It’s hard to find too many people who approve of the job that U.S. President Obama is doing. The right wing thinks he’s essentially a socialist who’s done a terrible job with the economy, that he’s pushing for bigger, more repressive government and a redistribution of wealth. The left is disappointed that he’s backed away from many of his more progressive campaign promises, and believe that he’s just as much a product of Big Money as are the Republicans.

However, from my perspective as an observer of the energy scene, he’s a whale of a lot better than the guy who preceded him. Here’s some gratifying action aimed at dirty coal plants, of which everyone with lungs should approve.

Related posts:

By any standards, the folks at the Sierra Club have been terrifically effective at leaning on government with respect to environmental policy. On November 10, the Obama administration announced that it would order a new environmental review for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline — just days after thousands of Sierra Club members and other activists encircled the White House to protest the project.

I thought it would be appropriate to thank President Obama for this wise decision, which I did using this link here.  You may wish to do the same.

Related posts:

I’m incredibly moved by acts – or even words – of brilliance. And that’s why, as saddened as I am that Obama has disappointed so many of the progressives who brought him to power, I believe that all Americans should applaud the job he did in his talk the other night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Though I’m told I normally do an adequate job, I’m by no means an excellent public speaker. I appreciate the kind words, but I’m always working hard to improve my skills in this arena that I find so incredibly difficult.  And, as it turns out, I’m not alone.  Did you know more people are afraid of speaking in public than dying?  As the saying goes, we’d rather be in the casket than eulogizing the deceased.

I hope you’ll check this out, and see not only Obama’s consummate command of political rhetoric, but the comic timing of a Jay Leno or a Bob Hope. As I listened to it, impressed as always, I counted my blessings that I’m not directly related to Donald Trump.

Related posts:

This budget increase comes at a rather sensitive time for the White House. Recently, the U.S launched a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute against China. The dispute is regarding the country’s support for wind power production and research. Additionally, Japan recently initiated a WTO dispute against Canada for their support of renewable energy subsidies.

Even though the U.S. disapproves of China’s support of wind manufacturing, Obama still seems to be placing a high priority on green energy as a whole. He undoubtedly recognizes that certain measures need to be taken if the U.S wants to compete with other countries that have already gone to great lengths to develop renewable energy technologies and resources.

Obama has proposed an amount of $29 billion for the Department of Energy in 2012. This number is up more than 4 percent from the 2011 budget and more than 10 percent from the 2010 budget, a substantial sum. And $8 billion, more than 30% of the Department’s total proposed 2012 budget, is earmarked to support renewable energy initiatives. These initiatives include research to support wind and solar power and new nuclear energy technologies.

But these budget increases will not come with out a cost to other areas of the budget. Pres. Obama is asking Congress to revoke almost $4 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies. If approved, this number would jump to over $46 billion over the course of ten years.

But not everyone is in support of this proposed budget increase. Many Republican leaders are against cutting subsidies for fossil fuels. They argue that this cut would weaken certain industries that provide jobs for many Americans at a time when the U.S economy is still vulnerable and unemployment rates are still high.

If Congress does approve Obama’s budget increase, there is no way of knowing exactly how it might affect energy suppliers and the resources that they provide to customers all over the United States. All energy consumers can do right now is speculate how this budget increase might affect energy prices and availability in the coming years.

Related posts:

A couple of weeks ago, David Shukman the Environment Correspondent at the BBC went to marvel at the 1,400 wind turbines that spread in line after line across Nolan County, Texas. Each turbine doubles the revenue from the cotton field it is planted in.

Shukman dropped in on the mayor of a town in the midst of this manmade forest – Greg Wortham of Sweetwater – to talk about the money the turbines bring to the community and their beneficial effect on climate change.

But Mr Wortham had a warning for his British guest:

“Whatever you do, don’t mention the climate. It’s too polarising. Carbon footprint, green, climate change – those issues are so charged in the US… there are just certain labels that cause people to form into groups.”

The reason the United States needs renewable energy has become such an emotional touchpoint that those who are benefitting most from renewable energy cannot bear to discuss the issue.

As US negotiators take their seats at the Cancun Climate conference, they know – and the world knows – the US government may not be able to generate enough national and Congressional support for any deal it hammers out.

The emotional reaction among a considerable proportion of the American population against the whole climate change agenda can take foreigners like me by surprise (I’m Irish, living in the UK). Perhaps it sometimes takes Americans by surprise. Not that long ago, many American commentators were writing that a Cap and Trade scheme for the US was inevitable. After all, Obama, Clinton and McCain all supported the concept. But as everyone knows, the common sense view is that US cap and trade is now a dead duck.

‘Cap and tax’ opponents such as Sarah Palin were very articulate and their campaign has clearly been persuasive.

