Obama, Solar Power, and our future.

Rethinking the country life as energy costs rise:

Just off Singing Hills Road, in one of hundreds of two-story homes dotting a former cattle ranch beyond the southern fringes of Denver, Phil Boyle and his family openly wonder if they will have to move close to town to get some relief.

They still revel in the space and quiet that has drawn a steady exodus from American cities toward places like this for more than half a century. Their living room ceiling soars two stories high. A swing-set sways in the breeze in their backyard. Their wrap-around porch looks out over the flat scrub of the high plains to the snow-capped peaks of the Rocky Mountains.

But life on the fringes of suburbia is beginning to feel untenable. Mr. Boyle and his wife must drive nearly an hour to their jobs in the high-tech corridor of southern Denver. With gasoline at more than $4 a gallon, Mr. Boyle recently paid $121 to fill his pickup truck with diesel fuel. The price of propane to heat their spacious house has more than doubled in recent years.

While Obama is proposing real energy solutions, John McCain's adviser Phil Gramm bilked California out of billions:

Obama pledged Sunday to close the so-called Enron Loophole.  As a bit of background, the Enron Loophole is a provision that was slipped into the Commodities Futures  Modernization Act that exempted energy trading on electronic  platforms from regulation and oversight.

Guess who slipped the loophole into the law?  That's right, McCain's chief economic advisor Phil Gramm, who was at the time a powerful Texas  senator.

Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that "as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil." Obama "singled out the so-called 'Enron loophole' for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation."

The Obama campaign "blamed the loophole on former Sen. Phil Gramm," who serves as Sen. John McCain's campaign "co-chairman and economic adviser."

The reason why the loophole got dubbed the "Enron Loophole" is because soon after the Act's passage, the lack of regulation and oversight over Enron's electronic energy trading market led to Enron (on whose board Gramm's wife sat) bilking California out of $40 billion and causing a summer full of rolling blackouts.

The key to driving energy prices down:

As usual when it comes to energy politics, we have failed to meet the enemy and conclude that it is us. Remember how Jimmy Carter was ridiculed and reviled for putting on a sweater and telling us to lower our thermostats? Well, what if we had done so three decades ago rather than a few months ago?

And what if we'd never had a love affair with SUVs? What are now symbols of energy profligacy were, only a couple of years ago, the ultimate suburban status symbols. All manner of rationalizations were cooked up to justify their purchase: The need to drive kids to soccer practice -- a trip that requires extra room for little but a ball and a water bottle -- was one of my personal favorites. In truth, you can't pass a suburban office park without noticing that their lots are packed from end to end with these behemoths, which are driven far more often for commuting trips than for camping excursions.

Those looking forward to a change of presidents to usher in a serious change in energy policy should consider this: It took Congress more than three decades to increase vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and eliminate a loophole through which SUVs had boldly driven. The inertia prevailed regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans were in charge of Capitol Hill and the White House.

Alternative fuels are indeed needed and so is government policy to promote them. But there is no miracle cure that can cut energy prices in the short or long term other than that rarest of commodities, a political and personal commitment to sacrifice.

Tom Engelhart: NYT lamely admits Iraq was about oil:

Last Thursday, the New York Times led with this headline: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back." (Subhead: "Rare No-bid Contracts, A Foothold for Western Companies Seeking Future Rewards.") And who were these four giants? ExxonMobil, Shell, the French company Total and BP (formerly British Petroleum). What these firms got were mere "service contracts" -- as in servicing Iraq's oil fields -- not the sort of "production sharing agreements" that President Bush's representatives in Baghdad once dreamed of, and that would have left them in charge of those fields. Still, it was clearly a start. The Times reporter, Andrew E. Kramer, added this little detail: "[The contracts] include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today's prices: the [Iraqi oil] ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash." And here's the curious thing, exactly these four giants "lost their concessions in Iraq" back in 1972 when that country's oil was nationalized. Hmmm.

You'd think the Times might have slapped some kind of "we wuz wrong" label on the piece. I mean, remember when the mainstream media, the Times included, seconded the idea that Bush's invasion, whatever it was about -- weapons of mass destruction or terrorism or liberation or democracy or bad dictators or... well, no matter -- you could be sure of one thing: it wasn't about oil. "Oil" wasn't a word worth including in serious reporting on the invasion and its aftermath, not even after it turned out that American troops entering Baghdad guarded only the Oil and Interior Ministries, while the rest of the city was looted. Even then -- and ever after -- the idea that the Bush administration might have the slightest urge to control Iraqi oil (or the flow of Middle Eastern oil via a well-garrisoned Iraq) wasn't worth spending a few paragraphs of valuable newsprint on.

Hansen says Big Oil should be put on trial for crimes against humanity:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

Monbiot disagrees:

Almost without exception, the scientists who claim to doubt that manmade climate change is taking place fall into two categories: either they are not qualified in the branch of science they are discussing or they have received money from fossil fuel companies. Of all the self-professed climate "sceptics", I have been able to find only one – Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama – who has relevant qualifications and who does not appear to have received fees from lobby groups or thinktanks sponsored by the energy companies. But even he has had to admit that the figures on which he based his claims were the results of "errors in the ... data".

