Obama's Energy Plan

I hear people say that they aren't exactly sure what Obama's position is on this issue or that one, so I thought I would blog about his positions.  How do I know?  It's on his friggin' Website, detailed in minute detail.  But who's got time to read his Website?  (I guess)

Here are the high points of Obama's energy plan (infested with my opinions on each point):

Short Term Fixes

• Emergency gasoline rebate ($500/individual, $1000/family) to consumers paid for with a windfall profit tax on energy companies  (I'm not crazy about this, it is politically expediency, but hey, it'll get him some votes)
• Crack down on energy speculation a-la Enron-style by (this is important) closing loopholes and increasing transparency (this isn't our biggest issue in energy but the loophole-closing aspect of it is good)
• Swap light and heavy crude, release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve (again, a short-term fix [as they note on the site] but might help bring prices down a bit)

Longer Term Strategies

• Cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions - goal - 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (I would prefer a commons trust approach, but cap-and-trade is a great start)
• Work through the U.N. to make the U.S. a leader on climate change (smart)
• Accelerate commercialization of plug-in hybrid cars, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low-emission coal plants, advance next generation biofuels, build digital electricity grid (this is cool stuff, except for the stupid, stupid, stupid clean coal stuff, but it is there to grab votes, so okay)
• Create a "Green Vet Initiative."  Job placement for vets of Afghanistan and Iraq to gain skills in renewable energy jobs (love this soooo much - why isn't it talked about more on the campaign trail???)
• Invest $1B per year into switching manufacturing areas over to renewable energy (how many birds did you just kill with that one stone???  Love this)
• Increase fuel economy standards 4% a year (great)
• Put 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.  How can a government do that??  Well, guess how big the government's fleet of vehicles is?  Obama is going to switch the entire White House fleet to plug-in hybrids in one year, then half of the entire government fleet by 2012. $7,000 tax credit for people buying plug-in hybrid cars!!  (great idea)
• A focus on "next generation biofuels" read: cellulosic, not corn.  (smart)
• Better prioritization of current drilling efforts for oil and gas (this is good, although not that exciting)
• Require 10% of all electricity produced to come from renewable sources (that ain't "clean coal")
• Safe and secure nuclear energy (I personally am in favor of this, although I know a lot of liberals aren't - it is part of the entire energy self-sufficiency picture)
• Big focus on energy efficiency (biggest, fastest payback)
• A new building code, all buildings carbon-neutral by 2030 (great)
• Reduce federal energy consumption.  The U.S. Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the world.  Why not start there?????  (can you see why I love this guy??)
• Build more livable, sustainable communities (super long-term, but what is wrong with thinking super-long term??)

I really have to apologize for my cheerleading on each point, but, Jeez, I can't help it.  This is one great energy policy.  Half the points are things I've been wishing to see from candidates for years and years, and there are a lot of points that I hadn't even considered until I read them in the PDF.

By the way, I'm hoping my short post here encourages you to read the original PDF on Obama's Website.  This was put together by some really smart people.

photo credit:  Felix Francis on Flickr (creative commons)

What To Do With All That Carbon Dioxide? Make Chalk!

EcoGeek reports that a new startup called Carbon Sciences is proposing to make chalk out of excess carbon dioxide, preventing the CO2 from going into the atmosphere.

Their idea is to turn the CO2 into chalk, or calcium carbonate, which is used in toothpaste, yogurt, PVC piping, paper, wallboard and many other things.

Click over to my new favorite blog EcoGeek for more details and an interview with the founder of Carbon Sciences.

Carbon Tax vs Carbon Markets vs Commons Trust

There is a debate as to whether carbon taxes or carbon markets are better to reduce our greenhouse gas problem.

Carbon tax means adding a tax amount at the retail level that will be directed to fixing the environment. The arguments for it are that it is pretty simple and it is harder for the oil companies to play games to avoid it. The arguments against it are that it is an uphill battle politically (more taxes! is this communism??) and that it would impact the poor more than the rich. For an argument in favor of carbon taxes see this article and this advocacy Website.

Carbon markets are where the goverment sets up a bunch of permits to pollute and gives them to corporations based on their current pollution amounts, then the corporations are allowed to trade them amongst themselves. When this occurs, say the advocates, the corporations start to compete among themselves to use fewer permits so they can sell more of them to the greater polluters.

People who like the idea of carbon markets say that it is a true market-based solution to the problem. People who are against it say that it will take a long time to reduce pollution because the permits represent the current level of pollution and it will take years before this system will get us down to the levels we need to be. For an article showing carbon markets in a positive light, see this.