“In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan,” Ms Palin wrote in the Washington Post in 2009. “The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet.”

Palin hits deep-set buttons in the psyche of many Americans: the value they place on individualism and independence, the fear of faceless and centralizing government, suspicion of the foreigner, and a feeling that enjoyment of the abundance of the North American continent is a natural right.

“We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil,” Palin said reassuringly. “Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.”

In fact, the United States imports more foreign oil every day than is consumed by the 1.3 billion people in China. And burning that imported oil (plus the oil produced within the US itself) doesn’t make it disappear. Each year, the US takes 7,000 million tons of CO2 from ground sources and releases it into the atmosphere. Worldwide, mankind releases about 30,000 million tons of CO2 annually.

A UN scientific report released in late November shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue their heady climb (now at 386.8 parts per million), while methane levels, after stalling for a number of years, are also on the rise. The report’s authors speculate that methane trapped in Arctic tundra may be being released as the ground there thaws– providing an extra catalyst for further global warming.

The irony in American suspicion of cap and trade systems is that the whole thing was invented and proven by Americans. Sulphur dioxide from power stations and other major emitters was creating acid rain. US regulators established a single figure limit on SO2 emissions from all major emitters, issued emission permits up to that limit, and allowed the emitters themselves to find the cheapest ways to bring total levels down. The emissions market system reduced surphur dioxide levels much more quickly and much more cheaply than anyone had expected.

US cap and trade experiment ends

There is evidence that the demise of cap and trade legislation in the US cost jobs – a handful of jobs at least. The Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) is to close at the end of this year. Established at the turn of the millennium by the buccaneering economist Richard Sandor, CCX was unique. Member companies volunteered to cap and cut their CO2 emissions and they made their promises legally binding. Permits were issued for the combined total of CCX members ‘allowable’ emissions. If an exchange member had difficulty sticking to its emission limits, it could purchase emission permits from another member of the exchange who was finding it easier to bring emissions down.

Sandor managed to attract some major players onto his exchange, including American Electric Power, Du Pont, IBM and the Ford motor company. Together CCX companies accounted for over 10% of US CO2 emissions. For those companies that got involved there was an opportunity to rehearse a cap and trade approach many believed was on the way. It helped them establish systems to monitor, measure and verify their CO2 output, and it was good green PR. Sandor liked to talk of CCX as the engine of an environmental revolution. The engine packed up.

The closure of the exchange was met with glee by climate skeptics. But it was not deeply lamented by many renewable energy enthusiasts. The enthusiasts’ complained that the emission reduction goals of CCX were so unambitious and the measures of emission reduction were so relaxed that there was little pressure on CCX members to push up the price of emission permits. If emission permits were cheap, they provided little incentive to invest in renewable energy innovations.

It would be wrong to say that CCX was the sole promoter of cap and trade solutions in the US. A series of regional cap and trade systems, where the rules have been calculated in a more inclusive way than the CCX rules, continue to trundle forward. But there is no doubt that the closure of CCX, the Congressional barriers to a federal cap and trade agreement, and the emotionally-charged public relations campaigns against the concept of cap and trade have together seriously damaged the credibility of the system.

The fact the legally binding cap and trade system in Europe (ETS – the European Emission Trading System) has a pretty patchy history does not help. The ETS permitting system was established in 2005 and is in its second permitting phase at the moment. A recent report by the campaign group Sandbag found that ETS has provided virtually no incentive to cut emissions to date. In the first permitting round, far too many emissions permits were handed out free of charge by governments, so companies did not need to invest in energy efficiency or renewable energy to meet their limits. After permits for the second round were handed out, energy demand and emissions levels tumbled due to the economic downturn. Once again, the system provided no incentive to invest in alternative energy or energy efficiency measures.

We need global cap and trade

As the world’s nations head for Cancun, there is general recognition that cap and trade is the best and cheapest tool in the battle against CO2 rises. Cap and trade – if the caps are meaningful and the trading effective – will deliver large-scale funding for energy efficiency  and renewable energy, but it will deliver the benefits at a cheaper price than any other regulatory system.

Even the Chinese are making noises about developing their own cap and trade system. How serious they are about allowing emissions targets to interfere with economic growth is difficult to tell. After all, China still has millions of people on incomes near to $1 per day. Many of the developing nations, including African nations that stand to suffer severely from climate warming, have made it clear that they put poverty alleviation ahead of any limits on their emissions – particularly when their emissions per individual are still a fraction of the emissions in the Western world.

