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.

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."

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.

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.

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)

Senate: Clean Energy Jobs Bill

Question during the Great Depression: Brother, can you spare a dime? Question during the current recession: Senator, do you have a spine?

A popular song from the era of the Great Depression is entitled "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?". It's a sad song about the people who helped build our nation's railroads and skyscrapers. These people also fought for our country in World War I to provide national security for their families. Suddenly, they found themselves out of work, bankrupt and abandoned - waiting in bread lines and at soup kitchens for food.

We are not in such dire straits, at least not yet. The people of our country certainly do not want to plunge from a recession into a depression. Government officials would agree in words, but are falling short in deeds. It will take much more than bailouts and recovery money.

In addition to an economic crisis, we are confronted at the same time with an energy crisis, an environmental crisis, and a national security crisis. The U.S. Senate can tackle these crises by enacting a clean energy bill that will spark innovation, create new jobs and provide energy security as well as help clean up our air and sustain our environment. This will require courage and the will to act. So we ask the question, Senator, do you have a spine?

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican representing South Carolina, has a spine! He said, “We are more dependent on foreign oil today than after 9/11. That is political malpractice, and every member of Congress is responsible.” He proposes putting a price on carbon, starting with a carbon tax, in order to move industries to invest in new clean energy products and consumers to buy them. “Cap-and-trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die — and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon”, he stated in an Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman in today's NY Times. Graham is now working on a new clean energy bill along with Democrat John Kerry and Independent Joseph Lieberman.

Write to your Senators and ask -- when it comes to enacting legislation in support of clean energy, a sustainable environment, new jobs, energy independence and national security -- Senator, do you have a spine?

If our government does not act, what does our future hold... another depression? Most people alive today did not live through the Great Depression, and so have little idea what it was really like. Yip Harburg did. To get a feeling what it was like, listen to some of Harburg's thoughts about the Great Depression, as well as his 1932 song "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?", via NPR online.

"Future of Energy" Smack Down

Clean Energy

versus

Dirty Coal

Robert "The Riverkeeper" Kennedy

debates

Don "Fill the Streams with Mountaintops" Blankenship

Live Webcast from West Virginia

January 21 at 6:15pm

Be THERE! Click Here

Join the fight for Clean Energy

and Clean Water

BIG COAL'S DIRTY SECRET - Watch this VIDEO!

STOP MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL COAL MINING!

JPMorgan Chase is the largest investor in Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining, which involves clear-cutting forests, blowing the tops off of mountains, and then dumping the debris into stream-beds.

Tell JPMorgan Chase to
STOP financing Mountaintop Removal!

Clean Energy Jobs to Power America

Obama pushes for green jobs program

WASHINGTON — After a disappointing new unemployment report, President Obama on Friday pushed for an expanded government program that he said would help create tens of thousands of new clean-technology jobs.

“It’s clear why such an effort is so important. Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future, jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced,” Obama said at the White House.

Obama announced the awarding of $2.3 billion in tax credits — to be paid for from last year’s $787 stimulus package — that he said would create some 17,000 “green” jobs. The money will go to projects including solar, wind and energy management.

The president also called for an additional $5 billion in spending for clean energy manufacturing, an idea being promoted by Vice President Biden.

Such initiatives are “an important step toward meeting the goal I’ve set of doubling the amount of renewable power we use in the next three years with wind turbines and solar panels built right here in the U. S. of A.,” Obama said.

He said more than 180 projects in more than 40 states would receive the tax credits.

“Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future,” Obama said.

Read the full AP report here.


183 projects, 43 states, Tens of Thousands of High Quality Clean Energy Jobs
- by Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate

As the President has stated before, the country that leads the way in harnessing clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. It’s no surprise that countries around the world are taking charge in this effort. China is making record investments in energy efficiency. American innovation pioneered solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it.

