This current problem occuring in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana is a tragedy, and alludes to other problems that attribute to the big picture. We have consistently been dependent on a handful of resources (oil,coal, natural gas) to provide our energy needs. These forms of energy have allowed the nation to prosper, as well as certain individuals and certain states, like my home state Texas. When we have incident such as this explosion of an oil rig platform occurs it just illuminates the hazards associated with industry. We also witnessed this a week and half ago when several miners died in a methane-sparked explosion in a coal mine in West Virginia.
The blame is always placed upon these petroleum companies, and rightfully so at times because of the profit driven nature. However, they have chosen their professions based on the need of millions of American's excessive hunger and need for more and more energy. In an indirect way, we are just as much apart of the fault as these industries, if not more. We provide the incentive and demand for these companies to continue to operate. They are merely utilizing the capitalist system we have created to be prosperous.
Consciously, we need to examine not just the issues surrounding these two incidents and who is at fault, but our overall consumption habits. Also, there needs to be steps taken in order to allow transition of these companies to not just be based in one area of energy, but allowing for them to utilize resources both financial and tangible for several forms of energy. It makes sense for "energy companies" to have a diverse profile, however in order to be encouraged to move in that direction, consumer habits must change and must be evident.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23mine.html?hpw
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23rig.html?hp
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Ethanol Industry Doubles Its Efforts in Lobbying Washington
By Mary Clare Jalonick ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: 8:47 p.m. Saturday, April 17, 2010
Is corn-based ethanol fuel the wave of the future? Will it help create domestic jobs and be vital to the nation's energy supply? Or is it a taxpayer boondoggle responsible for higher food prices?
For some in Washington, the answers to those questions have changed.
For years, ethanol fuel derived from corn was almost politically untouchable, thanks to powerful advocates on Capitol Hill. The ethanol industry has consequently exploded over the last decade, thanks to government subsidies and incentives.
But skepticism about ethanol is rising, prompted by fluctuating food prices and an organized campaign by anti-ethanol advocates to discredit the industry.
"The old saying is that if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu," said Tom Buis, lobbyist and CEO of Growth Energy, a new ethanol industry group formed in 2008 as some ethanol companies grew worried that their political clout was waning. The organization's largest member is Poet LLC, one of the country's top two ethanol producers.
At stake are billions of dollars in tax credits for ethanol companies that expire at the end of the year and a pending action at the Environmental Protection Agency that could raise the amount of ethanol in every driver's fuel tank.
Once a slam dunk, Buis says the industry now has to work harder to convince an increasingly skeptical public and Congress that ethanol continues to deserve government money. A series of television ads launched this week are part of the group's efforts.
There's evidence that Congress is weary of giving money to an industry that critics say should be able to stand on its own after getting its start in the early 1980s with powerful congressional advocates like Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
"It is our view that after 30 years we should declare success," says Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents food companies that say they have seen their prices rise because of the high use of corn for ethanol.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association is part of a growing patchwork of food companies, livestock producers, environmental groups and oil companies who have spent millions of dollars in the last few years framing ethanol's success as "food vs. fuel." They argue that the increase in production of corn and its diversion for ethanol is making animal feed more expensive, raising prices at the grocery store and tearing up the land.
The diversion of corn has been particularly tough on the meat industry, which uses corn for animal feed. But the ethanol industry disputes that the fuel has a substantial effect on food prices, saying corn prices only affect a small portion of each dollar overall spent at the grocery store.
Ethanol's opponents galvanized in 2008 as food prices skyrocketed and lawmakers debated whether ethanol was to blame. On Capitol Hill, money that may have once been used to boost the ethanol industry began to be diverted to what are called "advanced" biofuels, or other nonfood plant materials that could be used to make fuel. That industry is still in its infancy, but lawmakers, along with President Barack Obama, often say they are the way of the future.
As ethanol's political stock began to drop, Growth Energy hired some of the top farm lobbyists in town. Buis, a former Daschle aide, left his post as the president of the powerful National Farmers Union to work for the group, and Growth Energy signed on Retired Army general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark as a co-chairman.
They have petitioned the EPA to increase the concentration of ethanol in gasoline and last week launched the $2.5 million television ad campaign aimed at changing people's perception of the fuel.
The series of short ads the group is launching have no dialogue but just simple phrases on a green background and pointed digs at the oil industry. One ad says "no beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills" while another displays the phrase "No wars have ever been fought over ethanol." Another makes the point that "Ethanol has contributed $0 to the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."
The formation of Growth Energy means the industry has now doubled its efforts in Washington. Together with a rival trade group, the Renewable Fuels Association, the industry spent more than $1.5 million on lobbying last year.
It's still unclear whether the increased efforts will pay off. After Growth Energy filed its petition last year to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, the EPA said in December it needed more tests to determine whether car engines could handle it. A decision is expected later this year.
With that decision and congressional debate over the tax credits approaching, Growth Energy is now positioning the ethanol industry as the underdog.
"We have to step up our game," Buis said. "A lot of people don't want to see us succeed."
Ethanol's rivals aren't backing down. The Brazilian ethanol industry, which is pushing Congress to reduce tariffs that protect the U.S. ethanol industry, launched its own rival campaign Monday to promote the benefits of sugar-cane ethanol, which they argue is more environmentally friendly than ethanol made from corn. Sugar-cane ethanol is widely produced and used in Brazil.
"We have every intention of staying in this fight," says Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group, a member of the anti-ethanol coalition. "This is a big issue for us."
Published: 8:47 p.m. Saturday, April 17, 2010
Is corn-based ethanol fuel the wave of the future? Will it help create domestic jobs and be vital to the nation's energy supply? Or is it a taxpayer boondoggle responsible for higher food prices?
