Onshore drilling is not the answer to off-shore drilling spills

Some people have taken the Gulf oil spill as a call for more onshore drilling. Doesn't make any sense to me... so I wrote about that in a blog post for The Wilderness Society. I am working for them this summer, and since I write posts for their blog, I realized I could post those here (at least the ones with my name in the byline), as well.

Here is the post I wrote on June 15 about the dangers of onshore drilling (before the whole judge ruling against the deepwater drilling moratorium debacle).

The first few paragraphs (click if you want to read more):

Following the Gulf spill, proponents of the fossil fuel status quo have called for more onshore drilling as a safer alternative to offshore drilling. Don’t let them fool you. Drilling can have devastating environmental impacts for both our waters and our lands.

Take, for example, today’s Chevron oil leak of 500 barrels (or about 17,000 gallons) into a Salt Lake City creek. At least 100 birds were covered in oil, and water quality has certainly been affected.

Oil is not the only fossil fuel that poses risks—so does the supposedly safe fuel, natural gas.

For example, just as there were few (or at least unenforced) regulations of Deepwater Horizon’s drilling process, there are few regulations on hydro-fracking, a natural gas drilling process that is unregulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, despite regular and serious reports of it polluting drinking water in local communities.

Rate Decoupling

Here is a blog post from Carter Lavin, who presented this at the EcoAction meeting last night:

Currently utility profits and their energy sales are “coupled” so utilities make more money by selling more electricity. This incentivizes them to make and sell as much electricity as possible in the cheapest way possible. Because environmental costs are for the most part externalized by these utilities, they do not pay for the ecological damage they cause, they tend to use the cheapest and most energy dense fuel which in the United States is coal. This system is part of the reason for the general inefficiency of electricity use in the United States as the burden of action and financing falls upon individuals while the utilities have the reverse incentive.

Rate Decoupling is a policy which state and regional utility commissions can enact that provides utilities a guaranteed level of revenue in return for a certain quality of service to a specific region. This means that if a utility wants to generate a higher profit they need to reduce energy demand so they may reduce energy supplied and save on fuel and operating costs.



Right now utilities occasionally launch energy efficiency initiatives but they are on small scales and infrequent. In a rate decoupled system these types of programs would be bigger, better and more frequent.

To give you an idea of how much energy we could save through rate decoupling:

California implemented rate decoupling in the early 90s and utilities started energy efficiency programs that, along with state building and appliance energy efficiency programs saved 40 Billion kWh of electricity every year- roughly 2.8% of total American residential electricity usage in 2007 and roughly 20% of the amount of energy generated by California in 2007. If we did rate decoupling in every state and were about half as successful as they were, we would cut national energy use by 10%, and every individual and each utility would make money doing it.

It would also create many green collared jobs to help with all the retrofitting and energy audits that utilities would provide for free or at steeply discounted rates for their customers.

Currently Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington State are currently reviewing rate decoupling and similar new rate structures.

This is a policy problem that can be solved by advocating change to those who are in charge of policy. Once that change is made then it will be the utilities who are going to push us to adapt more energy efficient buildings and appliances. The people who are in charge of making this decision are the people who regulate the utilities. These are boards that are sometimes regional and sometimes within a specific state and they are typically called Public Utilities Commissions or Public Service Boards or Public Service Commissions and you can find a list of them on PublicUtilityhome.com. Contact them and say that you support rate decoupling in order to increase grid stability, improve energy efficiency, protect the environment, and create green collared jobs.

If you want to read a imaginative description of what would life in a rate decoupled world be like, I suggest reading the chapter in Thomas Friedman's book Hot, Flat and Crowded called “If it isn't boring, it isn't green.”

Image from Stateinnovation.org

Canvassing with the DC Project

Yesterday, Emily, Keely and I went over to Dupont Circle to meet up with The DC Project, a new non-profit organization. The DC Project aims to address social justice and climate change on a two-fold level.

They aim to create demand for green jobs by asking people to weatherize their homes. They also try to connect people with green job training so the demand is answered.

As of late, there's been a lot of emphasis on the new "green economy." Unfortunately, it's been a lot of marketing and less substance - it's been proven difficult to connect people who need jobs the most with the training that they need to work in green-collar jobs. This is what the DC Project tries to fix.

So the three of us went around DC going door-to-door to tell people about weatherization.

Weatherization is the process of making your home more energy efficient. The idea is that homeowners should insulate their homes so less heat escapes from the home - saving money and also requiring less heating and therefore reducing your carbon footprint.

Some examples of weatherization are: sealing gaps/holes, installing storm windows, sealing air ducts, and installing insulation.

We had a great time walking around and telling people about the DC Project and about weatherization. Overall people were really receptive- and we look forward to working with this group in the future.

Image from: http://www.capriverside.org/

Sustainability Website: It Exists!

Earlier this week, I posted a link talking about the Sustainability Action Committee, but now we have something even BETTER. That's right, my friends, we have Georgetown's very own SUSTAINABILITY website.

The site (which you should explore for yourself) highlights many factets of sustainabilty at Georgetown.

