Would Orville Wright Drill Offshore?

See below for an Op-Ed published today in the Baltimore Sun by CCAN Director Mike Tidwell. Enjoy.

Let’s make history again

By Mike Tidwell
July 23, 2008
Baltimore Sun

I recently stood on the windy coast of North Carolina where Orville and Wilbur Wright made their maiden flight in 1903. That motorized glider, constructed with bicycle parts, lifted off and flew nearly 900 feet in 59 seconds. Americans, astonishingly, were walking on the moon 66 years later.

The miracle of U.S. air and space travel, achieved in an eye blink, is something we should keep in mind as we once again turn to our coastlines for answers. The same windy Atlantic shore that gave rise to human flight now offers a new fork in the road with two profoundly different technological and moral visions awaiting our national decision.

One vision involves turning thousands of miles of our shoreline – on both coasts – into new havens for oil drilling. Never mind rapid global warming. Never mind our reckless addiction to oil. Never mind federal government data showing it would do little for gas prices. The new drumbeat, even among many Democrats, is, “We gotta get more – offshore, onshore, wherever.”

That’s certainly one vision for our coastlines for the 21st century.

Thankfully, there’s another, entirely different, vision out there. It embraces the pioneering spirit of the Wright brothers. It promises positive, transformative, sky’s-the-limit change. It’s a vision that says: Let’s build along our coastlines, but instead of oil platforms, let’s put up wind farms. And let’s tap the power of ocean waves and ocean tides for energy, rather than climate-wrecking crude oil. In the process, let’s make history so that schoolchildren remember 2008 they way they now remember 1903. Continue reading

Amory Lovins sounds off on the economics of energy

In the past few weeks, Amory Lovins, the co-founder, chairman and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado, who has been described as “one of the Western world’s most influential energy thinkers,” was all over the airwaves, talking about the rapid switch to renewable energy that will be necessary in the next few years, if we are to effectively combat the climate crisis.

The Goracle redefines climate leadership

Image by Chris Eichler

Al Gore may have lost the 2000 presidential election, but as the speech that he delivered Thursday to a packed house at the DAR center in DC indicates, he has definitely beaten his old rival George W. Bush when it comes to being presidential.

While most bloggers and commentators out there were quick to start parsing all the nitty-gritty particulars of Al’s speech yesterday, I would venture that the majority of them

Coal is what it is–VP candidates and coal

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Barack Obama shone some of his rays of hope on the climate movement. He named “serious” action on global warming as one of the benchmarks for success in his first term. “If I haven’t gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we’ve missed the boat.”

In order to deal “seriously” with climate change, we need a moratorium on new coal plants. According to James Hansen, “it’s just silly to build a new one now.” And yet VP hopeful, our own Governor Tim Kaine, aggressively pushed for his and Dominion’s coal plant in Wise County. As Gov. Kaine says on this video, “There are some who say that you can’t build any new coal plants, and I don’t agree with that.”


Join the campaign at www.chesapeakeclimate.org/nocoal

Another VP hopeful, Kathleen Sebelius, has a record on coal that is much more promising than Gov. Kaine’s. She made herself a hero by standing up to a Republican legislature and strong utilities by blocking a coal plant from being built. Even the Republicans have a strong hero in the VP running. Florida Governor Charlie Crist successfully halted the construction of a new coal plant and stated his strong support of renewable energy. “Coal is what it is and I know it’s been an important source of energy in the past. But you know we have solar, we have nuclear, we have wind and other alternative opportunities for energy in the Sunshine State.”

It’s obvious that Kaine supports coal. He wants coal now, and he wants coal in the future. Is this going to meet up with Obama’s stated goal, to seriously address global warming?

Sneak Preview of the Maryland Climate Action Plan

Exciting news for Maryland climate action aficionados! A plenary session of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change convened in Baltimore today for a final discussion and review of their hotly anticipated Climate Action Plan, and I had a front row seat to all the action. The Plan is officially scheduled for public release on June 25th, so mark your calendars and prepare a nice cozy spot to kick back and enjoy what is sure to be a truly climatolicious read.

Though access to advance copies of the report has been restricted thus far to Commission members and government officials, the Commissioners did drop a few tantalizing hints as to its content. According to commissioner George “Tad” Aburn, the real meat of the report is contained in Chapter 2 – a comprehensive assessment of climate change in MD – Chapter 4 on carbon reduction strategies and Chapter 5 on adaptation strategies. Most of the content is sure to be on the wonky side, but for those of you who’d prefer a more publicly accessible version, fear not, there’s an executive summary for the uninitiated. Indeed, the report contains something for climate watchers of all stripes. Of particular interest to the CCAN community is the Chapter entitled Next Steps which discusses work that will need to be done in coming months to turn the report’s stellar recommendations into stellar public policy. To that end, the Commissioners will be meeting informally with environmental, labor, and industrial interests over the next few months to start hammering out a policy road map that everyone can live with. A more formal stakeholder process will follow in September, and the Commission will also sit down with Governor O’Malley sometime before summer’s end.