For some in Washington, the answers to those questions have changed.
For years, ethanol fuel derived from corn was almost politically untouchable, thanks to powerful advocates on Capitol Hill. The ethanol industry has consequently exploded over the last decade, thanks to government subsidies and incentives.
But skepticism about ethanol is rising, prompted by fluctuating food prices and an organized campaign by anti-ethanol advocates to discredit the industry.
"The old saying is that if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu," said Tom Buis, lobbyist and CEO of Growth Energy, a new ethanol industry group formed in 2008 as some ethanol companies grew worried that their political clout was waning. The organization's largest member is Poet LLC, one of the country's top two ethanol producers.
At stake are billions of dollars in tax credits for ethanol companies that expire at the end of the year and a pending action at the Environmental Protection Agency that could raise the amount of ethanol in every driver's fuel tank.
Once a slam dunk, Buis says the industry now has to work harder to convince an increasingly skeptical public and Congress that ethanol continues to deserve government money. A series of television ads launched this week are part of the group's efforts.
There's evidence that Congress is weary of giving money to an industry that critics say should be able to stand on its own after getting its start in the early 1980s with powerful congressional advocates like Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
"It is our view that after 30 years we should declare success," says Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents food companies that say they have seen their prices rise because of the high use of corn for ethanol.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association is part of a growing patchwork of food companies, livestock producers, environmental groups and oil companies who have spent millions of dollars in the last few years framing ethanol's success as "food vs. fuel." They argue that the increase in production of corn and its diversion for ethanol is making animal feed more expensive, raising prices at the grocery store and tearing up the land.
The diversion of corn has been particularly tough on the meat industry, which uses corn for animal feed. But the ethanol industry disputes that the fuel has a substantial effect on food prices, saying corn prices only affect a small portion of each dollar overall spent at the grocery store.
Ethanol's opponents galvanized in 2008 as food prices skyrocketed and lawmakers debated whether ethanol was to blame. On Capitol Hill, money that may have once been used to boost the ethanol industry began to be diverted to what are called "advanced" biofuels, or other nonfood plant materials that could be used to make fuel. That industry is still in its infancy, but lawmakers, along with President Barack Obama, often say they are the way of the future.
As ethanol's political stock began to drop, Growth Energy hired some of the top farm lobbyists in town. Buis, a former Daschle aide, left his post as the president of the powerful National Farmers Union to work for the group, and Growth Energy signed on Retired Army general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark as a co-chairman.
They have petitioned the EPA to increase the concentration of ethanol in gasoline and last week launched the $2.5 million television ad campaign aimed at changing people's perception of the fuel.
The series of short ads the group is launching have no dialogue but just simple phrases on a green background and pointed digs at the oil industry. One ad says "no beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills" while another displays the phrase "No wars have ever been fought over ethanol." Another makes the point that "Ethanol has contributed $0 to the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."
The formation of Growth Energy means the industry has now doubled its efforts in Washington. Together with a rival trade group, the Renewable Fuels Association, the industry spent more than $1.5 million on lobbying last year.
It's still unclear whether the increased efforts will pay off. After Growth Energy filed its petition last year to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, the EPA said in December it needed more tests to determine whether car engines could handle it. A decision is expected later this year.
With that decision and congressional debate over the tax credits approaching, Growth Energy is now positioning the ethanol industry as the underdog.
"We have to step up our game," Buis said. "A lot of people don't want to see us succeed."
Ethanol's rivals aren't backing down. The Brazilian ethanol industry, which is pushing Congress to reduce tariffs that protect the U.S. ethanol industry, launched its own rival campaign Monday to promote the benefits of sugar-cane ethanol, which they argue is more environmentally friendly than ethanol made from corn. Sugar-cane ethanol is widely produced and used in Brazil.
"We have every intention of staying in this fight," says Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group, a member of the anti-ethanol coalition. "This is a big issue for us."
Monday, April 19, 2010
Assignment #7: Sustainability Discussion Waste-To-Energy Plants
This story deals with an innovative method combating an age old problem, energy conversion from garbage or waste. A few countries in Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands have adopted an innovative technique of burning garbage and industrial waste using filtrated incinerators which then convert the heat into energy. It is a very novel approach to something which is a part of our daily lives. The program only burns non-recyclable materials, which allows for its recycling programs to continue, and then uses the energy for heating of homes. In Denmark there are nearly 30 of these plants which serve almost 100 different cities. These plants are called waste-to-energy plants which were spawned from the strict environmental regulations and pollution standards the European Union placed on its members.
This program demonstrates the ability of local governments to take the lead in preventing pollution within their communities, while maintaining sustainable practices. Although the initial costs associated with these types of plants and new technology is somewhat expensive, there is little to none pollution be emitted. Bi-products of the plant are sold to the manufacturing industry where they can be used and eventually recycled. Also, this eliminates the costly storage, use of green space, and pollution of a traditional landfill.
The article also compares this type of program to the sluggish and slow development of systems like this in the United States. Issues such as unwillingness to change habits, deal with the upfront costs, and relatively inexpensiveness of landfills are common in the argument. Also, the fact that communities traditionally are not supportive of plants to be built and operated in a location close to their residence is another issue. This is typically called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard. Even traditional environmental groups have a hard time buying into the sustainable factors surrounding this method in a somewhat similar sense to nuclear energy.
What we could learn from this type of project is a couple of different things. First, we as Americans must change the way we view things and broaden our scope to not only are individual benefit, but the community, city, state, etc benefit too. Their needs to be a collective change among our perception, otherwise NIMBY will rule us. Secondly, adopting sustainable practices like this can have direct and immediate impacts, residents in Horsholm, Denmark and the other 97 municipalities have witnessed a decrease in their overall heating bill. We must understand the economic gains, as well as the environmental benefits too. Third, we do not have to sacrifice that must in order to achieve this type of system. Recycling will still be prevalent, and anything not able to be recycled will be burned in a waste-to-energy plant.
