Showing posts with label Chuck Devore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Devore. Show all posts

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Politicians preen in public, scheme in secret


If Darren Sakmuelsohn is correct in his NY Times Greenwire post, our Senators are now talking about a Climate Plan B that would still implement some sort of cap-and-trade... but only for power plants... everyone else being free to emit all they want.
"A power plant-only cap and trade could be doable on the Hill," Mark Helmke, a senior aide to Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), said today.

Senate Democratic and Republican staffers are studying a package that combines a mandatory limit on power plant emissions with separate programs outside of the cap-and-trade program aimed at cutting greenhouse gases from other sectors of the economy. "It'd be done with efficiency standards for buildings and stronger CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards for transport," Helmke said.

OK, it is just an idea being floated for public reaction... but it is a horrible idea. If all our legislator's did was pass the "doable" then I could do the job as well as Barbara Boxer and a hell of a lot better that DiFi. We elect them to apply their brain mass to figuring out solutions to problems, not solutions to electoral calculus.

In fact, I wonder what Boxer is really doing to end the embarrassment of our current climate non-policy. It looks like she has punted the ball over to firm of Kerry, Graham and (shudder) Lieberman. Oh how I wish we had a Green positioned to take on Boxer next year. If you surmise that her opponent would be Carly Fiorina, then it would be a race in which an ecology savvy Green can make a good case. If Nuclear Chuck DeVore pulls enough right wing-nuts to the polls to take the primary, then Boxer is the environmental choice and Greens would be less attractive as an alternative.



Thursday, October 15, 2009

A colossal blunder from Obama?

I have really begun to think that Obama has made a colossal blunder in the way that he has chosen to handle climate change. It would seem to me that his presidency will be evaluated by history on the manner in which he has reacted to this crisis. It won't be Iraq, Bush's war, nor even Afghanistan… now known as Obama's War. It won't be health care. But those are the issues on which he has chosen to spend his time and his political capital.

It could be argued that he did not choose Iraq and Afghanistan. True about Iraq but he certainly has, from the days of the campaign, chosen to play in Afghanistan.

It is the focus on health care that concerns me and makes me question his judgment. It has the ring of a young man trying to prove that he could get done what Clinton could not, taking Obama forever out of Clinton's shadow.

But this is not issue number one. It won't determine the fact of our economy, or of our comfortable lifestyle. Climate Change will. Failure to address the biggest elephant in the room is a way to be trampled and I don't want my children to suffer for Obama's failure to take his biggest challenge head on.

In the mean time, opposition to Obama has had the opportunity to hone their economic arguments about big government and the costs to the tax payers. If the opposition to the economic bailouts has this ring, and the opposition to health insurance reform has this ring, what do you think will be the key element of the Republican opposition to doing anything about climate change? I can just hear Boehner and McConnel droning on now while Glen Beck stirs up the troops by labeling them "Commies".

There is only a very short time between now and the next meeting of the United Nations Climate Change Conference - Copenhagen. The best Obama can bring to the meeting is a flawed bill from the House of Representatives, a draft of a bill from the US Senate and a history of having climate change treaties not being ratified in the Senate. The prospects are bleak.

At this point, Obama has yet to expend any political capital to try and get a climate change bill passed in the Senate. Most of the heavy lifting about the economics of this issue has been carried by Joseph Romm at the Climate Progress blog. Even today, Romm cited Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard on Climate Change.
We are virtually certain that climate change is occurring, and occurring because of man’s activities. We’re virtually certain the probability distribution curve is all bad. There’s no good things that’s going to come of this. But what’s uncertain is exactly which one of those things are going to occur and in what time frame. In the probability distribution curve is about a 50% probability that about half of all species will become extinct or be subject to extinction over this period of time. What we will never know on an ex ante basis is whether or not man be one of those casualties or not.

We condemn Wall Street for taking risks with our economy — risks that all of you are trying very hard to reverse — but at the same time we’re taking exactly the same kind of risks, with no upside whatsoever, with regard to our climate, failing to practice even the basic risk management techniques in terms of climate change reduction.
In the same post, he quotes Carol Browner as saying it would be a “big mistake” if Congress passed a clean energy bill without a cap on emissions.

I agree with her assessment. I just don't think that this Congress has the courage to do that. There are too many who are too willing to compromise too much for the sake of another vote. So, we will invest in oxymoronic clean coal technologies until we figure out that it is too late. We will shift to burning wood at our power plants because it will be called a "renewable" and the CO2 will fill the skies as before.

This the the issue where science and politics are on a collision course. We must not let the politicians win. How I wish that there were Green willing to stand up and challenge Barbara Boxer in the Senatorial Race this year. Her Republican Opposition seems to be demonstrating their ineptitude at every turn, though Fiorina could bankroll whatever she wants for as long as she wants. DeVore might have the so many manic Republican votes locked up that she will drop out rather than throw good money after bad and we know that DeVore's solution to everything is to go nuclear.

The challenge from a Green would be all about doing the right thing, about standing for ones values and not the value of a contribution. If done right, it would be about correcting Obama's big blunder and saving humanity.

It's blog acton day and this is my contribution.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Boxer - Kerry Climate Change Bill nearly ready.


This is just to call attention to the fact that the Boxer - Kerry climate change bill is nearly ready for release. Actually, a text exists but the bill is such a moving target that by the time you down load it, it will have changed.

You can read a rather good synopsis on Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog. I won't repeat that here. I will agree with Romm that this bill is stronger than the House version from Reps. Waxman & Markey. It is still a long way from acceptable.

Let me just say that I am not as confident as Romm that the high cost of nuclear power will keep it from happening, even though the bill will contain subsidies for nuclear. I just do not trust this Congress that much. Of course, this is California and Boxer just might have to meet Nuclear Chuck DeVore in the Senate race next fall, no matter how much money Carly spends.

I will quote from the alert sent out today by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, calling for more pressure on Boxer...my favorite Senator... (Feinstein is the other choice.)
Sens. Boxer and Kerry are set to introduce their major climate legislation.

Senator Boxer said recently that this legislation would include a nuclear title, but indications have been that it would be minor and narrowly focused.

However, we are growing concerned that this nuclear title may offer much too much to the nuclear power industry. If there is a nuclear title--and, of course, there shouldn't be at all--it must remain minor and narrowly focused.

As Massachusetts or California residents, your voices can help everyone. Please call Senator Kerry or Senator Boxer today and urge them to stand strong against the nuclear industry and its incessant calls for taxpayer bailouts.

Senator Kerry: 202-224-2742

Senator Boxer: 202-224-3553

While we have not seen the actual language of the proposed title, these talking points would be helpful to include in your call:

*Nuclear power already receives a competitive advantage when a price is placed on carbon. If the nuclear industry cannot compete with such an advantage, that's its own problem, taxpayers should not be expected to provide more help to the industry.

*Nuclear power is not carbon-free. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for fairly significant carbon emissions--at least three times those of wind power, for example. This study provides substantive backing for this.


So, make that call to Boxer and let her know what you really think about nuclear energy. Not only do we not want any new, we want to see the existing power plants de-commissioned.