In the section about "What we're doing," you can learn about both recycling and emission from Georgetown. One of my personal favorite facts is that only about 15% of all waste from GU ends up at landfill because Waste Management has a relationship with an "Energy from Waste" facility, which produces a clean form of energy.

The website talks about the "Switch it Off" energy competition which has recently gone into effect in the residence halls and apartment complexes on campus. (You should have a sign on your door). It also gives links to faculty members doing research in environmental work.

Most importantly, for all of you out there, it highlights ways to get engaged (including a link to our very own website)!

So, go on the site, explore, learn, see fun photos. As they say, knowledge is power, and the first step toward reforming the way power (energy) works is to have the knowledge how!

Welcome Class of 2013!

Welcome Georgetown University Class of 2013!!!

While you ease your way into the life of a college student (and as a Hoya!), we thought we'd give you some quick and easy tips to sustainable habits/eco-friendly lifestyles on campus.

Bleed Blue, Wear Gray, Think (and Live) Green.

1. Be cool with water usage!
Try to limit your shower to ten minutes--every minute less can save 7 gallons of water, and cooler showers mean that less energy is required to heat the water. Maybe try a navy shower, which can be as quick as two minutes. Also, when you are doing your wash, make sure to keep the water cold--you get the same results!

2. Don't be full of hot air!
Turn off the thermostat when your windows are open! All that cold air gets sucked out the window, and the energy gets wasted.

3. Give your room a nap!
Just as you get tired from the energy you expend during the day, so, too, does your room.

When you aren't in the room, don't forget to turn off the lights. And don't forget to turn off the A/C when you aren't there as well.

Also, turn off your screensaver--these screensavers, especially animated ones, can require more energy than standard power for the laptop. Better yet, turn your computer off at night! Good night room! And while you're saving energy.....

4. Human energy--the greenest and cleanest of all!
Using your own two legs is emission-free and also gives you great exercise. When you are going up to your dorm room, opt for the stairs instead of the elevator.

When you venture off campus, opt for biking or walking. DC's street system is easy to learn, for most of the city is a grid of numbers and letters.

For walking, all you need is a good pair of shoes. Go take a hike in Glover Archibold Park just past the Hospital, or for a long walk, follow the Potomac over to the Monuments!

As for biking, you are lucky to be in a very bike-friendly city. If you want to get to the Rosslyn metro stop in Arlington (1.0 mi) or to the Dupont Circle metro stop (1.5 mi), you can get there a lot faster by bike than by bus. If you are feeling competitive, try to see if you can beat the bus there!

And while we're on the topic of conversation....

5. There's a reason man wasn't meant to fly!
Most Hoyas travel to wherever they call home at least 5 times a year. There are several options to consider when making these plans: should you fly, drive, or hop on a train? As a student on a non-commuting campus, air travel will be the largest single contributor to your carbon footprint that you can directly affect.

If you live nearby (cough *New Jersey* cough cough--or even the rest of the tristate New York metro area---that means you, too, Connecticut), default to taking a bus or train home. Many students enjoy the Bolt Bus, which has free wireless internet (www.boltbus.com) and offers $1 trips--if you're lucky.

For those who must fly home, consider using Terra Pass (www.terrapass.com) to offset your flight. Surprisingly, the carbon footprint of a single cross-country round trip can be offset by as little as $10. And when booking your flight, use DC National, which is accessible by Metro. Dulles can only be reached by an hour plus bus ride or a $40 cab.

Now that you saved some jet fuel, get ready to discuss your personal fuel......

But that's in the next installment...So stay tuned!

Vote for "Sam and the Wasted Semester"

In Vox Populi's Georgetown Youtube Madness, "Sam and the Wasted Semester" was up in the Activism category. Check out the video on the link above, and go vote!

Thanks for the heads up, Carter!

Eco-friendly Dorm Tips Countdown to the Hilltop #3

This post is going to be a 2 for 1 since I get to bring in some great survey data I found today.

According to a UK poll commissioned by IBM released yesterday, Generation Y (aka "us") is the least savvy age group when it comes to energy and water consumption. We tend to care more, but we know less.

To help you save energy, I am introducing

Tip #3: Buy a power strip...and use it.

The survey noted above interviewed 2014 adults 18 and over and asked them a variety of questions about energy and water usage. These included questions like "Which uses more energy: a kettle or a tumble dryer?" as well as questions inquring about people's own practices.

The 18 to 25 demographic, which didn't fare too well in the knowledge part, represents the college age and just out of college age group; in other words, those of us who are just living on our own for the first time. If we are living in a residence hall, we probably pay very little attention to our consumption since we don't see any bills, and even if we live in a townhouse, only one person in the group tends to coordinate the bills.

Having a power strip is a good way to making cutting down energy consumption a bit easier. If you want to turn things off but don't want to have to do so one by one (especially when they are hard to reach), you can just flick one switch to shut them all off (and then flip that same switch to keep them on).

Make sure to flip that power switch when you leave the room and go to bed so that your room doesnt' consume energy while you're out (or in dreamland)!