What I really like about this particular project is that it adopts principles of strong sustainability. This is evident by utilizing energy, creating electricity to power homes and provide heating, from human waste and garbage. The only problem I foresee with this is the fact that it may create a moral hazard to have more garbage than use recyclable products or recycle in general. More chemical waste could develop through programs like this. It could occur an influx of more garbage, however if the technology is provided to combat with this with low to zero pollution then the moral hazard becomes minimal.
Also, with this program we see an elimination of perfectly usable green space being exploited for waste storage. Coupled with that will be less transportation costs associated with sending waste to other nearby states for storage by merely just burning it. This is where economic sustainability comes into the equation by then allowing more funds to be diverted to other projects that are deemed more useful and sustainable. The hardest parts of the public taking an investment into plants like this are upfront costs, (which will be less in the long-term compared to use of landfills) and the location of these plants in relation to their communities. For the latter, financial incentives or credits could be given in order to encourage communities to allow for construction and operation of plants in their areas.
This might region-specific in Europe, however I believe this could be implemented in places like China, United States, and other large waste producers. Also, in the United States, states could provide region specific plans. The main area which concerns me would be industrial areas and manufacturing. They could benefit greatly, however as stated previously there may be more excessive use of products that are hard to dispose of or burn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science
This program demonstrates the ability of local governments to take the lead in preventing pollution within their communities, while maintaining sustainable practices. Although the initial costs associated with these types of plants and new technology is somewhat expensive, there is little to none pollution be emitted. Bi-products of the plant are sold to the manufacturing industry where they can be used and eventually recycled. Also, this eliminates the costly storage, use of green space, and pollution of a traditional landfill.
The article also compares this type of program to the sluggish and slow development of systems like this in the United States. Issues such as unwillingness to change habits, deal with the upfront costs, and relatively inexpensiveness of landfills are common in the argument. Also, the fact that communities traditionally are not supportive of plants to be built and operated in a location close to their residence is another issue. This is typically called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard. Even traditional environmental groups have a hard time buying into the sustainable factors surrounding this method in a somewhat similar sense to nuclear energy.
What we could learn from this type of project is a couple of different things. First, we as Americans must change the way we view things and broaden our scope to not only are individual benefit, but the community, city, state, etc benefit too. Their needs to be a collective change among our perception, otherwise NIMBY will rule us. Secondly, adopting sustainable practices like this can have direct and immediate impacts, residents in Horsholm, Denmark and the other 97 municipalities have witnessed a decrease in their overall heating bill. We must understand the economic gains, as well as the environmental benefits too. Third, we do not have to sacrifice that must in order to achieve this type of system. Recycling will still be prevalent, and anything not able to be recycled will be burned in a waste-to-energy plant.
What I really like about this particular project is that it adopts principles of strong sustainability. This is evident by utilizing energy, creating electricity to power homes and provide heating, from human waste and garbage. The only problem I foresee with this is the fact that it may create a moral hazard to have more garbage than use recyclable products or recycle in general. More chemical waste could develop through programs like this. It could occur an influx of more garbage, however if the technology is provided to combat with this with low to zero pollution then the moral hazard becomes minimal.
Also, with this program we see an elimination of perfectly usable green space being exploited for waste storage. Coupled with that will be less transportation costs associated with sending waste to other nearby states for storage by merely just burning it. This is where economic sustainability comes into the equation by then allowing more funds to be diverted to other projects that are deemed more useful and sustainable. The hardest parts of the public taking an investment into plants like this are upfront costs, (which will be less in the long-term compared to use of landfills) and the location of these plants in relation to their communities. For the latter, financial incentives or credits could be given in order to encourage communities to allow for construction and operation of plants in their areas.
This might region-specific in Europe, however I believe this could be implemented in places like China, United States, and other large waste producers. Also, in the United States, states could provide region specific plans. The main area which concerns me would be industrial areas and manufacturing. They could benefit greatly, however as stated previously there may be more excessive use of products that are hard to dispose of or burn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science
Friday, April 16, 2010
Sustainable Planning
Sustainable planning is a joint effort among many different related parties including citizens, communities, and several layers of governmental bodies. Among many things this brings specific regions together to deal with common issues, mainly economic and environmental concerns. These include proper transportation policies with the help of regional governmental entities such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) or Councils of Governments (COGs). Our MPO Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) deals with these types of issues along with infrastructure development, air quality problems and evaluations, and land management policies dealing with growth to the region (Wheeler 137-141). Wheeler also talks about how these MPOs deal with equity issues stating, “planners and public agencies have increasingly considered the degree to which lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color are exposed to toxic chemicals, pollution, and locally unwanted land uses” (Wheeler 147-148).
Additionally, the phrase or term “New Urbanism” has floated to the surface among many urban communities throughout the nation. This includes a greater mix of land use, increased use of residential densities, and preserving wildlife and green space areas (Wheeler, 156). With this we also have the adoption of five specific values, limiting urban sprawl, new expansion taking place next to current urban areas, visual connections within the region, mixture of land use, and the integration of the natural landscape (Wheeler, 163-164). The tail end of sustainable planning includes neighborhood planning that deals with area-specific design, traffic-calming and prevention of congestion, investment of green space (parks and recreational areas), ecological restoration, along with the economic problems and issues such as equity that are common to the area (Wheeler, 199-203).