But there is a third view on how to reduce greenhouse gases. Peter Barnes, co-founder of Working Assets, wrote a book recently called Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons (Bk Currents) where he states that both carbon markets and carbon taxes are too problematic to be helpful in the long term battle against pollution. He sees a better alternative with establishing a commons trust. This would be where a third type of institution (not government, not private) is built in the United States (or any country) that is solely responsible for preserving the commons. In global warming terms, the commons refers to the atmosphere, clean water and healthy forests - the general ecosystem. The trustees represent all of us, including the future unborn generations, as well as the non-human species and the ecosystem itself. Their responsibility it to those stakeholders.

Each year, the trust would collect money from corporations who "use up" our commons in any way, either through polluting our air or water, chopping down trees, contaminating the soil or any other usage of the commons. Barnes calls this "commons rent." Those fees would go into three places: towards restoration of the commons (planting trees, cleaning up polluted areas), checks to all citizens and also investments. Yes, he is suggesting that each of us receive a check each year (or month) representing our share of the commons that was used during that period.

Commons trustees would not be government employees and would not have any connection to the government or the current political party in charge. Commons trustees would have a written contract with the U.S. citizenry and future generations that would keep them from violating the commons in any way. Trustees would be appointed by the federal government and then have long terms of duty, similar to Supreme Court justices.

I think this is an interesting idea, and certainly is different than carbon taxes or carbon markets. It has a lot of benefits, but I'm sure it would take a long time to educate people/voters about it. The nice thing is that you could start small, say, just the forests in southeastern Ohio, and then see how the small experiments work and move to bigger goals later.

Systems like this are already in place today. The largest is the Alaska Permanent Fund, set up to allow citizens of Alaska to participate in oil revenues. Each Alaskan gets a check of about $1,000 a year representing their share of the oil taken out of Alaska.

Let me know what you think of these three options. Probably the best idea is to try them all in small ways and see which ones work best.

Peter Barnes' blog is here.

An Intelligent Response to "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Nicholson of "The Australian"
newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au


When I viewed the documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I was more than a little suspicious.

Were these scientists who were quoted really scientists, and if so, where did they get their funding?

The source I always ALWAYS turn to when I'm concerned about scientific issues is the podcast "Geek Counterpoint." This podcast is produced by a guy who is a scientist and engineer and the information is always backed up by tons and tons of references. The host, Lorne Ipsum, uses the podcast to cut through the hysterics and misinformation which dominate the mass media, and he does it in a calm, professional manner. No name-calling, no screaming.

Lorne took on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" a few weeks ago and documented exactly the problems with each argument presented in the film and the extensive questionable associations that the featured "scientists" had with oil companies and lobby groups.

I especially find it very interesting that the scientists who are the most-quoted advocates of the "Swindle" are some of the same scientists who were happy to say that cigarette smoking didn't cause lung cancer in the 70s and 80s. Can you say "PhD For Sale???"

I strongly suggest that you listen to the Geek Counterpoint podcast on this documentary and read the Website entry as well. I think you'll be very happy you found it.

I also found it useful to go through the Geek Counterpoint podcasts on global warming preceding this episode, including Climate Change 101, Climate Change and Logical Fallacies (The Argument Clinic), Climate Change - The Skeptics Pt 1, Climate Change - The Skeptics Pt 2, Climate Change - The Skeptics Pt 3 (Naming Names), and a quickie post (not a podcast) called More on the "Swindle."

Geek Counterpoint Podcast Home Page
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" Geek Counterpoint episode
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" trailer
Recent evidence of Exxon's attempt to bribe scientists to criticize global warming

NOTE: The film had been viewable online through Google Video, but it looks like it has been removed, probably for copyright violations, would be my guess.

Charging for Food Left on the Plate

There just ain't much room left in Hong Kong. For this reason, and as a gesture toward preventing global warming, restaurants in this small Asian country are now charging customers for leaving food on their plate. The food gets dumped into a landfill, starts to rot, which creates methane, which is a notorious greenhouse gas. Plus, the landfills are too big and there's no space left to create new ones.

The charge for not being a "clean plater" is about 64 cents per ounce of food left. What a surprise it must be to get your check at the end of dinner and see a charge at the bottom for what you didn't eat!

It kind of makes sense though. Every little thing we can do to create less waste is a good thing.

Thanks to Greethinkers for pointing this article out.