The power strip in the photo (taken from Flickr) is a "smart" power strip.

The Re-Launch of Clean Skies News PLUS a Poem to Sen. Boxer

This morning, July 15th, marked the re-launch of the Clean Skies Network, an energy and environmental online news network. Promoters for the Clean Skies launch (including GU alumna Meg Martin) contacted us at “Renewable Energy Turns Me On” to participate in the exciting event.

The re-launch functioned as an open house for the news network. I was able to sit in on a few live tapings of interviews as well as sit in and watch in the control room. Moreover, the Clean Skies Network office has an aesthetically appealing modern design. Kimberly Collel, part of the American Clean Skies Foundation, said that they were going for a “gallery” design with an airy touch—the brilliant white walls and light, open feeling to the hallways certainly adds that touch. The gallery feel is finished off with glowing energy facts on the walls, reminiscent of exhibits you might see at the Smithsonian. Everything looks bright, new, and clean—how we would love our skies to look, right?

The first event was a live set of interviews with Miles Grant from Grist.org and the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).
Miles Grant was up first and spoke about what he hopes to see for the US climate legislation, especially as Copenhagen looms in the near future. Grant would love to see Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman (and one of EcoAction’s favorite environmental advocates), get a bill through the Senate by the end of the year. However, the bill that we currently have needs work. Grant would like to see more permits auctioned off instead of handed out, for the current arrangement eliminates the revenue potential that originally existed from cap-and-trade. He also wanted a bill that would not only unite the country (in terms of working past regional biases) but also set a standard that is a model for other countries. (Right on, Grant!) One of Grant’s main focuses was the power of American innovation. If you told him thirty years ago that he could have a computer in his pocket in the form of a cell phone with more power than a room-sized computer, he wouldn’t have believed it, and thirty years from now, we will probably have a vast array of new technology in this sector. All we need to do is innovate! Go to work, America!

In the interlude between Grant and Bartlett, Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech (for which today marks the 30th anniversary) was discussed. In this speech, Carter addressed the many crises facing the country at that moment, including the dependence on foreign oil. Sadly, too many of his words ring true. Moreover, thinking of Carter and energy reminded me of the sad fact that Ronald Reagan eliminated the solar panels that Carter installed in the White House. (It becomes even more ironic, thus, that the EPA is in the Ronald Reagan Building, is it not?)

Rep. Bartlett voted against ACES and was very strong against it, using the typical Republican argument against regulation. He does not think that legislation is needed and believes that patriotism and education are the solution. The thrust of Bartlett’s argument was that the US was able to undertake massive efforts in conservation during World War II—Americans saved fuel and resources to provide for the war effort, and we also saw victory gardens spring up across the country. He thinks that such an emphasis on conservation, one rooted in individual action and patriotism, is the solution.

Rep. Bartlett stressed the need for education as a solution, but as we know, the facts are there. As Bill Clinton said at the Campus Progress Conference last year, we can’t bank our future on 5%, the small contingent of climate change deniers among the scientific community. If the facts are there and the moral imperative is there, then why have we not seen action yet? I really can’t see Rush Limbaugh having a garden in his backyard unless he somehow begins to believe in a crazy “liberal” conspiracy on our food system. The other problem in relying solely on individual action is the role of corporations. You can get people to carpool, to install CFLs, to turn off their lights, etc., but that is only one small step. Just think of the vast supply chains that exist in the manufacture and distribution of goods and the production of energy—let alone the energy used by office buildings.

Bartlett kept stressing that the public is educable, but are bad habits that easy to break? Can a patriotic impulse be believed by climate naysayers, or will they just reject it under the influence of the lobbies of our dead energy sources?

However, my favorite part of the Bartlett interview was when he complimented France and Europe as a whole. It is rare that you hear Europe complimented from the American right, but he spoke about the lack of SUVs and individual use pick-up trucks on the streets in France. There is no need for such cars; Europe has far outpaced us in fuel efficiency. Although I disagreed with some of Bartlett’s points, I was comforted to hear a Republican who does believe that action is needed (He’s not another Sarah Palin-type) and has made steps himself (Prius, solar panels, etc.) He puts his belief in individual citizen/consumer action to practice, and for that I respect him.

Next up was Tyson Slocum, the Energy Policy Director of Public Citizen. Slocum spoke about the problems that he saw in Waxman-Markey, notably the way that the bill gives in too much to utility companies. Slocum does not expect to see legislation enacted by Copenhagen, but he actually thinks that not having something rigidly in place could leave us more flexible in negotiations.

After Slocum came Denise Bode of AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). She spoke about the job potential from the wind industry. Wind energy would help to create jobs and do so especially in some of the areas that have been suffering high unemployment.

I also caught the interview of Joseph Romm, editor of Climate Progress. He stressed the transformative impact of the climate legislation but expressed a legitimate concern that much of the American public does not understand the scope of the problem that lies ahead of us. When asked what he would grade Obama on his work on the climate change issue, Romm said that he would give Obama a “B” for his environmental messaging. He would like to see the same effort that is being put behind health care put behind climate change as well. The health of our people, our environment, and our moral authority in the global community depends on this.