Additionally, the phrase or term “New Urbanism” has floated to the surface among many urban communities throughout the nation. This includes a greater mix of land use, increased use of residential densities, and preserving wildlife and green space areas (Wheeler, 156). With this we also have the adoption of five specific values, limiting urban sprawl, new expansion taking place next to current urban areas, visual connections within the region, mixture of land use, and the integration of the natural landscape (Wheeler, 163-164). The tail end of sustainable planning includes neighborhood planning that deals with area-specific design, traffic-calming and prevention of congestion, investment of green space (parks and recreational areas), ecological restoration, along with the economic problems and issues such as equity that are common to the area (Wheeler, 199-203).
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Texas Oil Firms Oppose California Climate Law
By JOHN M. BRODER and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
WASHINGTON — Several Texas oil companies are bankrolling a petition drive to suspend California’s path-breaking climate change law in a move that may prove a bellwether for national efforts to address global warming.
The Valero Energy Corporation, a San Antonio-based company that is one of the nation’s largest independent oil refiners and retailers, has contributed $500,000 to a ballot initiative that would halt the carrying out of the California climate law known as Assembly Bill 32, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed in 2006. At least one other Texas oil company, Tesoro, with operations in California and a prominent antitax group are helping to finance the petition drive to place the initiative on the November general election ballot.
The California law, the first of its kind in the nation, is intended to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases by 15 percent below current levels by 2020 through a variety of means, including a regional cap-and-trade system. The bill also calls for greater efficiencies in buildings and transportation, more use of renewable sources of energy and greater reliance on clean-burning fuels. These are all major elements of climate change proposals now being discussed in Washington.
The fine points of the California plan, including the critical questions of how emissions permits would be allocated and how any revenues would be distributed, are still being worked out.
The ballot initiative would prevent the law’s taking effect until unemployment in California falls to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. The state’s current unemployment rate is 12.5 percent. The average statewide unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.9 percent.
Mr. Schwarzenegger has said he considers the climate change law one of the signal achievements of his administration and wants to see it put in place. He said recently he believed the petition drive was fueled by the “greed” of out-of-state energy companies.
“I think that the California people are outraged about the fact that Texas oil companies, Texas oil companies, are coming to California and trying to change laws and policies in California,” he said at a green technology exhibition in Sacramento last month. “I mean, it’s outrageous.”
But the governor has also expressed concern that the new law, scheduled to take effect in 2012, not harm the state’s crippled economy and cause additional job losses.
The California Jobs Initiative, the group collecting petition signatures to upend the California law, has raised just under $1 million, according to a spokeswoman for the group. Most of the money came from oil companies, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, founded by the father of California’s antitax movement, contributed $100,000.
A Valero spokesman, Bill Day, said costs would rise at the company’s two large refineries in California under the new emissions law because refineries use a lot of electricity and natural gas to heat and refine crude oil. Electricity prices would go up under the law, he said, and the consumption of natural gas produces carbon emissions that would be penalized under the legislation.
“Like the national cap-and-trade legislation, it does nothing at all to alleviate the problem of climate change, but it would have tremendously bad impacts on the California economy,” Mr. Day said. “This is exactly the wrong time to be implementing a cap and trade program that will further hurt consumers and cause more job loses. We are supporting a measure that would give California voters the chance to express their opinion on whether this legislation should be implemented now.”
Valero has also been active in opposing federal cap-and-trade regulations. In response to the climate bill passed by the House last June, Valero organized a “Voices for Energy” campaign against the bill and placed signs at its gas stations around the country depicting Uncle Sam warning drivers that the legislation would increase gasoline prices.
Steven Maviglio, spokesman for Californians for Clean Energy & Jobs, an alliance supporting the climate bill, said he had little doubt the organizers of the initiative would collect the required 434,000 signatures by mid-April to win a spot on the November ballot. He said his organization, representing technology firms, environmental advocates and public health groups, had raised nearly $1 million to defend the law. But he said both sides in the fight would probably raise tens of millions of dollars for what he called an environmental “battle royal” in the fall.
“Valero has been very outspoken on the national level against climate change regulation,” said Mr. Maviglio, who served as spokesman for Gray Davis, the Democratic governor whom Mr. Schwarzenegger succeeded in a lively recall election in 2003. “This is a strategic effort by the oil companies to try to unravel this law before it spreads throughout the country. The theory is if they can kill it here, they can kill it everywhere.”
There are already signs of economic and political unease in state capitals about climate change legislation. Arizona announced this year that it was pulling out of an embryonic regional greenhouse gas emissions trading group, and more than a dozen state attorneys general have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate global warming gases.
John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
WASHINGTON — Several Texas oil companies are bankrolling a petition drive to suspend California’s path-breaking climate change law in a move that may prove a bellwether for national efforts to address global warming.
The Valero Energy Corporation, a San Antonio-based company that is one of the nation’s largest independent oil refiners and retailers, has contributed $500,000 to a ballot initiative that would halt the carrying out of the California climate law known as Assembly Bill 32, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed in 2006. At least one other Texas oil company, Tesoro, with operations in California and a prominent antitax group are helping to finance the petition drive to place the initiative on the November general election ballot.
The California law, the first of its kind in the nation, is intended to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases by 15 percent below current levels by 2020 through a variety of means, including a regional cap-and-trade system. The bill also calls for greater efficiencies in buildings and transportation, more use of renewable sources of energy and greater reliance on clean-burning fuels. These are all major elements of climate change proposals now being discussed in Washington.
The fine points of the California plan, including the critical questions of how emissions permits would be allocated and how any revenues would be distributed, are still being worked out.
The ballot initiative would prevent the law’s taking effect until unemployment in California falls to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. The state’s current unemployment rate is 12.5 percent. The average statewide unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.9 percent.