At the end of what turned out to be the shortest meeting in the Commission’s history the commissioners formally ratified the new report by unanimous vote. If the report ends up bearing legislative fruit, it would undoubtedly propel Maryland to the head of the learning curve on the national climate action front by putting the state on a path to an spectacularly ambitious 50 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020, and 90 percent by 2050. Such bold action would be particularly apropos for a state that is so vulnerable to climate change, and would set a fantastic example for other states and our foot-dragging federal neighbors to follow. So lets make sure that our legislators get on the ball this year and heed the recommendations of the Commission. The rewards of action will be a boon to Maryland and the country at large; the cost of inaction could be unthinkable.

Just how unthinkable? Log on to the Commission’s website on the 25th and download your personal copy of the report to find out.

Dominion Power vs. Basic Economics

The Associated Press reported the other day that the price of coal has gone through the roof from $40 to $90 per ton in just the last year. The causes of this increase are many, from short term problems (like floods in major Australian mines), emerging competition for the resource from China and India, and long term problems having to do with increased demand. The take home message is that coal is getting more expensive, and that is causing the electricty providers to raise rates.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the states and utilities that rely most heavily on coal are being the hardest hit by this growing energy boondoggle. States like West Virginia that get more than 90% of their energy from coal saw their electricity rates rise twice as fast as the national average in 2007 (4.6% vs. 2.3%). Rate increases like these impact the already stressed poor communities the most, the ones that are barely able to pay their utility bills in the first place.

To many of us that understand basic economics, the price increases that we are currently seeing with coal, gas and oil are not entirely surprising. All fossil fuels are fininte resources that are used and not replaced. As the world uses more and more of these resources, the scarcer and more valuable they become, and therefore the price goes up accordingly.

This is not wholly a bad thing if the economy is allowed to work its magic. Other forms of (renewable) energy will become more competitive, our reliance on fossil fuels will go down as we use more alternative energies to meet our needs, and as demand for fossil fuels drops so will the price. Pure magic.

But our utilities are not listening to the market and apparently are not big fans of Adam Smith.

In spite of fact that we are running out of coal and prices are skyrocketing, Dominion Power still wants to build a new coal plant to lock Virginians into 50 more years of dirty, inefficient, and expensive technology. The last time I checked, the price of solar and wind energy were coming down — they also provide the benefit of utilizing power sources (the sun and wind) that is not subject to price shocks. So it wouldn’t matter how much of the sun China is using, we will still get our fair share as well.

Dominion is not thinking like a rational consumer, they are mortgaging our future for short term gains (for why that is bad, see: the current housing foreclosure crisis). Wind and solar are predictable investments, coal is not.

Our Commonwealth would be better served by renewable energy, if only we had the leadership to help bring it here.

The G-8 likes it hot

An excerpt from the G-8 statement released on Tuesday:

“We, the nations of the G-8, recognize that we face a dramatic worldwide crisis. One that threatens to undermine the economic and social progress that has lifted so many out of poverty and towards a higher standard of living. Everything for which we have worked since the formation of this group will be destroyed if we do not act with forceful haste to solve this crisis. We witness that killing babies has an overall negative effect on the welfare of society at large and that such acts should be dealt with swiftly and resolutely. Furthermore, while we acknowledge the economic necessity of reliable electricity, the recent construction of new baby-fired power plants does not reflect the spirit of goodwill and progress we demand of ourselves as world leaders.

We must move toward a world that minimizes the number of babies killed and do so in a manner consistent with the reasonable capacity and respective responsibility of the countries involved. The G-8 therefore proposes (in a non-binding agreement) to take serious measures to cut the rate of baby-killing by 50% by 2050. To reach this benchmark will require sacrifice from us all; we must reduce the amount of driving in baby-powered cars, increase energy efficiency to shrink demand on baby-fired power plants and cut back on flying in baby-fueled jets. The damage done by baby killing is real, and as world leaders we will set the bar for cutting the rate of baby killing around the world.”

And set the bar they will. If you understand how science works and have some moral clarity about global warming you realize that the conclusions of scientists aren’t a jumping off point for compromise. When experts on climate change say you need to cut CO2 emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 they aren’t high-balling you. Seriously, is 50% a low ball offer? Are you hoping the scientists come back and say “Ok, how about 65%? And we’ll throw in a free microwave.”

Come on guys. The 80% benchmark is widely acknowledged as sound. That’s the science, straight up. The G-8’s soft benchmark in soft language amounts to an egregious shirking of an enormous responsibility. This is especially frustrating since there are so many ways to accomplish robust goals of CO2 reduction and enliven the economy at the same time.
Continue reading

An oil man's clean energy plan

If you haven’t heard, T. Boone Pickens has waded into the clean energy debate. He’s leading the charge for wind energy production in Texas and the Midwest as a solution to our foreign oil dependence. It’s a good effort from the conservative movement to get into clean energy, but from a climate standpoint, it’s just where the new line has been drawn.


Continue reading