If you want to check out my tweets from the event, you can check me out on Twitter at JonathanCohn. Miles Grant and Joseph Romm can also be followed on Twitter as well.

For my final note, a short poem to Senator Boxer,

When it comes to this fall
And you start to roll the ball
For our act to save the air,
The land, and the sea,
And don’t forget posteri-ty,
Get ready for the political game
And be true to your name.

Win the Senate boxing match, Boxer!

Campus Progress 2009: Your Smile's So Bright You Should Get a Solar Panel

Yesterday, I attended Campus Progress's National Conference, where 1,000 young people joined together to learn about the pressing issues facing our country and how to champion the progressive solutions to bring about a better future. I will highlight the big name speakers that were there: Van Jones, Kathleen Sebelius, John Oliver, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Clinton.

Mind you, the whole conference was free--which just makes it so much better. (A free t-shirt also came with it--as did free food.)

Go to the Campus Progress site for more info: http://www.campusprogress.org/common/3725/2009-conference-home.


Even though I ran off to a quick lunchtime Adams Morgan trip, I was (thankfully) able to make it back in time for Van Jones’s speech during the lunch plenary. Van Jones, the author of the Green Collar Economy and founder of Green for All, now works in the White House Council on the Environment as the Special Advisor for Green Jobs. If you saw him at Power Shift, you already know that he is a very inspirational speaker and connects with his audience very well. I have included some memorable points in his speech below:

“As powerful as he is as president, he is more powerful as precedent.”
What a great line! All of the reforms that come as well as all of the barriers broken just open the door for more future opportunities.

“Barack Obama inspires all of you, but who do you think inspires Barack Obama?”
This is a great thought for the politically disenfranchised. The idea that some politicians actually have people’s concerns in mind and in heart is a welcome reminder that politics is not just about money and power—it can be about working for the common good.

When talking about green jobs, Jones noted Hilda Solis—to much applause from the audience. Reacting to such loud approbation, he said that with “so many smiles, we should get some solar panels here.” That has led me to come up with my new favorite eco pick-up line: “Your smile’s so bright I should buy you a solar panel.” (or something along those lines)

After Van Jones spoke, Kathleen Sebelius, former Governor of Kansas and the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, gave her keynote. I am not going to go into full detail here in order to keep this focused, but health care and the environment are inextricably linked because that which damages our air, our land, and our water will also damage our bodies (and, through that, our minds and our souls/spirits).
The evening plenary had the top-name speakers. It was about 2 ½ hours long—full of applause, laughs, smiles, and nods of approbation. First up was John Oliver from The Daily Show. This guy is in all ways hilarious. The audience was laughing nonstop; if you would like to hear some more about this in detail, just ask me.
After Oliver appeared Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She could not be “off campus” for long, but she said that “Well, being here at “Campus” Progress should count, right?” Nancy Pelosi spoke about the three pillars of our budget: 1) education, 2) health care, and 3) energy. These pillars are vital in making the budget “a statement of our national values.”

When discussing energy, she lauded the landmark of ACES, noting its role as a national security bill, a health issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. As a national security issue, it helps to provide the US with energy independence—vital when the top oil producing countries often do not like the US. It is health issue for the reasons I noted above. As an economic issue, it helps us to stay competitive in the global market. Pelosi as well as Clinton and Jones mentioned how rapidly China has been developing renewable energy technology; clean and green technology is something that we can innovate right here in the US, and we should not give up such an opportunity. As a moral issue, combating climate change can be religious (“If you believe as I do that this planet is God’s creation, we have a moral responsibility..”) or indicative of the basic generational duty that we have.
When talking about the ultimate passage of ACES, Speaker Pelosi said that we WILL reduce emissions 80% by 2050 and then clarified to say “AT LEAST 80%” to much applause.

Education and climate change are also inextricably tied together (and not just with regard to rampant misinformation). Pelosi quoted a prior statement of hers on the four key parts to a solution to education: “Science, science, science, science.” If we are to innovate our way into a clean energy future, we need our students to have the skills and the intellect to do so—and we need such skills to be available to everyone. (For those of us in the liberal arts, we can write about the tech in newspapers, journals, magazines, etc., and we can write the books that unveil the amazing history of their discovery---my plan, of course.)
Pelosi also cited the importance of “justice for all” in energy, health care, and education—a vital part of any reform.

One of my favorite Nancy moments was her reaction to the five year-old who was sitting in the front row. (Why was a kid there? I still don’t know) When she saw the kid, she said (in a sweet, almost grandmotherly voice), “You are the future.” She then looked at the whole audience to say, “All of you are the future.”
In her closing, she spoke about the Greek word “ananke.” In some interpretations, this word means “scarcity,” but in others it means “opportunity.” At such an intersection (where scarcity meets opportunity) lies the hope, the ability, and the desire for true reform.