Mr. Schwarzenegger has said he considers the climate change law one of the signal achievements of his administration and wants to see it put in place. He said recently he believed the petition drive was fueled by the “greed” of out-of-state energy companies.
“I think that the California people are outraged about the fact that Texas oil companies, Texas oil companies, are coming to California and trying to change laws and policies in California,” he said at a green technology exhibition in Sacramento last month. “I mean, it’s outrageous.”
But the governor has also expressed concern that the new law, scheduled to take effect in 2012, not harm the state’s crippled economy and cause additional job losses.
The California Jobs Initiative, the group collecting petition signatures to upend the California law, has raised just under $1 million, according to a spokeswoman for the group. Most of the money came from oil companies, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, founded by the father of California’s antitax movement, contributed $100,000.
A Valero spokesman, Bill Day, said costs would rise at the company’s two large refineries in California under the new emissions law because refineries use a lot of electricity and natural gas to heat and refine crude oil. Electricity prices would go up under the law, he said, and the consumption of natural gas produces carbon emissions that would be penalized under the legislation.
“Like the national cap-and-trade legislation, it does nothing at all to alleviate the problem of climate change, but it would have tremendously bad impacts on the California economy,” Mr. Day said. “This is exactly the wrong time to be implementing a cap and trade program that will further hurt consumers and cause more job loses. We are supporting a measure that would give California voters the chance to express their opinion on whether this legislation should be implemented now.”
Valero has also been active in opposing federal cap-and-trade regulations. In response to the climate bill passed by the House last June, Valero organized a “Voices for Energy” campaign against the bill and placed signs at its gas stations around the country depicting Uncle Sam warning drivers that the legislation would increase gasoline prices.
Steven Maviglio, spokesman for Californians for Clean Energy & Jobs, an alliance supporting the climate bill, said he had little doubt the organizers of the initiative would collect the required 434,000 signatures by mid-April to win a spot on the November ballot. He said his organization, representing technology firms, environmental advocates and public health groups, had raised nearly $1 million to defend the law. But he said both sides in the fight would probably raise tens of millions of dollars for what he called an environmental “battle royal” in the fall.
“Valero has been very outspoken on the national level against climate change regulation,” said Mr. Maviglio, who served as spokesman for Gray Davis, the Democratic governor whom Mr. Schwarzenegger succeeded in a lively recall election in 2003. “This is a strategic effort by the oil companies to try to unravel this law before it spreads throughout the country. The theory is if they can kill it here, they can kill it everywhere.”
There are already signs of economic and political unease in state capitals about climate change legislation. Arizona announced this year that it was pulling out of an embryonic regional greenhouse gas emissions trading group, and more than a dozen state attorneys general have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate global warming gases.
John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Frameworks for Environmental Policy (Final Paper Main Points)
1).We are coming to a point where reform and action must be taken in order to preserve national security of our nation, decrease our amount of carbon emissions, and preserve our world’s environmental well-being. Issues such as air quality, water quality, and environmental preservation have been among those discussed among various political actors. However, energy consumption and use has been added to these debates connecting the very source of these problems. Also, numerous proposals, solutions, and initiatives have been drafted, enacted, and implemented only to witness incremental and gradual change over the course of three decades.
The oil industry will slowly decline and become a minimal presence in the realm of energy. Jobs will most likely be lost or phased out in this area, however many more will expand within development of renewable energy and green technology. The potential of the renewable-energy mandate on utility companies will result in placing additional burdens on ratepayers and consumers. However over time, the price of efficiency will pay off, merely it is perception and possibly impatience by the public that could cause potential problems. Most economists will agree that, in order to reduce our dependence on petroleum we must make the price of using it more expensive than the alternative.
2).The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman (CA-30) who has along with co-sponsor Representative Ed Markey (D-MA). The bill was introduced last spring and was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26 by a vote 219-212. It has been sent to the Senate and possibly voted on with comprehensive debate this spring or summer. However, there have been talks of the Senate developing their own version or type of bill for debate. The Obama Administration, along with the Democratic controlled Congress are notable victors if legislation would become law.
Several utility and energy companies (Shell, Exelon, BP Solar, Entergy, and Renewable Fuels Association) have shown support for the bill along with manufacturing, labor, and agriculture companies. There are provisions in the bill that incrementally benefit these companies and industries, especially with the pollution offsets it outlines. Traditional environmental interest groups such as the Sierra Club have demonstrated strong support for ACES too. However, one notable organization, Greenpeace is against it stating that they disagree on the amount of minimal reduction required through the bill of emissions reduction. Many of the oil industry vehemently oppose this bill due to its threat to their profitable business.
3). The four main areas within the legislation that are yet unknown or speculative discussed by the EPA, DOE, and other private entities. One the EPA is not sure how advanced and developed nuclear technology will be, something to which is crucial for this legislation to be successful. Secondly, there is question to how many international offset projects will be available over the course of the next decade; this has the potential to skew benefits stated in emissions and agricultural offsets. Also, the exact amount of reduction of greenhouse gases during the course of the next 15 years is not solidified and could be altered by other unintended consequences. Lastly, and quite possibly one of the most important factors according to the EPA is the impact of the output based rebates to energy intensive and trade exposed industries.
This has consequences attached to that of the global economy, not only the United States. Moreover, the cost associated with funding for projects with ACES might not cover problems occurring during implementation, or may view policy in a normative perspective (accounting for issues in an ideal setting, instead of a realistic setting). One of the most debated aspects of the bill is that projections of future costs and pollution levels are very difficult to predict. Also, there is uncertainty about the future direction of the basic drivers of greenhouse gas emissions and the responsiveness economically, technologically, and behaviorally.
4). There are many things which the legislation looks to achieve through its language, these include renewable energy investments, new regulations, and programs dealing with climate change. Roughly $846 billion in new federal revenue will be generated over the next decade, while a projected $821 billion will be needed to meet the bill’s mandates. The bill contains numerous clean energy provisions such as stricter renewable electricity standards, more investments in clean energy, support of private investment in clean energy, and a modernization of our electrical grid. This mandates the entire nation to have at least 20 percent of energy use stem from renewable energy by the end of the decade. Also, roughly $200 billion will be allocated through the next 15 years towards state programs in energy efficiency, carbon capture technology advancement, and more research and development for renewable energy.
One of the more important and larger projects with the American Clean Energy and Security Act is the investment and expansion of transmission lines for smart grid technology for our nation. Additionally, there are energy efficiency provisions such as building, appliance, and vehicle standards listed within the bill which attempt to make our building structures more efficient by 50 percent towards the end of the decade. Furthermore, the legislation seeks to take a preemptive and proactive stance of combating climate change such as capping carbon emissions from major polluters, prevention of tropical deforestation, emission and agricultural offsets, cost-containment measures, and lastly carbon capture programs. The extensive nature of these programs strives to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent in 2020 and 80 by 2050 of the 2005 pollution levels.
5). The primary government entities responsible for implementation of the legislation if signed into law would be the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, along with minimal roles from Department of Education, and Department of Labor. Much of these organizations will perform enforcement, inspection, and implementation of programs outlined within the bill. New technologies in energy are available in both private and public sectors, and are vital to the bill’s success.
There is funding through some of the programs listed in the bill provided by the federal government in credits, grants, and loans. In dealing with these sources of funding local governments will be vital in distribution and assurance that money is being properly utilized. Along with new funding will be the creation of new intergovernmental organizations and entities such as the new USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee, the International Climate Change Adaption Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training program. U.S. government institutions, as well as state and local governments have some experience in dealing with this type of issue stemming from environmental legislation in the 1970s and early 1990s adopting new regulations and standards. Due to its large scope of addressing several issues, it may take some time to witness successful implementation though.
The oil industry will slowly decline and become a minimal presence in the realm of energy. Jobs will most likely be lost or phased out in this area, however many more will expand within development of renewable energy and green technology. The potential of the renewable-energy mandate on utility companies will result in placing additional burdens on ratepayers and consumers. However over time, the price of efficiency will pay off, merely it is perception and possibly impatience by the public that could cause potential problems. Most economists will agree that, in order to reduce our dependence on petroleum we must make the price of using it more expensive than the alternative.
2).The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman (CA-30) who has along with co-sponsor Representative Ed Markey (D-MA). The bill was introduced last spring and was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26 by a vote 219-212. It has been sent to the Senate and possibly voted on with comprehensive debate this spring or summer. However, there have been talks of the Senate developing their own version or type of bill for debate. The Obama Administration, along with the Democratic controlled Congress are notable victors if legislation would become law.
Several utility and energy companies (Shell, Exelon, BP Solar, Entergy, and Renewable Fuels Association) have shown support for the bill along with manufacturing, labor, and agriculture companies. There are provisions in the bill that incrementally benefit these companies and industries, especially with the pollution offsets it outlines. Traditional environmental interest groups such as the Sierra Club have demonstrated strong support for ACES too. However, one notable organization, Greenpeace is against it stating that they disagree on the amount of minimal reduction required through the bill of emissions reduction. Many of the oil industry vehemently oppose this bill due to its threat to their profitable business.
3). The four main areas within the legislation that are yet unknown or speculative discussed by the EPA, DOE, and other private entities. One the EPA is not sure how advanced and developed nuclear technology will be, something to which is crucial for this legislation to be successful. Secondly, there is question to how many international offset projects will be available over the course of the next decade; this has the potential to skew benefits stated in emissions and agricultural offsets. Also, the exact amount of reduction of greenhouse gases during the course of the next 15 years is not solidified and could be altered by other unintended consequences. Lastly, and quite possibly one of the most important factors according to the EPA is the impact of the output based rebates to energy intensive and trade exposed industries.
This has consequences attached to that of the global economy, not only the United States. Moreover, the cost associated with funding for projects with ACES might not cover problems occurring during implementation, or may view policy in a normative perspective (accounting for issues in an ideal setting, instead of a realistic setting). One of the most debated aspects of the bill is that projections of future costs and pollution levels are very difficult to predict. Also, there is uncertainty about the future direction of the basic drivers of greenhouse gas emissions and the responsiveness economically, technologically, and behaviorally.
4). There are many things which the legislation looks to achieve through its language, these include renewable energy investments, new regulations, and programs dealing with climate change. Roughly $846 billion in new federal revenue will be generated over the next decade, while a projected $821 billion will be needed to meet the bill’s mandates. The bill contains numerous clean energy provisions such as stricter renewable electricity standards, more investments in clean energy, support of private investment in clean energy, and a modernization of our electrical grid. This mandates the entire nation to have at least 20 percent of energy use stem from renewable energy by the end of the decade. Also, roughly $200 billion will be allocated through the next 15 years towards state programs in energy efficiency, carbon capture technology advancement, and more research and development for renewable energy.
One of the more important and larger projects with the American Clean Energy and Security Act is the investment and expansion of transmission lines for smart grid technology for our nation. Additionally, there are energy efficiency provisions such as building, appliance, and vehicle standards listed within the bill which attempt to make our building structures more efficient by 50 percent towards the end of the decade. Furthermore, the legislation seeks to take a preemptive and proactive stance of combating climate change such as capping carbon emissions from major polluters, prevention of tropical deforestation, emission and agricultural offsets, cost-containment measures, and lastly carbon capture programs. The extensive nature of these programs strives to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent in 2020 and 80 by 2050 of the 2005 pollution levels.
5). The primary government entities responsible for implementation of the legislation if signed into law would be the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, along with minimal roles from Department of Education, and Department of Labor. Much of these organizations will perform enforcement, inspection, and implementation of programs outlined within the bill. New technologies in energy are available in both private and public sectors, and are vital to the bill’s success.
There is funding through some of the programs listed in the bill provided by the federal government in credits, grants, and loans. In dealing with these sources of funding local governments will be vital in distribution and assurance that money is being properly utilized. Along with new funding will be the creation of new intergovernmental organizations and entities such as the new USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee, the International Climate Change Adaption Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training program. U.S. government institutions, as well as state and local governments have some experience in dealing with this type of issue stemming from environmental legislation in the 1970s and early 1990s adopting new regulations and standards. Due to its large scope of addressing several issues, it may take some time to witness successful implementation though.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Americans Rebuild for the "New Urban Century"
(CNN) -- In Charlotte, North Carolina, commuters zip along a sparkling new light rail system into a booming downtown district.
In Sacramento, California, construction workers hammer away at the next generation of green buildings.
And in New York City, rush-hour commuters pedal across popular bike paths that have spread like kudzu across the metropolis.
Those snapshots from cities across America offer a glimpse of the future. Americans are rebuilding their cities and communities to make people, not cars, the center of a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, urban planners and transportation experts say.
"We're creating infrastructure for human beings, rather than automobiles," says Michael Smith, CEO of Center City Partners in Charlotte, a group of business leaders that has helped lead a revival of the city's downtown.
Creating a new infrastructure means new rules, experts say.
What's on the way out: sprawling interstates, suburban living, long car commutes.
What's now in: light rail, green space and vibrant downtown districts.
"As you look at the cities that are going to thrive in the next century, there's a belief that we're entering the urban century," Smith says. "There's a new urbanism that's not about cul-de-sacs or expressways. It's sidewalks, bike paths and parks."
Where America is rebuilding
Smith points to downtown Charlotte as a prime example. During the past decade, downtown Charlotte has added new restaurants, art centers, the soon-to-be-opened NASCAR Hall of Fame and nightspots, Smith says.
Charlotte's downtown growth was the result of good planning, Smith says. Thirty years ago, the city's business and political leaders decided that Charlotte couldn't sustain its suburban growth. So they began rebuilding downtown and eventually won public support to install a light rail system, he says.
Even the Great Recession couldn't stop Charlotte's downtown revival because the rebuilding projects had so much momentum, Smith says.
"We were fortunate to have 30 cranes swinging in our city center as we moved into the teeth of the recession," Smith says.
What's happening in Charlotte is happening across the country, says Kathleen Hughes, executive producer of "Blueprint America," an ongoing PBS series that looks at the rebuilding of America's infrastructure.
During her research, Hughes says she encountered plenty of communities that are using stimulus money for embracing light rail projects and pushing the revitalization of downtown districts.
"There's a sense that America has been built out and spread out too far, and many of us live too far from our neighbors," Hughes says.
Americans aren't just rebuilding their transportation grid; they're also embracing alternate forms of travel, others say.
Bike lanes are popping up in American cities, says Aaron Naparstek, founder of Streetsblog. It's an online community for the Livable Streets movement, a coalition that seeks to transform cities by improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.
In cities such as Portland, Oregon, or New York, it's common now to see commuters biking to work, Naparstek says. In New York City alone, 300 miles of bike lanes have been added in the past four years, he says.
Naparstek says he can remember the moment when he thinks Americans' attitude to cars shifted.
"I'm old enough to remember my dad waiting in the gas lines during the first OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] gas crisis," he says. "To me, that was the beginning of the end for the American romance with the automobile."
Rebuilding values as well as roads
As America rebuilds, new industries arise as well.
Oscar Ortega was a construction company foreman who made about $70,000 a year before he was laid off at the end of 2007. With a wife and four daughters, he performed odd jobs to stay afloat.
"I tried not to let it affect me," he says. "If I walked around the home moping, it would affect my family. I tried to be as strong as I could."
Then Ortega read about job openings at ZETA Communities, a green construction company in Sacramento, California. ZETA builds "net-zero" energy homes (homes that produce as much energy as they consume by using devices such as solar panels).
Ortega applied and got a call back. Two years later, he's working as a green builder.
"I feel reborn," he says. "That's what the future is all about: staying green and saving the environment. This new construction is the wave of the future. I'm really excited to be a part of it."
Americans are not only rebuilding their cities and homes, they're also rebuilding their sense of community.
The Great Recession has also forced some to rediscover the value of community. Some of this has been done by establishing time banks, where members trade services that are tracked by hours rather than dollar value.
For example, one member of a time bank may provide an hour of tax advice to another. Another may weed a person's garden for an hour. Each hour-long act receives a "time dollar" that can be used to purchase someone else's labor.
Time banks are designed to build community, its founders say. It teaches people that everyone has value, even if they don't have a job. Thirty-five states have time banks, group founders say.
"The idea is that nobody's labor is worth more than anybody else's labor. We're all in this together," says Judith Lasker, a time bank member and a sociology professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who is writing a book about time bank organizations.
Some Americans are rebuilding their sense of values as well.
Matt Fredenberg of Alpharetta, Georgia, seems like a rarity in the Great Recession; he's working in a thriving industry.
Fredenberg helps his mother and sister run a Senior Helpers franchise. The national franchise sends workers to homes to help family members take care of aging relatives. Their services range from light housekeeping to running errands.
Fredenberg, 26, says his family franchise has 120 employees after four years of operation. Business has been so good that he says "we're hiring like crazy."
But Fredenberg is not talking about parlaying his success into buying bigger and shinier toys. He says he wants to learn from the mistakes of his parents' generation.
Fredenberg says he doesn't own a credit card, uses coupons to eat out and shuns buying more than he needs. His friends do the same.
"Even with cars and houses, we realize that you don't have to have the best," he says. "It doesn't have to be brand new and huge."
Though times are now tough, Fredenberg says his generation is confident. Better days are ahead.
"People are willing to sacrifice some luxuries to be more practical," he says. "We'll come out of this. People are willing to do what it takes."
In Sacramento, California, construction workers hammer away at the next generation of green buildings.
And in New York City, rush-hour commuters pedal across popular bike paths that have spread like kudzu across the metropolis.
Those snapshots from cities across America offer a glimpse of the future. Americans are rebuilding their cities and communities to make people, not cars, the center of a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, urban planners and transportation experts say.
"We're creating infrastructure for human beings, rather than automobiles," says Michael Smith, CEO of Center City Partners in Charlotte, a group of business leaders that has helped lead a revival of the city's downtown.
Creating a new infrastructure means new rules, experts say.
What's on the way out: sprawling interstates, suburban living, long car commutes.
What's now in: light rail, green space and vibrant downtown districts.
"As you look at the cities that are going to thrive in the next century, there's a belief that we're entering the urban century," Smith says. "There's a new urbanism that's not about cul-de-sacs or expressways. It's sidewalks, bike paths and parks."
Where America is rebuilding
Smith points to downtown Charlotte as a prime example. During the past decade, downtown Charlotte has added new restaurants, art centers, the soon-to-be-opened NASCAR Hall of Fame and nightspots, Smith says.
Charlotte's downtown growth was the result of good planning, Smith says. Thirty years ago, the city's business and political leaders decided that Charlotte couldn't sustain its suburban growth. So they began rebuilding downtown and eventually won public support to install a light rail system, he says.
Even the Great Recession couldn't stop Charlotte's downtown revival because the rebuilding projects had so much momentum, Smith says.
"We were fortunate to have 30 cranes swinging in our city center as we moved into the teeth of the recession," Smith says.
What's happening in Charlotte is happening across the country, says Kathleen Hughes, executive producer of "Blueprint America," an ongoing PBS series that looks at the rebuilding of America's infrastructure.
During her research, Hughes says she encountered plenty of communities that are using stimulus money for embracing light rail projects and pushing the revitalization of downtown districts.
"There's a sense that America has been built out and spread out too far, and many of us live too far from our neighbors," Hughes says.
Americans aren't just rebuilding their transportation grid; they're also embracing alternate forms of travel, others say.
Bike lanes are popping up in American cities, says Aaron Naparstek, founder of Streetsblog. It's an online community for the Livable Streets movement, a coalition that seeks to transform cities by improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.
In cities such as Portland, Oregon, or New York, it's common now to see commuters biking to work, Naparstek says. In New York City alone, 300 miles of bike lanes have been added in the past four years, he says.
Naparstek says he can remember the moment when he thinks Americans' attitude to cars shifted.
"I'm old enough to remember my dad waiting in the gas lines during the first OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] gas crisis," he says. "To me, that was the beginning of the end for the American romance with the automobile."
Rebuilding values as well as roads
As America rebuilds, new industries arise as well.
Oscar Ortega was a construction company foreman who made about $70,000 a year before he was laid off at the end of 2007. With a wife and four daughters, he performed odd jobs to stay afloat.
"I tried not to let it affect me," he says. "If I walked around the home moping, it would affect my family. I tried to be as strong as I could."
Then Ortega read about job openings at ZETA Communities, a green construction company in Sacramento, California. ZETA builds "net-zero" energy homes (homes that produce as much energy as they consume by using devices such as solar panels).
Ortega applied and got a call back. Two years later, he's working as a green builder.
"I feel reborn," he says. "That's what the future is all about: staying green and saving the environment. This new construction is the wave of the future. I'm really excited to be a part of it."
Americans are not only rebuilding their cities and homes, they're also rebuilding their sense of community.
The Great Recession has also forced some to rediscover the value of community. Some of this has been done by establishing time banks, where members trade services that are tracked by hours rather than dollar value.
For example, one member of a time bank may provide an hour of tax advice to another. Another may weed a person's garden for an hour. Each hour-long act receives a "time dollar" that can be used to purchase someone else's labor.
Time banks are designed to build community, its founders say. It teaches people that everyone has value, even if they don't have a job. Thirty-five states have time banks, group founders say.
"The idea is that nobody's labor is worth more than anybody else's labor. We're all in this together," says Judith Lasker, a time bank member and a sociology professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who is writing a book about time bank organizations.
Some Americans are rebuilding their sense of values as well.
Matt Fredenberg of Alpharetta, Georgia, seems like a rarity in the Great Recession; he's working in a thriving industry.
Fredenberg helps his mother and sister run a Senior Helpers franchise. The national franchise sends workers to homes to help family members take care of aging relatives. Their services range from light housekeeping to running errands.
Fredenberg, 26, says his family franchise has 120 employees after four years of operation. Business has been so good that he says "we're hiring like crazy."
But Fredenberg is not talking about parlaying his success into buying bigger and shinier toys. He says he wants to learn from the mistakes of his parents' generation.
Fredenberg says he doesn't own a credit card, uses coupons to eat out and shuns buying more than he needs. His friends do the same.
"Even with cars and houses, we realize that you don't have to have the best," he says. "It doesn't have to be brand new and huge."
Though times are now tough, Fredenberg says his generation is confident. Better days are ahead.
"People are willing to sacrifice some luxuries to be more practical," he says. "We'll come out of this. People are willing to do what it takes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)