The others are the very opposite of sceptics. Many of them are paid to start with a conclusion – that climate change isn't happening or isn't important – then to find data and arguments to support it. In most cases, they cherrypick scientific findings; in a few cases, like the fake scientific paper attached to the celebrated Oregon petition, they make them up altogether. But people who don't understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a pamphlet are taken in. The energy companies' propaganda campaign is amplified by scientific illiterates in the media, such as Melanie Phillips, Christopher Booker, Nigel Lawson, Alexander Cockburn and the television producer (who made Channel 4's documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle) Martin Durkin.

I don't believe that the energy companies should be prosecuted for commissioning the truckload of trash their sponsored experts publish. But their campaign of disinformation must be exposed again and again. Like the tobacco lobbyists, they are not only delaying essential public action; they also create the impression that science is for sale to the highest bidder.

The awful truth is that sometimes it is.

Countiued increases in technology could reduce carbon emissions by 15% by 2020.

The report-SMART 2020:Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age-is the world's first comprehensive global study of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector's growing significance for the world's climate.

The report's supporting analysis, conducted independently by international management consultants McKinsey & Company, shows that while ICT's own sector footprint-currently two per cent of global emissions-will almost double by 2020, ICT's unique ability to monitor and maximise energy efficiency both within and outside of its own sector could cut CO2 emissions by up to five times this amount. This represents a saving of 7.8 Giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent(GtCO2e) by 2020-greater than the current annual emissions of either the US or China.

Although tele-working, video-conferencing, e-paper, and e-commerce are increasingly commonplace, the report notes that replacing physical products and services with their virtual equivalents(dematerialisation and substitution)is only one part(six per cent) of the estimated low carbon benefits the ICT sector can deliver. Far greater opportunities for emissions savings exist in applying ICT to global infrastructure and industry and the report examines four major opportunities where ICT can make further transformational cuts in global emissions. These exist globally within smart building design and use, smart logistics, smart electricity grids, and smart industrial motor systems.

Joseph Romm argues Electric is superior to Hydrogen:

Is the Times unaware that electricity is pretty much available everywhere, whereas hydrogen is essentially available nowhere? Is the Times unaware that the per-mile fuel cost of an electric car is probably one-quarter that of a hydrogen fuel-cell car? Is the Times unaware that electric-car manufacturers are working on "exchangeable batteries", which would make a battery swap about as fast as it takes to refuel a car with hydrogen?

Most egregious: Where, exactly, does the Times think hydrogen comes from? Santa Claus? More than 95% of US hydrogen is made from natural gas, so running a car on hydrogen doesn't reduce net carbon dioxide emissions compared with a hybrid like the Prius running on gasoline. OK, you say, can't hydrogen be made from carbon-free sources of power, like wind energy or nuclear? Sure, but so can electricity for electric cars. And this gets to the heart of why hydrogen cars would be the last car you would ever want to buy: they are wildly inefficient compared with electric cars.

Electric cars - and plug-in hybrid cars - have an enormous advantage over hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in utilising low-carbon electricity. That is because of the inherent inefficiency of the entire hydrogen fuelling process, from generating the hydrogen with that electricity to transporting this diffuse gas long distances, getting the hydrogen in the car, and then running it through a fuel cell - all for the purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity to drive the same exact electric motor you'll find in an electric car.

Carbon Credit schemes fall short:

The vast majority of schemes that sell carbon credits to offset pollution are delivering 30% less than they promise, a report published today claims.

The study will be unveiled by Lord Stern at the launch of a service offering ratings similar to those on financial products for the carbon-credit market - which is expected to be worth £160bn-£400bn by 2020.

The scale of problems found with existing credit schemes, most operated under United Nations projects, will fuel criticism that the world cannot rely on carbon markets to tackle climate change.

"It's fair to say that the performance of the [average carbon credit] project is likely to be lower - and probably 30% less - than they are predicting in the project document," said Ian Johnson, chairman of the ratings company IDEAcarbon.

However, he added: "There are projects delivering very, very well; it's not unreasonable there will be a distribution of projects from those that will deliver 100% or more of what's expected and those that will never get off the ground. There has been an awful lot of learning in the last three to five years that will serve us very well for an expanded effort that will be needed to get to the kind of investments commensurate with a global-warming world. This [ratings service] is a significant contribution to improving the marketplace."

Al Gore practices what he preaches:

On the June 23 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly asserted: "The Tennessee Center for Policy Research [TCPR] says the former vice president [Al Gore] is still using a massive amount of energy at his Tennessee mansion -- more than 20 times the national average." O'Reilly added: "The research group also says Mr. Gore has made about $100 million on his global warming projects. So it looks like Gore is a pinhead, but we would like to hear his side of things. And he has an open invitation to appear on the Factor." But at no point did O'Reilly mention that Gore has reportedly given "his side of things" in response to a June 17 TCPR press release on the subject of Gore's purported energy use.

