Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
The One Environmental Issue
Editorial, New York Times
The overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet. The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged, calling for large – if still unquantified – national sacrifices and for a transformation in the way the country produces and uses energy. The Republicans do not go much further than conceding that climate change could be a problem and, with the notable exception of John McCain, offer no comprehensive solutions.
In 2000, when Al Gore could have made warming a signature issue in his presidential campaign, his advisers persuaded him that it was too complicated and forbidding an issue to sell to ordinary voters. For similar reasons, John Kerry’s ambitious ideas for addressing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil never advanced much beyond his Web site.
Times have certainly changed. It is not yet clear to what extent Americans are willing to grapple with the implications of any serious strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: more specifically, whether they are ready to pay higher prices for energy and change their lifestyles to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
Polls suggest, however, that voters are increasingly alarmed, and for that Mr. Gore is partly responsible.
(1 January 2008)
Global warming goes to court
Editorial, San Francisco Chronicle
The Environmental Protection Agency can’t say it wasn’t warned. By denying California -and another 16 states – a chance to set tailpipe limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the fumbling feds are lining up for a painful ordeal in the courtroom and on Capitol Hill.
The political trajectory of this case was obvious for months, even years. California wants to lead a pack of like-minded states out of the legal wilderness by adopting rules tougher than Washington’s on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. No surprise, the White House wants none of it and stepped in shortly before Christmas to quash the plan.
Bush appointees are selling the dispute as a showdown between wise, unifying Washington and out-there enviro rulemakers pushing a mindless checkerboard of regulations. The president recently signed mileage rules that will boost standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, so what’s the fuss?
It’s pure spin, and it won’t work.
(4 January 2008)
Related from the Christian Science Monitor: California’s data challenges EPA.
Morgan Freeman on the end of oil
Alex Simon, The Hollywood Interview
If Orson Welles was everyone’s idea of the voice of God during his life, Morgan Freeman has most likely assumed that mantle for the next generation of filmgoers. With his stentorian voice and Zen-like presence, Morgan Freeman has appeared in nearly 80 films and TV productions …
Morgan Freeman: … I met the Imam, the sheik of Dubai. He’s a fascinating guy. He’s the leader of this state, not a country, because the United Arab Emirates are what comprise the country. Dubai is one of seven states in the Emirates. He’s got the idea that you have to build, build, build because eventually, the oil is going to run out. If the oil doesn’t run out, the price is going to go down so low eventually, that it might as well run out. I’m talking wishful thinking now, that eventually this country’s leaders are going to understand that it isn’t about money. It’s about sustainability. Right now, if you mention alternative forms of energy to anyone in the government, all they’ll want to talk about is what it will cost, which is stupid. It’s going to cost you more to establish it, than it’s going to cost you to run it. But we have to do it. Of course right now there are a lot of politicians who are in, or come from, the oil business, and the unions, and so on. So if you ask the oil industry and the auto industry to start re-cranking, and come up with a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon, or that will burn something other than oil and gasoline, you’ll get an argument about what it will cost to develop that. If you have a car that can run on E-85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, do you know what the savings is on that in terms of using fossil fuels?
… Just one day, one day, just look up in any major city in the world, and just look at the cars. Don’t think about the airplanes, or the trains, the boats, just the cars, running up and down the road, burning gasoline and diesel fuels. With biodiesel, you can make diesel fuel out of bacon grease, for God’s sake! So why aren’t we doing that? They say “the cost.” It’s got nothing to do with the cost. It’s “the cost” that’s going to kill us.
(24 December 2007)
Found by Ecorazzi. They also found Jack Nicholson talking about solar energy and why he hasn’t been politically active. -BA
In Bush’s Final Year, The Agenda Gets Greener
Peter Baker, Washington Post
… For years, Bush bristled privately at what he considered sky-is-falling alarmism by the liberal, elitist Hollywood crowd. The clatter over climate change, according to friends and advisers, seemed to him more like a political agenda than a rational response to known facts. But ever so gradually, they say, Bush’s views have evolved. He has found the science increasingly persuasive and believes more needs to be done, especially after a set of secret briefings last winter. A former aide said Bush’s staff even developed models for a market-based cap on greenhouse emissions.
Now Bush bristles not at the Hollywood types but at the notion that he does not care. At an end-of-the-year news conference, he spent more time answering a question on climate change than on any other inquiry, outlining his approach in detail to dispel the notion that he does not have one. “I take the issue seriously,” he said, later repeating the phrase. “And we’re developing a strategy that will deal with it, and an effective strategy.”
The evolution has been evident over the past year. Bush cited the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time, proposed a plan to cut gasoline consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases, and convened a conference of major world polluters to start work on an international accord to follow the Kyoto Protocol. He even invited former vice president Al Gore for a 40-minute talk about global warming.
Many environmentalists dismiss this as cover for a do-nothing policy. Bush still rejects the one measure that they, and even many Republican corporate leaders, consider vital to reversing warming trends — a mandatory cap on carbon emissions.
(29 December 2007)
David Roberts of Gristmill devotes three posts to dissecting this article, calling it the “Worst Story of the Year”: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. -BA
Environmental issues get unprecedented focus
Perry Beeman, Des Moines Register
A Barack Obama television ad declares “the planet is in peril.” A Hillary Clinton TV spot shows her wrapping “alternative energy” as a Christmas present. Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd are on the airwaves with their ideas about global warming.
Gone are the days when former Vice President Al Gore was the lone political voice talking about global warming and alternative energy. Not only have Gore’s fellow Democrats detailed positions on the issue, but Republicans — historically more reluctant to talk about global warming and energy — have begun to find their voices as well.
The presidential candidates have also talked about Iowa’s homegrown environmental issue: hog confinement lots.
“The thing that’s been so amazing about this election is that global warming and energy have become a top-tier issue,” said Navin Nayak, global warming project director for the League of Conservation Voters. “It’s not just that the candidates care about it, it’s that they are campaigning on those issues. Just the fact that candidates are spending money to campaign on those issues shows that they know these are issues that motivate voters.”
High gas prices and fickle weather have made global warming a more prominent issue in the minds of voters, Nayak said.
(1 January 2008)