Last but certainly not least to appear was former President Bill Clinton. I saw him speak last year at a rally, and he always has an instantaneous connection with his crowd. What is often touted as the essence of his style is to be able to make people feel as though he is talking directly to them; part of this is his very deliberate style of his speech. He seems to put a lot of thought in all that he says.

Clinton spoke for a while about the need for a “communitarian” approach to the issues facing us and the world, in other words, the idea that “We’re all in this together.” Such an approach has been eschewed for the past few decades because of the “politics of division” (often cited as culture wars) around issues that distract us from the pressing ones. He stressed the importance of reflecting on what the implications of the issues (and solutions) on our lives—best way to see what is of genuine importance.

In the modern day, as Clinton said, good citizenship requires more than it did in the 20th century. Issues like the economy and the environment cannot be isolated and cannot be ignored; it become our duty to “advance public good as private citizens”—for each person to see his or her role as a stakeholder in the future.
When we work toward such a future, the question is not “what” or “how much.” The true question, as Clinton drove home, was “how.” How do we get there? How do we innovate to obtain the future that we need, for which we hope and aspire, that can be within our reach with just a little effort? It is this brainpower, creativity, intellect, and drive that makes the world turn. Many say that money makes the world go round, but to do so ignores the power of ideas. It is this creativity and this intellect that not only makes the world go round but also changes it.

Some Key Points to Take Away From the Conference:

• There are people who care about your opinions and do want to work (actively and profoundly) for the common good. Find out which politicians they are and be their champions. Find out who they are not, and force them to change if they want to stay. (AKA LOBBY—Someone will listen.)
• Know where your money goes. I think that endowment transparency is a major issue for Georgetown and needs more attention.
• As I feel that I have written before, human power is the greatest renewable resource. Use it (your brains, your motivation, your energy) to power our future.

Assessing the Climate Bill

If you’re at all serious about climate change, you’ve hopefully been following the recent negotiations over the so-called “Waxman/Markey” bill, because it’s pretty much the biggest game in town right now when it comes to the environmental movement. The bill, introduced by Democratic representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey and known formally as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will clear a major procedural hurdle this week if it can make it through a vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Notably, the bill would create a nationwide “cap and trade” system to oversee the long-term reduction of US carbon emissions. If you’re not quite up to speed on cap and trade, it essentially means that a national “cap” would be set on carbon emissions, decreasing over time to theoretically insure an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Emitters of carbon dioxide would then be able to “trade” emissions credits if they come in under the cap, or be forced to buy credits if they continue to emit more than the permitted amount of carbon dioxide.

Cap and trade systems are widely considered to be the most politically and economically viable way to reduce emissions on a large scale. Our country already operates a cap and trade system to contain emissions of sulfur dioxide, which has been highly successful. The world’s largest cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions has been operating in Europe since 2005; they call theirs an “emissions trading scheme,” which does sound decidedly more European.

For our proposed cap and trade bill, negotiations in the Energy and Commerce Committee have been pretty contentious. Republican Rep. George Radonovich of California called the Waxman/Markey bill “environmental socialism,” while Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican member on the committee, displayed with the following quote why the his party has little credibility left on any matter related to science:

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to wind energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? I mean, it does make some sense."

Yeah…not exactly.

Despite the predictable Republican opposition, however, with large majorities both on the committee and on the full House floor, most of the debate over this bill has actually come within the Democratic Party, with centrist representatives from coal-producing areas (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, etc.) especially concerned about the potential economic impacts of putting a price on carbon. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who leads the centrist New Democrat Coalition, was responsible for leading an effort a couple of weeks ago to put the Waxman/Markey bill on the shelf indefinitely. “In the throes of a recession,” said Davis, “more of a burden on industry is not a good idea.”

Waxman, who chairs the Energy and Commerce committee, has forged ahead in search of a compromise. And as Mike noted last week, it hasn’t necessarily been pretty. The climate bill, released in final draft form last Friday and set for a vote potentially by the end of this week, has been watered down considerably from Waxman and Markey’s original proposal, and from President Obama’s own cap and trade preferences as laid out in his 2010 budget. As Mike mentioned, the initial emissions reduction target has been lowered from 20 percent by 2020 to 17 percent by 2020. This doesn’t seem like the biggest cut, but still – it’s the little things. More significantly, though, the bill, which originally proposed that 100 percent of emissions allowances under the cap and trade plan be auctioned off by the federal government, will now provide for 85 percent of the allowances to be allocated freely to utilities, oil refiners, heating companies, and various heavy industries like cement and steel. This is potentially troubling because the decision not to auction permits not only minimizes the incentive to invest in cleaner technologies; it also results in the loss of a significant revenue stream for the federal government that makes the debt-related concerns about Obama’s budget begin to shine brighter and brighter. Some of the money from the cap and trade scheme, estimated in Barack’s original budget proposal at over $600 billion, was also intended to promote renewable energy development. Without those funds, this becomes considerably more difficult, along with the quest to make Waxman and Markey’s bill “budget-neutral.”

There are a host of other concerns that should give pause to people concerned about the bill’s potential effectiveness. Standards for renewable energy use in electricity generation have also been trimmed, while provisions also exist for carbon emitters to “lower” their emissions by investing in carbon offsets, which essentially means taking the easy way out and not actually transitioning away from dirty technologies.

In light of all these compromises, how, as environmentalists, should we view the climate bill in its current state?

While I sympathize with Mike’s criticism that “negotiations in the Energy & Commerce Committee have severely limited the potential impact of Reps Waxman and Markey's cap and trade legislation,” I think I’d have to disagree with his characterization of the committee’s negotiations as a “FAIL.” We need to recognize that the most important thing right now, above all, should be putting a system in place, and establishing the fact that from this point forward, there will be a steadily decreasing cap on America’s carbon dioxide emissions. As long as this system works okay, even passably, the tinkering can come later to optimize the environmental and economic results.

We should ask ourselves what’s better: do we hold out for a perfect system that is (albeit sadly) probably not politically feasible right now, given the concerns among powerful members in our own party, with an understanding that this approach would probably compromise the more important goal of putting a price on carbon as soon as possible? Or do we understand that the legislative process is going to result in some compromises, and realize that this bill, while imperfect, is still a tremendous and necessary step in the right direction?

Take Europe for example. In setting up the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), they basically had the same debate about seven years ago that we’re currently having. The European Commission (the EU’s executive body), in the spirit of getting a functioning system together, worked closely with industry leaders and EU Member States to arrive at an initial ETS with a few key provisions that were against the Commission’s preferences. One of the areas in which the Commission caved? The EU’s decision to allocate allowances freely.

Europe’s initial failures with its emissions trading scheme have been well documented. During the scheme’s first, or “trial” phase, from 2005-2007, emissions in Europe actually rose by nearly 2 percent. Though the free allowances have been blamed, this was not the only reason for the ETS’ beginning troubles. Another big issue with the ETS in the trial phase was that many countries allocated significantly more emissions allowances than the EU-wide cap provided for, resulting in an over-supply that destroyed much of the market demand for allowances and caused the price of carbon to crash to just €0.02 per ton by the end of the trading period in December 2007.

The Commission introduced some key reforms for 2008, taking greater control of the allocation process to insure that the Member States allocated fewer permits. The demand for, and accompanying price of carbon recovered accordingly, combining with the economic recession to produce a 2 percent drop in emissions for 2008. The EU also negotiated some important reforms for the trading period from 2013-2020, which will see a greater use of allowance auctioning and a generally harder line taken on European polluters. Undoubtedly, the jury will remain out on Europe’s emissions trading scheme as more results continue to emerge. But two things that Europe’s experience suggests, at least initially, are important to consider:

-First, the price of carbon will likely be far more important than how the emissions permits are allocated. When the price of carbon in Europe was high (in 2008, and also before it crashed during the first trading period), efforts to reduce carbon emissions took place. When it was too low, those efforts fell off. In looking at our own proposed cap and trade system, we should worry less about auctioning and more about making sure that sufficiently few permits are allocated so that there is enough market scarcity for the price of carbon to remain high.

-Secondly, the Commission’s willingness to compromise in order to put a system in place has resulted in an ETS that is now credible enough to allow for reforms that will make it work better in the long term. Without those compromises, efforts to get the EU ETS off the ground would likely have failed.

Waxman and Markey appear to be especially cognizant of the second fact. It’s also what Paul Krugman wrote about the other day in the New York Times when he warned against making “the perfect the enemy of the good.” Adds Krugman: “After all the years of denial, after all the years of inaction, we finally have a chance to do something major about climate change. Waxman-Markey is imperfect, it’s disappointing in some respects, but it’s action we can take now. And the planet won’t wait.”

Presumably following this same line of thinking, Al Gore has voiced his support for Waxman/Markey in its current state, as have many environmental groups. Amazingly, the negotiations in the Energy and Commerce committee have produced a scenario where industry leaders are working with, as opposed to against, environmental interests, to come up with a scheme that is widely acceptable. I would of course like to see a more stringent cap and trade proposal, but I also recognize that as environmentalists, at a certain point we’re going to have to be more than intransigent tree-huggers.

What we’re seeing right now, I think, is the evolution of the environmental movement into a credible political body that can actually get things done as opposed to continually trying to beat down the door. The continued Republican opposition to Waxman/Markey is unfortunately predictable, but Democratic leaders are apparently rallying around the bill, which may be enough to (finally!) pass a workable cap on carbon emissions in the United States. As environmentalists, we should undoubtedly continue to advocate for the best bill possible, especially as it traverses the dangerous, dream-destroying legislative waters of the United States Senate. If Waxman/Markey makes it into law, we should follow it closely and make sure it works and continues to work as best as possible.

What we can’t do, however, is make the perfect the enemy of the good. The planet can’t support too many more years without a US carbon cap, which means it also can’t support an approach to environmentalism that rejects anything and everything that is not entirely ideal, or perfectly “eco-friendly.” Even in its present state, if we can get Waxman/Markey signed into law, I think we’ll all be happy for it going forward.

(Image courtesy Allianz Knowledge)

EPA Green Power Challenge

The other day, when I was on facebook, I noticed a page for "The American Dream is Green." Since I thought it sounded like the name of a cool new nonprofit (I missed the blatant AU eagle--I was on a friend from AU's profile), I did some research on it and discovered the EPA College and University Green Power Challenge.

The competition ran throughout the 2008-2009 cycle and included many schools across athletic divisions, as detailed on the site. To me, it sounded like a hybrid of Recyclemania, the defunct energy saving competition, and the EPA.

Syracuse was the only school in the Big East to participate, much to my dismay. Georgetown was not represented; holding it out for DC was only AU and Catholic--both of which did fairly well. If they can do well and Syracuse can do well, I would hope that Georgetown could succeed as well--rather, I know.

Photo courtesy of http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/initiatives/cu_challenge.htm

Oiligarchy: Life imitating art?

In the awkward time between the end of finals and the beginning of internships, I've been watching a lot of movies, reading a few books, and playing a lot of video games. (As well as sitting around outside and playing with my dog...)

I stumbled upon a game called Oiligarchy. You are the CEO of an oil company: you can drill all over the world (Texas, Alaska, Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria), corrupt politicians, increase oil addiction, and stop alternative energies.

What I found interesting/sad was how eerily the game imitates real life. Throughout the game, the player can see the oil reserves depleting and the people becoming restless. Also interesting are little news articles/political acts that pop up, such as "Electric Car Pilot Program Act" or "The Trolley Preservation Act" (an act that increases the oil addiction by preserving all trolleys, as public forms of transportation, in museums), depending on how you play the game.

The game has two endings and lots of details. For example, in Venezuela when you put an oil rig down you destroy rainforest. In Nigeria, when you start exploring the land, all the fish in the pond die. Though some people have thought that this is a pro-oil game, it's actually a very clever satire and critique of the oil industry as well as American consumerism.

One reviewer calls this game "one of the most important games released this year" and says "selfish short-term greed runs this game." Life imitating art or art imitating life?

Image from: http://www.molleindustria.org/

Smart Solutions with Smart Grids

Image from: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/01/31/smart-grid-decoupling/

A new technology is on the horizon that could revolutionize the way that we consume energy - smart grids.

A smart grid is a meter which goes in someones home and measures the amount of energy the house uses. However, it also shows the prices of electricity from the utilities company. Prices are cheaper at different times of day, for example at night, so by having this information available we could decide to run our dishwasher (for example) at night and save money.

Conversely, since we pay utilities for a set amount of electricity, we could sell the unused electricity back to the utility company. Or, if your building has solar panels, for example, you could sell that excess energy to the utility company as well.

In essence, it will allow people to pay exactly for the amount of energy they use.

The New York Times recently wrote an article on this, which you can read here and it was also a major focal point of Thomas Friedman's book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

What I think would be interesting though, is if Georgetown implemented smart grids. A lot of people don't realize that the amount of utilities we use (whether it's electricity, heat, water, etc.) is directly reflected in our tuition. How would this work?

What would need to happen would be for each dorm room/apartment to have a smart grid. For residents of those rooms/buildings, their tuition would be affected by the utilities they use.

For buildings that are shared, the utilities cost would have to be spread out, much like it is now. However, I think that if we had these grids in our rooms people would be much more aware of the amount of energy they used - and it would translate to being more aware of how much energy we use elsewhere.

There are always those people who really don't care about the environment, who will blast their air conditioner with the windows open and leave the lights on all day. But I think they'd start caring about how much energy they use when they have to pay for it.

Instead of allocating the price of utilities evenly for everyone, people would pay for the amount they actually use. Essentially, what would need to happen is a line-by-line outline of our tuition... something I think that we should know, anyway.

I know that this is unlikely to happen while I'm still here, Georgetown lacking on the technology forefront (I mean... I don't even have wireless all the time. Really?) but it's definitely something to consider for the future, especially since this technology looks like it's going to take off.

Duh

In an effort to make itself an example for the rest of the nation to follow, Capitol Hill will no longer be powered by coal. You heard right, the Capitol Power Plant is currently transitioning to cleaner burning natural gas for its boilers' fuel source. Coal will be used in emergency situations - like cold winter days - until late 2010 when the plant will be able to meet any predictable demand with natural gas.

The Capitol Power Plant isn't exactly large, but the importance of this act lies in its symbolism. If Congress is to lead us to a new energy future, maybe their electricity shouldn't come from old world sources. Natural gas isn't exactly an alternative energy source (actually, it's not one at all), but at least it's a step in the right direction.

More important is exactly how this change came about.

Remember the Power Shift conference in March? Well, a big part of that event was a youth lobby day on the Hill demanding clean energy legislation. During the hoopla, a coalition of environmental groups put together a protest of the Capitol Power Plant's use of coal, which not only creates tons of emissions, but also is detrimental to the air quality in SE DC, and don't even get me started about mountain coal mining...

But anyway, that coalition effectively reached out to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in turn requested that the acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, transition the plant away from coal. And, as of today, the Ayers announced the current transition. Bravo for youth lobbying and the slow creep of common sense onto Capitol Hill!!

This is why I love carbon capping

At EcoAction's clothing swap last week, I was having an oh-too-serious conversation about carbon cap legislation, carbon capture technology (which some crazy people have tried to convince us makes coal green and clean), and why the government should support both. The conversation/argument was mostly about whether or not the government should subsidize carbon capture research. My argument was, as long as carbon emissions have a price, then renewable energy can beat dirty energy in the marketplace. Even with the government's help, coal would never beat wind under a carbon cap scenario. So why not help it out? I mean, capturing carbon emissions underground does seem pretty great if it's feasible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as an aside, check out what happened last time the Dept. of Energy tried to do this on a large scale. Finance majors - remember to discount before making an NPV comparison! http://commontragedies.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/how-the-doe-deflated-futuregen/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, while I was at work the other day I found this great report on the consequences of different scenarios on the energy market. The Congressional Research Service estimates that under a cap & trade bill in which all allowances are auctioned off (Europe gave them all away for free and for the first few years of their program, total emissions increased.....) wind power would be about 20% cheaper than any type of coal power. In fact, even if the government subsidizes carbon capture research and the coal industry is able to implement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at costs 50% below current estimates, wind would still win on price! This made me unspeakably happy.

Despite what your views on the environment and global warming are, the truth is simple: carbon emissions cost us money. A lot of it. Like, hundreds of million of refugees and crazy silly droughts and rebuilding cities in less than a century type of money. So, why do we live in a fantasy land where polluters can emit carbon for free? Well, by the end of the summer, hopefully we'll be living in reality. The ball is in your court, Congress - give us cap & trade!

A little late... but President Obama comes to Georgetown - and talks about ENERGY

You probably weren't one of the three Georgetown students who actually won the lottery to see President Obama at Gaston Hall, but he had a lot to say about, among other things, the current energy crisis. Here are some of the highlights:

"The third pillar of this new foundation is to harness the renewable energy that can create millions of new jobs and new industries. We all know that the country that harnesses this energy will lead the 21st century. Yet we have allowed other countries to outpace us on this race to the future.

Well, I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders. It is time for America to lead again.

The investments we made in the Recovery Act will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years. And we are putting Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions on our energy bills and grow our economy at the same time.

But the only way to truly spark this transformation is through a gradual, market-based cap on carbon pollution, so that clean energy is the profitable kind of energy. Some have argued that we shouldn't attempt such a transition until the economy recovers, and they are right that we have to take the costs of transition into account. But we can no longer delay putting a framework for a clean energy economy in place. If businesses and entrepreneurs know today that we are closing this carbon pollution loophole, they will start investing in clean energy now. And pretty soon, we'll see more companies constructing solar panels, and workers building wind turbines, and car companies manufacturing fuel-efficient cars. Investors will put some money into a new energy technology, and a small business will open to start selling it. That's how we can grow this economy, enhance our security, and protect our planet at the same time."

"We will continue to reaffirm this nation's commitment to a 21st century American auto industry that creates new jobs and builds the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us toward a clean energy future."

"Because of our recovery plan… clean energy companies and construction companies are re-hiring workers to build everything from energy efficient windows to new roads and highways."

"For even as too many were chasing ever-bigger bonuses and short-term profits over the last decade, we continued to neglect the long-term threats to our prosperity: the crushing burden that the rising cost of health care is placing on families and businesses; the failure of our education system to prepare our workers for a new age; the progress that other nations are making on clean energy industries and technologies while we remain addicted to foreign oil; the growing debt that we're passing on to our children. And even after we emerge from the current recession, these challenges will still represent major obstacles that stand in the way of our success in the 21st century."

"It's a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century: new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation; new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive; new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations. That is the new foundation we must build. That must be our future – and my Administration's policies are designed to achieve that future."

So... what are your thoughts?

"It Begins With Energy" – President Obama's State of the Nation

I’m sure most of you, politically-minded and aware students, were watching the State of the Nation tonight. How excited were you to hear Obama reiterating (and reiterating and reiterating) the need for clean energy? It was the first thing out of his mouth, just going to show how important this issue is.

He seemed to call for a cap-and-trade approach. In my opinion, cap-and-trade is really the way to go. An overall tax on gas, I feel, would just never work. I feel that we, as a nation, would never be able to keep ourselves on it… kind of like a diet, you know? But I think that for the U.S. to enter the carbon trading market would be a real great thing. (Sorry – I AM in the B-School after all…)

I was so happy I almost cried… until he mentioned “clean coal.” My face literally fell. Any serious call for clean, renewable energy NEEDS to know that clean coal is not part of it. At least not in the long run. He didn’t (as far as I could tell) mention nuclear either… both of which are generally looked down upon by environmentalists. What are your thoughts?

And Nancy Pelosi in the background? I thought she was adorable when she stood up and clapped literally every five seconds. AND if you’re going to PowerShift this weekend, you’ll be able to see her! Hurray!

GET EXCITED! I know I am!