The developed world is giving mixed messages on its commitment to emissions reduction. While the Europeans have declared their intention to shape up their mis-firing ETS, there are others who are not prepared to take a piecemeal or regional approach to bringing down emissions. The Japanese are going into Cancun with a tough line. Hideki Minamikawa, vice minister for global environmental affairs at the Environment Ministry, says Tokyo won’t sign up to any legally binding emissions targets unless all major emitters – including China and the US – are willing to sign up as well.

If Cancun or the negotiations that follow it are to succeed, the United States is needed. But can President Obama’s team put forward a convincing roadmap to emissions reduction for his country?  A roadmap other country’s delegates believe will be delivered?

Perhaps its time that President Obama and his cabinet made a trip down to Sweetwater, Nolan County, and took some advice from Mayor Wortham. If we are to get global emissions reductions we need cap and trade. For that we need to escape the emotional touchpoints and focus on what matters.

We won’t get cap and trade until fearful ordinary Americans understand that this isn’t just about the climate, its not about tax or big government. Cap and trade is about funding the energy efficiency and renewable energy  projects that will deliver the US the independence, security, economic growth and jobs that its citizens crave.

Related posts:

Cooling down after my workout just now, I ask myself what I learned from 20 minutes or so in front of the Chris Matthews Show. Essentially, it’s that Obama has not done a good job in explaining himself and the actions he’s taken. While he was waiting for the stimulus package to take effect, he spent the majority of his political capital pushing through healthcare reform – a bill of dubious priority. The majority of Americans are angry with government, and the last think they want to see is more of it – in healthcare – or anyplace else. With the mid-term elections now only two months away, the Democrats are floundering to regain the trust of the electorate.

What does this mean in terms of renewable energy in the US? To me, it means this: don’t hold your breath. There are so many obvious actions related to energy policy that you or I would do if we were in charge, not one of which is anywhere close to happening.  Anyone of conscience acting independent of corruptive influence would start, I think, with these three:

1) Create a level playing field, removing the imbalance of subsidies that favors fossil fuels by a factor of 12:1, and accounting for externalities

2) Develop some version of federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS), probably looking at the country by region, and targeting specific adoption of solar, wind, geothermal, hydrokinetics, etc. accordingly

3) Be fair and honest in the allocation of stimulus money and other grants to businesses that actually can make a difference, vs. corporate behemoths that make huge campaign contributions

But let’s be realistic. The world of “what is right” and the world of political reality are galaxies apart. What can I infer from the fact that 20 minutes of analysis came and went in front of me – without a mention of the word “energy” even once? I think it’s pretty clear. If you’re looking for reform here, we have a lot of work in front of us if we’re going to elevate this issue to the position of prominence it needs to be.

Related posts:

We seem to have little interest in reaching out to other countries (Norway, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, etc.) that have extensive experience in dealing with crises like this.

We are wrapped tight in red tape from the Army Corps of Engineers and OSHA, hobbling our efforts to stop the disaster.

President Obama: I know you’re trying your best to demonstrate leadership in this terrible moment in human history; we all recognize and appreciate that. But I urge you to understand that this is not business as usual, and take bold steps based on the points above. Bypass the deeply entrenched jingoistic and bureaucratic jungle in the federal government, and get the job done.

Related posts:

In short, what everyone thought was dead, at least for this year, now seems very much alive. With healthcare out of the way, climate change legislation (which they’ll probably call energy legislation) should become the new buzz in Washington. On Wall Street, everyone’s going to wonder how this will affect different companies and industries, which is where we come in.

Separately, take a look at this recent Reuters story, specifically in the 3rd paragraph the mention of growing “institutional interest” in alternative energy. This too is good news.

Related posts:

I like to support Obama for his efforts along a number of lines, especially a progressive energy policy. But to me, all the pandering to the masses in that address served more to confuse people than to enlighten and motivate them.

Related posts:

Obama’s commitment to a 17 percent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020 is virtually meaningless – even if it actually occurs. It’s a small fraction of what climate scientists have called for in their peer-reviewed studies on global warming. This carefully contrived, last-minute decision to send Obama was made with the proviso that it needed to appear to be a success. The commitment to this meager cut in emissions may be construed as a victory for the White House, but it most certainly is not for the rest of the people who live on this planet.

Having said that, as I’ve written many times before, Obama’s hands are tied. Here’s a man who won a landslide election a year ago, who has no more power than I do to move forward a progressive agenda and make real change. The lobbyists who work for the big energy corporations have an utter stranglehold over him and the entire the legislative process.

If you think I’m exaggerating, look at the healthcare logjam. The vast majority of Americans – and 57% of the physicians who treat them – favor single-payor – and we can’t even get that on the table. Here, the lobbies for the big money in healthcare are so powerful that our representatives are forbidden to even discuss an idea that represents a potential threat.

I honestly wish I could find I way to be optimistic and less cynical about the way in which we govern ourselves — but I can’t.

Related posts: