Growing Renewable Energy in the U.S. through CLEAN Contracts - a Perfect Fit

A Policy to Repower the Nation with Clean Energy

No policy has helped other countries expand their renewable sources of electricity more than the CLEAN contract, also known as a feed-in tariff or FIT. Transparency, certainty and longevity of the contract forms the basis for its widespread acceptance, and its success in developing wind and solar power in other countries and a few states.

A CLEAN contract makes Clean Local Energy Accessible Now. The policy allows renewable energy project owners to sell their electricity to utilities at a predetermined, fixed price for a long period of time. Clean energy providers are paid a price for their electricity that covers the cost of the generation. It makes clean energy investment a smarter choice for homeowners, utilities, and developers of renewable energy projects.

The CLEAN contract helps overcome upfront cost barriers to investment by making renewable energy projects more easy to finance. The contract offers a standardized process for new projects, minimizing uncertainty for developers and confusion for homeowners. It reduces risk and lowers the costs of getting things built. The CLEAN contract makes it easier to run businesses, build projects, and give consumers what they want.

The Center for American Progress has written a detailed paper that examines the workings and ingredients of CLEAN contracts. The paper also looks at how lawmakers and advocates can successfully move CLEAN contracts forward given how the contracts are affected by federal regulation. Finally, it provides recommendations to ensure that policies benefit ratepayers, workers, investors, and the U.S. economy.

Learn more about CLEAN contracts at the Center for American Progress. A brief description of CLEAN contracts is provided in a video here and also below.

Isn't it time that we get on board and promote renewable energy development on a large scale through CLEAN contracts? Implementation of CLEAN contracts across the U.S. will accelerate clean energy deployment, recharge the economy and create new jobs. A shift from burning fossil fuels to utilizing clean energy sources will curb greenhouse gas emissions, reduce toxic pollution and protect human health.

Clean Energy News

Obama Asks Congress to Eliminate Oil Subsidies and Invest in Tomorrow's Energy

President Obama spoke in the State of the Union address of the promise of renewable energy, and the need to reinvent our energy policy and support innovation.

Obama said, "to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." He added, "I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s."

Confirming his assertion, oil company profits are rising, as reported in the NY Times.


Clearing the Way for a Native Opportunity in America’s “Sputnik Moment”

Clean energy deployment in American Indian country can help address many woes, including limited access to electricity, high energy costs and elevated unemployment rates and poverty. Tribal lands are robust in renewable energy derived from the wind and sun.

An article by Van Jones, Bracken Hendricks and Jorge Madrid suggests ideas to stimulate a new wave of investment in clean energy and activate the economic potential of tribal lands. Read the article here.

Wind Action of a Different Sort

Wind turbines are for generating electricity from a clean, renewable energy source, the wind.

The local Wind Action Group in Buffalo promotes ways of developing our wind resources that maximize the benefits to the public. However, they do not advocate utilizing our resources for the type of wind action shown in the video below.

Please do NOT try this at Steel Winds or any other wind farm!



To learn more about the Buffalo Wind Action Group, click here.

VIDEO: Abreviated History of Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels have powered human growth and ingenuity for centuries. However, fossil fuel resources are limited, and obtaining, transporting and burning fossil fuels are creating problems for the environment, public health and national security. We need to prepare for moving beyond fossil fuels and transitioning to clean, renewable energy sources.

The video below depicts an abbreviated history of fossil fuels in a creative way, through time-lapse photography of hand drawn illustrations. Watch it and see 300 years of fossil fuel history in 300 seconds:

Power Shift 2011: April 15-18, DC Convention Center

Power Shift 2011 is now set for April 15-18 in Washington DC’s Convention Center — the largest available space in the nation’s capital.

The event is organized by the Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement. Their website states:

Power Shift 2011 is our opportunity to come together and define the way forward for our movement. Together we'll celebrate our grassroots success stories, hear from movement leaders, and learn from and train each other to launch new campaigns. We'll take bold action to set the tone in Washington and show them what true leadership looks like. If it's anything like years past, Power Shift 2011 is bound to be historic.

Power Shift 2007 and 2009 were the largest convergences of young environmental and social justice activists in U.S. history. The 2009 event was the largest lobby day ever on Capitol Hill.

To learn more about the 2011 event, visit the Energy Action Coalition on the web.

To REGISTER, Click Here. Register by Sunday, February 13 to get the discounted rate.

FaceBook Page is here.

To see earlier posts about Power Shift 2009, click here.

To see an extensive post about University at Buffalo student involvement in Power Shift 2009, visit Re-ENERGIZE BUFFALO.

The UB students also held a local Power Shift event in 2010.

Where does electricity come from?

Do you know where your electricity comes from?

Fifty percent of the electricity in the U.S. is generated from burning coal.

Despite all of the industry hype about "clean coal", there is no such thing, and there never will be. Coal is dirty from start to finish: mining, mountaintop removal, watershed pollution, transportation, burning, greenhouse gas emissions, mercury and acid pollution of waterways, and toxic solid waste.

Isn't it high time to invest more into renewable energy, make the transition to a clean energy economy and create new jobs for coal miners and many others?

"The Story of Coal" video, below, was produced by a company that sells solar panels that use the free energy of the sun to make electricity. Other types of clean, renewable energy come from wind, hydropower and geothermal sources.

Watch the video to learn more about dirty coal.

Climate Action and Energy Policy News

Bill McKibben is the recipient of the 2010 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship. The award is given to an individual who has challenged the status quo through distinctive, courageous, imaginative, and socially responsible work of significance. Read more here.

The recent elections will have major consequences for U.S. climate and energy policy. Read about the Election Results, State Elections, The Role of Dirty Money, What's Next for Climate?, and the Lame Duck Outlook.
See a summary by Jason Kowalski, Policy Coordinator at 1Sky.org in Washington, DC.

This November 20-27, the week before the United Nations meets in Cancun to continue negotiations on a global climate treaty, 350.org is organizing the first ever planetary art show: 350 EARTH.
See the article by Jamie Henn, 350.org Co-founder and Communications Director.

Don't believe in global warming? That's not very conservative.

By Bracken Hendricks
The Washington Post
Sunday, November 7, 2010

Few causes unite the conservatives of the newly elected 112th Congress as unanimously as their opposition to government action on climate change.

In September, the Center for American Progress Action Fund surveyed Republican candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races and found that nearly all disputed the scientific consensus on global warming, and none supported measures to mitigate it. For example, Robert Hurt, who won Tom Perriello's House seat in Virginia, says clean-energy legislation would fail to "do anything except harm people." The tea party's "Contract From America" calls proposed climate policies "costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures." Even conservatives who once argued for action on climate change, such as as Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.), have run for cover.

But it's conservatives who should fear climate change the most. To put it simply, if you hate big government, try global warming on for size.

Many conservatives say they oppose clean-energy policies because they want to keep government off our backs. But they have it exactly backward. Doing nothing will set our country on a course toward narrower choices for businesses and individuals, along with an expanded role for government. When catastrophe strikes - and yes, the science is quite solid that it will - it will be the feds who are left conducting triage.

My economic views are progressive, and I think government has an important role in tackling big problems. But I admire many cherished conservative values, from personal responsibility to thrift to accountability, and I worry that conservatives' lock-step posture on climate change is seriously out of step with their professed priorities. A strong defense of our national interests, rigorous cost-benefit analysis, fiscal discipline and the ability to avoid unnecessary intrusions into personal liberty will all be seriously compromised in a world marked by climate change.

In fact, far from being conservative, the Republican stance on global warming shows a stunning appetite for risk. When faced with uncertainty and the possibility of costly outcomes, smart businessmen buy insurance, reduce their downside exposure and protect their assets. When confronted with a disease outbreak of unknown proportions, front-line public health workers get busy producing vaccines, pre-positioning supplies and tracking pathogens. And when military planners assess an enemy, they get ready for a worst-case encounter.

When it comes to climate change, conservatives are doing none of this. Instead, they are recklessly betting the farm on a single, best-case scenario: That the scientific consensus about global warming will turn out to be wrong. This is bad risk management and an irresponsible way to run anything, whether a business, an economy or a planet.

The great irony is that, should their high-stakes bet prove wrong, adapting to a destabilized climate would mean a far bigger, more intrusive government than would most of the "big government" solutions to our energy problems that have been discussed so far.

Let's start with costs. The investment needed to slow carbon pollution might total from 1 to 2 percent of global GDP each year for several decades, according to a 2006 study by the British government. This spending would pay for advanced technology, better land use and modern infrastructure. The same study put the cost of inaction - including economic harm from property damage and lost crops - at 5 to 20 percent of global GDP, lasting in perpetuity, with the risk of vastly higher catastrophic damage. You tell me which option is more fiscally responsible.

But it's not this cost-benefit arithmetic that should most concern conservatives. Their real worry should be what it will take to manage the effects of climate change as they are felt across the economy over the course of our lifetimes.

The best science available suggests that without taking action to fundamentally change how we produce and use energy, we could see temperatures rise 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States by 2090. These estimates have sometimes been called high-end predictions, but the corresponding low-end forecasts assume we will rally as a country to shift course. That hasn't happened, so the worst case must become our best guess.

With temperature increases in this range, studies predict a permanent drought throughout the Southwest, much like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, but this time stretching from Kansas to California. If you hate bailouts or want to end farm subsidies, this is a problem. Rising ocean acidity, meanwhile, will bring collapsing fisheries, catch restrictions - and unemployment checks. And rising sea levels will mean big bills as cash-strapped cities set about rebuilding infrastructure and repairing storm damage. With Americans in pain, the government will have to respond. And who will shoulder these new burdens? Future taxpayers.

This is just the beginning. If conservatives' rosy hopes prove wrong, who but the federal government will undertake the massive infrastructure projects necessary to protect high-priced real estate in Miami and Lower Manhattan from rising oceans? And what about smaller coastal cities, such as Galveston and Corpus Christi in Texas? Will it fall to FEMA or some other part of the federal government to decide who will move and when and under what circumstances? Elsewhere, with declining river flows, how will the Bureau of Reclamation go about repowering the dams of the Pacific Northwest?

And while we're busy at home, who will help Pakistan or Bangladesh in its next flood? What will the government do to secure food supplies when Russia freezes wheat exports? Without glaciers, what will become of Lima, Peru, a city dependent on melting ice for drinking water? Will we let waves of "climate refugees" cross our borders?

As the physicist and White House science director John Holdren has said: "We basically have three choices: mitigation [cutting emissions], adaptation and suffering. We're going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be."

Today's conservatives would do well to start thinking more like military planners, reexamining the risks inherent in their strategy. If, instead, newly elected Republicans do nothing, they will doom us all to bigger government interventions and a large dose of suffering - a reckless choice that's anything but conservative.

Bracken Hendricks is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a co-author, with Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), of "Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy."

Karl Rove denies climate change, likes fracking - GASLAND's Josh Fox responds

Karl Rove is in denial about climate change, and the GOP thinks it's a scientific fraud. Rove is also promoting gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale by hydraulic fracturing, i.e., fracking.

Josh Fox, GASLAND filmmaker, exposes the water and air pollution caused by fracking, and advocates the switch to renewable energy for America's future.

Watch the report by Keith Olbermann and interview with Josh Fox:

Burn Dirty Coal, Lose Facebook Friends

Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, is facing criticism from many, including clean energy activists. Greenpeace, for one, objects to Facebook’s decision to build a massive new data center that will be powered disproportionately by burning coal, emissions from which are a major contributor to global warming.

Greenpeace wants Facebook to use more energy from renewable sources, such as the wind, or the sun like Google does. In their animated film, the Greenpeace warns that they have a half a million people on Facebook who oppose coal power, and that Mr. Zuckerberg could lose all those “friends” if he proceeds as planned. Check out the video:

A Road Not Taken ... Again!

President Jimmy Carter's White House Solar Panels Rejected Again

The film "A Road Not Taken" tells the story about the solar thermal panels that were put on the White House in 1979 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, a solar energy advocate who also created the Department of Energy.

The solar panels were taken down during the Reagan administration, warehoused, and later put back into service at Unity College in Maine, generating hot water using the free, clean energy of our sun.

The title of the film is apropos even today, given the Obama Administration's refusal to take an historic Carter solar panel from Bill McKibben and students from Unity College on Sept. 10. The gift was symbolic, but for those interested in Obama's promise of a clean energy future, the refusal of the gift is just another example of a road not taken.

The film trailer of "A Road Not Taken" is below. Watch, listen and then let Obama know how you feel (see some reactions to the White House refusal, below).



Bryan Walsh at TIME.com stated, "given how unhappy many greens are feeling towards the White House, rebuffing McKibben and his friends doesn't look all that great—especially to the young, committed activists who helped form Obama's Army in 2008."

Here's what Amanda Nelson, a Unity College student who traveled with McKibben, told Andy Revkin:

I didn't expect I'd get to shake President Obama's hand, but it was really shocking to me to find out that they really didn't seem to care. They couldn't even give us a statement…. They did stress it's a slow process and I recognize that. What we did today maybe will help a year from now. But right now it didn't happen.

Personally, I think it is lame that the Obama administration refused the Unity College solar panel, which is not only a piece of history from former President Jimmy Carter's White House, but also a symbol of energy independence and a clean, renewable energy future.

But the future is now, because it was 31 years ago that Jimmy Carter said, "A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people."

It was a road not taken for Reagan, and now again for Obama.

Bill McKibben on the Letterman Show

Environmentalist Bill McKibben appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman and discussed climate change, putting solar back on the White House, and a Global Work Party on October 10, 2010 -- 10/10/10.

Moving Beyond the BP Oil Spill

Beyond BP
Restoring the gulf will take decades. But we can start getting off oil now.
By MICHAEL BRUNE, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

It looks a lot worse out on the water than it does on TV. The Gulf of Mexico is literally a sea of oil, with countless orange-brown waves of sludge washing into its beautiful salt marshes. We passed oil-drenched pelicans and dolphins, with no rescue crews anywhere nearby. It was heartbreaking.

If we can find ways to get from Point A to Point B without financing terrorism and cooking the planet, there's no reason we can't finally move—as BP's 2000 corporate rebranding effort put it—"beyond petroleum."

Here's the good news: When the Exxon Valdez ran aground 21 years ago, we didn't have the wealth of alternatives to oil that are available today. For example, we could save more than 25 percent of the oil that's extracted from the Gulf of Mexico if we used alternate energy sources for home heating and electricity production. We could save more than the total amount of oil produced in the gulf (or all the oil we import from the entire Persian Gulf) by moving freight from highways to railways and repowering commercial vehicles with cleaner fuels.

As individuals, there is much that we can and must do to cut oil consumption, starting with walking, biking, and riding transit whenever possible. The single most effective thing we can do as a country to get off oil, however, is to electrify transportation. The days of tinkering around with tiny increases in fuel economy should be long gone.

The full article is here.

BP Oil Spill: Is 75% of the Oil Really GONE?

An estimated 5 million barrels (~200 million gallons!) of oil gushed out of the Deepwater Horizon well. White House advisor on energy and climate change, Carol Browner, announced that "more than three-quarters of the oil is gone". This estimate was called overly optimistic, to say the least, by experts.

Here is how a pelican on the gulf coast reacted to the initial "good news" from the Administration in Washington about the BP oil spill cleanup:

[click image to enlarge]

But where did all of the unrecovered oil go?

Bill Lehr, a senior scientist in NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration, later testified before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in Washington that in reality about three-fourths of the oil is "still in the environment" -- dispersed or dissolved at or below the water surface, and evaporated into the air. Read more here.

Scientists funded by the National Science Foundation and affiliated with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have detected a plume of hydrocarbons at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Read more here.

Questions still remain about the possible long-term environmental effects of the oil that remains in the gulf.

We have only One Environment -- the water, air, land -- there is no backup plan. We have got to end our addiction to oil!

British Petroleum claimed originally that its initials stood for "Beyond Petroleum". According to an Editorial in the journal, Science, "Beyond Petroleum" could be the right slogan for the Policy Changes needed to end the U.S. national addiction to oil. That outcome will require a mix of solutions involving the Congress, the American public, businesses, the Administration, and environmental organizations — all driven by passionate conviction about the need for change. Read more here.

Get Serious about Clean, Renewable Energy

President, after president, after president...for the past 40 years...has given lip service to the need for ending our addiction to fossil fuels.



We have seen what offshore oil drilling can do to damage the environment, the fishing industry and tourism. We have seen what dirty coal can do in terms of mountaintop removal, smog, acid rain, mercury pollution, and fly ash waste. We have watched the carbon pollution increase and the global average temperature rise.

Tell President Obama that it is time to get serious about shifting to clean, renewable energy.

Add your name to a letter to President Obama, and let him know that we stand with him for a strong renewable energy and climate bill to end our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and to build America's clean energy future.

How BP Execs handle a Spill

The tragedy of the BP oil spill, and the multiple failures to contain and stop it, beg for some comic relief. Watch a video showing how BP executives deal with a different type of spill.

Oil Spill: What are We Thinking?

Excerpts from the article:

Missing the real drama of the Deepwater Horizon blowout
By Bill McKibben

Let’s think about the stories that are suggested by this trouble.

One has something to do with Peak Oil. BP has gone to all this trouble for a well that taps into what they now think may be 100 million barrels of oil. And that’s…5 days supply for the U.S? Does that give you any sense of the precariousness of the arrangements undergirding our economy right at the moment?

Another -- even more important -- has to do with global warming. Let’s assume that the oil from the Deepwater Horizon made it safely onshore and was refined and then burned in the gas tank of your car. What then? Well, the CO2 in the atmosphere would be doing at least as much damage as the oil spreading across the Gulf.

People are sad and bitter only in part because they see those pelicans oiled; mostly, they sense correctly that our leaders have yet to deal with what is clearly the biggest problem we face, the transition off of fossil fuel.

How out of balance with the natural world are we? And what would it require to get back in balance?

BP’s great victory will come if it need merely confess to technical overreach and pay a few billion in fines -- if that happens, it can get back to making serious money, and the planet can get back to burning.

Editorial Cartoon by Tom Toles:

Are we out of our minds?

Oil Spill: Obama's chance to Lead on Energy

Mr. President, lead now on fossil fuels
The gulf oil spill is Obama's chance to take bold steps on climate change.
By Bill McKibben

Which one is the real Obama? Has he really been transformed by the oil spill in the gulf, or is he merely trying to ride out the public reaction with stronger words? I think the answer is as murky as the water off Mobile. We don't know because so far it's all words; the closest he's come to specifics is that pledge that we won't be off oil in a decade.

We need someone to stand up and tell it the way it is, and in language so compelling and dramatic it sets us on a new path.

Read the full article here.

Brown Pelican on the beach at East Grand Terre Island along the Louisiana coast on Thursday, June 3, 2010. (AP photo)

Veterans for Clean American Power

Cut our dependence on oil -- switch to Clean, American Power.

Obama's Crude Awakening

US set to hit BP retrospectively with increased fines
The White House has expressed its frustration at the lack of progress on stopping the Gulf of Mexico oil leak and its intention to introduce retrospective legislation to lift the cap on compensation that BP could be liable to pay -- from millions to Billions of dollars. This comes as bosses from BP and other companies involved in the spill have been grilled by US lawmakers. Watch a short BBC News video report, ending with a clip at the White House showing 'Obama’s Crude Awakening'.

Obama’s Crude Awakening at the White House
by Phil Aroneanu
We marched to the White House to send Obama a message that fossil fuels are not worth the cost in lives and livelihoods, and that this moment must be a crude awakening for our politicians: It’s time for President Obama to lead on clean energy, to end offshore drilling and to solve the climate crisis. Read more in the article here.

Obama 'angry and frustrated' by oil leak
President Obama has criticised what he called the "ridiculous spectacle" of oil companies blaming each other for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.Three weeks after the disaster began, some experts are warning that the quantity of oil released, may be many times larger than current estimates. BP insists it's doing everything it can. Watch a short BBC News video report showing that Obama is beginning to stir from his oil-lobby-induced sleep, but he's still not quite awake.


Take Action at Crude Awakening Events
Starting on May 20th -- the one-month anniversary of the disaster -- Energy Action Coalition is kicking off events across the country.
Sign up to host a Crude Awakening event in your community.

These events are simple and important. All it takes is everyday citizens out on street corners, at symbolic locations, or in front of our elected officials offices to get the message across.