that amounts to spending more than $8 billion per day in 2009 ($3 trillion for the whole year).

This spending isn't like a rent check. It doesn't just disappear. It's more like an investment in a new business. This is money put into new industries, new research, new technologies. You can't transform the way we generate energy without paying scientists to study, factory workers to assemble, engineers to operate and construction crews to install. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

On the heels of Sen. John McCain's big speech about global warming, the Republican presidential nominee has launched his own organic clothing line.

Or, sort of.

Team McCain (also known as "the campaign" or the folks that schedule, advise, defend and, don't forget, raise money for the candidate) is selling T-shirts ($25) and polo shirts ($50) made from "biodegradable fabric." Also on the shelf: baseball caps or visors ($15) and canvas bags ($20) made from organic cotton. The money goes toward the effort to install McCain in the Oval Office, but the effort means much more than that, both in the world of spin, and to the political dialog. ...

In the parlance of a campaign, that means McCain is promoting his "long-term commitment to providing market-based solutions to climate change and highlighting ways we can all protect our environment."

Each of the new items – reusable mug ($15) and notebook ($8) included – feature a recycling logo.

Democrats, who have been painting McCain as someone who will "recycle" President Bush's unpopular war and economic policies, will no doubt tee up that softball and swing hard. But McCain's new green theme is designed to do exactly the opposite: Distinguish himself from Bush on a key issue that until now has received scant attention on the campaign trail: global warming. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

Electric power generation was the driving force behind a 2.9% increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2007, the largest single-year increase since 1998, according to Environmental Protection Agency data analyzed by the Environmental Integrity Project.

Sprawl and the over-sized homes that grew to dominate the landscape in so many suburban and exurban communities is a major reason that electricity demand has increased, and why carbon pollution from power plants is up 11.7% since 1997. Simply, a five-bedroom home will cost more to heat and electrify than a three-bedroom home; a three-bedroom stand-alone home in the country will cost more than a three-bedroom apartment in a city.

Yes, the mortgage crisis, which was created by too many people buying more home than they could afford, is also a carbon crisis.

The states that saw the biggest increases in greenhouse gas emissions are Texas, Georgia, Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina.

The environmental group cites this evidence as reason that new coal-fired power plants should not be built. Looking at why those plants are on the drawing board – rising population and the exurban exodus – is a more fundamental issue.

The group's other recommendations:

• The nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants need to be retired, and replaced with cleaner sources of energy. That will require accelerating the development of wind power and other renewable sources of energy.

• Cutting greenhouse gases quickly by reducing the demand for electricity. Smarter building codes, and funding low-cost conservation efforts – such as weatherization of low-income homes, purchase and installation of more efficient home and business appliances – will reduce demand and yield greenhouse gas benefits.

I would add: Setting rules to rein in sprawl and cluster new building in and around existing cities and villages – especially now that the mortgage crisis has given communities some breathing room to plan for the next real estate boom.

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?