In a June 18 article, The Tennessean reported that Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider stated, "When [the Gores] do use power, it's green power." A day later, Gail Kerr of The Tennessean reported: "Gore's folks were quick to jump on the latest missive, saying his utility bills are actually DOWN by 40 percent. The group [TCPR], Gore's spokeswoman said, didn't include the former vice president's gas bill in this round of press release claptrap, as it did last year. That bill has gone down 90 percent, she said. And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas." In 2007, Think Progress reported that Gore's office had stated: "Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology." Kreider was similarly quoted in The Washington Post saying that "[t]he power coming into their residence is green, renewable power."

As The Tennessean further reported on June 18, "[T]he Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service's Green Power Switch program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas." According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which partners with the Nashville Electric Service and other local energy distributors to provide green power, "[a]lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."

John McCain not knowledgeable about alternative energy:

McCain was speaking about his "new" energy policy of $300 million, "one dollar for every American" to leap-frog to the next level of battery technology so we can have plug-in hybrids. Here is a link for the McCain campaign's science adviser - Lithium-Ion Batteries.
They are available now. The technologies required to put them into automobiles are available now. But McCain wants to drill the shit out of ANWR - an old Bush policy. McCain also wants to drill the shit out of American coastal areas. Also McCain wants to blow the shit out of mountains to get out all the dirty coal out that he can, with total disregard to the environment - just like Bush.

Lastly, even though McCain is trying hard to be green, he fails to understand the true impact of global warming. His $300 million, wrongly spent, does nothing to solve the climate crisis. McCain's insistence in allowing the "free market" economy solve that woe is Bushian to the core.

More McSame for a Do-Nothing President.

$300 million for alternative energy is piddling.

John McCain's minions put lipstick on a pig over drilling:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for a change in federal policy that would allow coastal states to choose whether to allow oil exploration in offshore waters.

The proposal did not go down well with most U.S. environmentalists. The reaction of groups in lockstep with Democrats, such as the Sierra Club, was scathing.

But there was more in McCain’s Houston speech than offshore drilling.

McCain reiterated his position that the U.S. must adopt a cap-and-trade plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Anyone who thinks that’s an easy sell in Texas should have been to the state Republican convention in Houston last weekend. There, you would have heard earnest people insisting that sunspots are the cause of global warming.

The problem here is that John McCain has no long-term vision and no long-term plan for dealing with this mess. Even if he is right and there is enough oil in the coasts to solve our short-term energy needs, it will, at most, only push back the problem for a generation. What we need is a long-term solution to our energy needs. As I stated before -- let's put a solar plant or wind farm in every town in America, and let's see if we turn the corner on solving our energy needs and getting a handle on the problem of poverty in this country. All this is is right-wing dog whistle states rights claptrap that will not address our energy needs at all.

Mr. DiPeso's problem is that while McCain makes all the right noises on the environment, there is no substance whatsoever and no plan to cut into the high gas prices or oil prices that plague our country. His own person, Phil Gramm, aided and abetted a scheme that defrauded people out of $40 billion dollars during the height of the Enron scandal. John McCain does not recognize the urgency of addressing the energy crisis; Barack Obama does.

Barbara Ehrenreich on using vegetable oil as fuel:

I say to my fellow humans: It's time to stop feeding off the dead and grow up! I don't know about food, but I have a plan for achieving fuel self-suffiency in less time than it takes to say "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." The idea came to me from reports of the growing crime of French fry oil theft: certain desperate individuals are stealing restaurants' discarded cooking oil, which can then be used to fuel cars. So the idea is, Why not could skip the French fry phase and harvest high-energy hydrocarbons right from ourselves?

I'm talking about liposuction, of course, and it's a mystery to me why it hasn't occurred to any of those geniuses who are constantly opining about fuel prices on MSNBC. The average liposuction removes about half a gallon of liquid fat, which may not seem like much. But think of the vast reserves our nation is literally sitting on! Thirty percent of Americans are obese, or about 90 million individuals or 45 million gallons of easily available fat--not from dead diatoms but from our very own bellies and butts.

This is the humane alternative to biofuels derived directly from erstwhile foodstuffs like corn. Biofuels, as you might have noticed, are exacerbating the global food crisis by turning edible plants into gasoline. But we could put humans back in the loop by first turning the corn into Doritos and hence into liposuctionable body fat. There would be a reason to live again, even a patriotic rationale for packing on the pounds.

Bob Beckel supports corporate welfare in Iraq:

Last week, the New York Times reported that four Western oil companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP — are in the final stages of negotiating no-bid oil contracts "to service Iraq’s largest fields." These contracts would run for one to two years, and give the oil companies a "foothold" in bidding on future contracts.

But one-to-two year service contracts aren’t enough for analyst Bob Beckel, a Fox News liberal. On the O’Reilly Factor last night, Beckel said that "what we ought to do is get Iraq to give us a 100 year lease" for exploring their oil fields:

BECKEL: OK, now, what we ought to do is get Iraq to give us 100 year lease on their unexplored — they’re the second largest source of oil in the world. Known reserves. Give the United States oil companies 100 year leases. Let us explore. We can get it quickly. It’s through sand. It’s the fastest way to get oil.