Check out the map below to see where many of the tomorrow’s clean energy jobs will be created and read the full blog post here. Report Predicts Offshore Wind Boom

A report published earlier this month by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm tracking emerging technologies in global energy markets, predicts that the $10 billion offshore wind energy market will surge to $30 billion over the next decade.

The report predicts that in the next five years, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium will be prime markets. Then, from 2014 to 2020, the United States, China and Korea will follow.

In the United States, offshore wind energy will be embraced once policy makers realize how powerful it is, said Keith Hays, the research director of wind energy at Emerging Energy Research.

Read the full report here.


As Panels Get Better and Cheaper, PVs are Poised for Their Day in the Sun

For years, it was assumed that a typical PV [photovoltaic] lasted 20 years, and financing programs and payback calculations for PV-generated electricity were based on the two-decade lifespan. But recent tests conducted by the Energy Institute -- where PVs are put through a speeded-up aging process via exposure to extremes of heat, cold, and humidity -- have shown that the panels can last much longer.

The tests indicated that over 90 percent of the panels on the market 10 years ago still performed well after 30 years, despite a small drop in performance. And, as Heinz Ossenbrink of the EU Energy Institute noted, 40-year panels are on the way.

So is PV making a big move, so to speak, and will it only be in Europe?

Read the full report here.

White House hosts Young Leaders

The President and his Administration invited a group of young leaders to the White House on December 2nd for a Clean Energy Economy Forum. The event brought together emerging leaders from non-profits, businesses, and community groups along with experts from federal agencies, members of the Cabinet, and White House officials.

Presenters included EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Cabinet Members Steven Chu (Energy), Ken Salizar (Interior), and Hilda Solis (Labor). The meeting was webcast live and included an online discussion open to all.

The Video of the forum is below:


FYI: the guy wearing glasses in the lower right of the video image above happens to be my son, Jason Kowalski, Policy Coordinator at 1Sky.org.

A link to a video of the online forum is here. One of my favorite online comments that the moderators selected to read was from Meg Boyle who wrote: "Let's see this as a good first meeting. At the next one, I'd like to see student leaders present and admin folks ask questions."
Great comment! I hope that the White House takes it seriously and acts on it.

For a report on the Forum and insights to its significance for young leaders see: "Youth Climate Movement Grows Up… In a Good Way"

DOE Funds Wind Turbine Innovation

There is change in the wind. It's a revolution that won't be driven simply by putting up more conventional windmill farms to generate clean energy. It's about innovation -- radical design changes that will increase efficiency and reduce the cost and size of wind turbines.

“FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation is going to revolutionize the way we capture energy from the wind,” says CEO Stanley Kowalski III. “Our wind turbine will produce more wind energy with less impact on the environment. Our turbines are smaller, can function in a variety of climates, and can work closer to the ground.”

Kowalski [no relation to me] says his company's turbine design resembles a jet engine, an approach that allows it to capture much more wind energy while taking up less space than traditional turbines. The turbine draws on its jet engine expertise from parent company, aerospace engineering firm FloDesign. The blades are much smaller than those of existing windmills and they are surrounded by a shroud, resembling a jet engine. Wind hitting the turbine flows through the blades as well as around the shroud to create a rapid-mixing vortex, extracting 3 to 4 times as much energy from the wind as traditional turbines.

The turbine spins efficiently at lower wind speeds, and can also sustain higher speeds than conventional turbines. A fin directs the turbine to face the direction of the wind without motorized alignment and maximizes the amount of energy it receives. The smaller size of FloDesign turbine design will lower the shipping costs compared to traditional turbines and permit more turbines in a given area of land.

Watch this informative video to see the innovative design features in action (very cool!):



FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation has built a small prototype for wind tunnel tests. On October 26, 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on awarded $8.3 million to the company. FloDesign's proposal was among 37 nationwide to receive funding totaling $151 million from DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, who's mission is to develop potential breakthrough energy technologies.

Kowalski said the company currently employs about 20 people and expects to expand to more than 75 by the end of 2010. The jobs to be added will primarily be engineering jobs, he said. “The next newsworthy event for us is the installation of our prototype, somewhere in Western Massachusetts we hope. We’re evaluating sites right now,” he said.

The Massachusetts-based company is hunting for another $25 million to deploy full scale test rigs. Last year, it landed two start-up awards from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, including cash grants of $300,000. The company also received $6 million in venture capital in an initial funding round in 2008.

If everything goes according to plan, the company will start taking orders and build wind turbines that generate one megawatt.

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

The Senate climate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, was released by sponsoring Senators Kerry and Boxer on September 30, 2009. This is an independent version of the House of Representatives climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed earlier this year. If the Senate bill is passed, the Senate and House will then reconcile their versions, vote, and if that version is passed, Congress will send it on to President Obama.

The White House is running its own climate campaign, meeting with more than half the Senate, making calls to almost 100 mayors, and meeting with many governors. Their goal, according to Carol Browner, the president's assistant for energy and climate change, "is to get the bill moving and keep it moving." However, Ms. Browner is not optimisic about the bill being passed before the December's UN conference in Copenhagen.

President Obama welcomed a Senate bill to cut carbon emissions and said he was "deeply committed" to passing it even as the White House played down chances that it would happen this year. Obama, whose international credibility on global warming is largely tied to the Senate's effort, called the draft bill a major step forward in his plans to revamp U.S. energy policy.

Subsequent to the above events, President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Nobel Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons. Also, "Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened", as stated in the announcement from the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

On the Senate climate bill, you can read an overview, a summary, a section by section summary, or the full bill. Also available is a description of the Pollution Reduction and Investment Mechanism of the bill. The files are available here.

An analysis of the Senate climate bill done by Jason Kowalski at 1Sky is available here.

[UPDATES: Sunday, Oct.11, 2009]
NY Times Op-Ed
Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)
By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM
John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

Republican senator backs climate-change effort
By Andy Sullivan | Reuters
Sunday, October 11, 2009; 3:35 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prospects for climate-change legislation in Congress improved on Sunday when a Republican senator broke ranks with his party to outline a compromise with a leading Democrat on the issue.

Sign on for a Clean Energy Future

US battles for credibility on climate change - 9/18/2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Congress moving slowly on a measure to curb industrial greenhouse gas emissions, the United States may find itself with little sway at the coming international conference to construct a new pact aimed at easing global warming.

In less than three months, 120 countries convene in Copenhagen for action on a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

That meeting, a U.N. summit on climate change next week and the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh days later are pressuring and imposing deadlines on Congress and the Obama administration, which has made work against climate change a top agenda issue.

The House passed a bill this year that would set the United States' first federal mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. Factories, power plants and other sources would be required to cut emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century. By comparison, Japan is committed to cut its emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

But with the Senate bogged down in the fight over reforming the health care system, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said this week that the senators might not move on climate legislation until next year.

That was too much for John Bruton, head of the European Union delegation in Washington. He issued a statement that pointed out that by the time the Senate acted, the climate change conference would have been ended, the delegates gone home.

"The United States is just one of the 190 countries coming to this conference," Bruton said, "but the United States emits 25 percent of all the greenhouse gases that the conference is trying to reduce. The full report is here.


Arctic could be free of summer sea ice by 2030 - 9/17/2009

 Framm Strait, Arctic — As the minimum area of summer Arctic sea-ice extent was today reported to have plummeted to the third-lowest level ever in recorded history according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is hosting world-class sea ice expert Dr. Peter Wadhams, on a mission to conduct research into sea-ice loss in the Arctic Ocean, off the northeast coast of Greenland.

“We’re entering a new epoch of sea ice melt in the Arctic Ocean due to climate change,” said Dr. Peter Wadhams. “In five years’ time most of the sea-ice could be gone in summer with just an ‘Alamo of ice’ remaining north of Ellesmere Island. In 20 years’ time, that will also be gone, leaving the Arctic Ocean completely ice-free in summer. It’s clear we can’t rely on current models of prediction for sea-ice melt, as they have been constantly outpaced since the 1980s.”

Sea-ice extent has been in decline for the last 30 years, but the speed of that decline has accelerated in the last decade and especially so in the last four years, outpacing scientific predictions. In 2007, the area of summer sea-ice extent reached a level that was not predicted to occur until 2080, with 2008 coming in a close second. While this year’s low sea-ice extent did not surpass those of 2007 and 2008, it does suggest another significant acceleration of sea-ice melt in the Arctic Ocean.

“This puts U.S. policy on very thin ice,” said Damon Moglen, Global Warming Campaign Director for Greenpeace in the U.S. “With global warming advancing even more quickly than expected, President Obama needs to lead a far more ambitious, science-based response to the climate crisis.”

The full report from Greenpeace is here.


Obama Promise of Future Includes Clean Energy Revolution - 9/17/2009
President speaks at a rally at the University of Maryland, College Park
President Obama reiterated his promise to build a better future. While health care reform remained the topic of the day, Obama emphasized that the promise includes a clean energy revolution.


Good idea, Prez...Now let's DO IT!

Take action. Call for urgent Congressional approval of a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan that delivers clean energy jobs, less pollution, and a more secure America. Sign on to the CONSEQUENCE Campaign: Clean Energy Jobs NOW...or PAY LATER! Click here and Sign On for a clean energy future.

Just in case you're thinkin', ahhhhh, forget Congress. Let's just wait for the EPA to take care of this mess...read the article below, think again, and Sign On!

Energy Industry Stall Tactic: Embrace EPA - 9/18/2009
Groups That Decried EPA Regulation During Senate Climate Change Debate Now See an Opportunity

The EPA’s regulatory process is by nature slow and deliberate, with each regulation taking months to put in place. Once the regulatory process is completed, rules are often held up in years of litigation. And even if a regulation survives that, it can be reversed by a future administration. On the Clean Air Act specifically, the technologies necessary to meet the obligations of the law don’t yet exist for carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, though many did hope at one time for a climate bill this year, one that would give them more long-term certainty about carbon pricing, the House-passed Waxman-Markey climate bill is tougher than what many in the energy industry have lobbied to pass into law. Thus, the prospect of EPA regulations — once so feared by many in polluting industries — is now being welcomed as a stall tactic.

Read the full report by Kate Sheppard here.

Clean Energy WORKS!

Clean Energy Works is a diverse coalition of more than 60 grassroots organizations representing more than 12 million Americans. They are calling for urgent Congressional action on a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan that delivers clean energy jobs, less pollution, and a more secure America. 

Passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation will:

• Create and protect millions of good American jobs by spurring investment in the nation's growing clean energy economy

• Improve our national security by enhancing America's energy independence reducing our dependence on foreign oil and getting America running on clean energy

• Reduce the carbon pollution that's harming our air and water, and endangering the health of the planet

Clean Energy Works  is a grassroots coalition that includes faith, labor, veterans, environmental, sportsmen, farm, business, youth, and community organizations.

Watch a TV ad from Clean Energy Works promoting strong, clean energy legislation:


The Clean Energy Works Web site is here.

Van Jones leaves White House

White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism

Washington Post (Sept. 6, 2009 ) -- White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned Saturday after weeks of controversy stemming from his past activism.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

Jones issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called on Jones to resign Friday, saying in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

Senator Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) urged Congress to investigate Jones's "fitness" for the position, writing in an open letter, "Can the American people trust a senior White House official that is so cavalier in his association with such radical and repugnant sentiments?" On Saturday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote on his Twitter account, "Van Jones has to go."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday that Jones "continues to work for the administration" -- but he did not state that the adviser enjoys the full support of President Obama, instead referring questions to the environmental council where he worked.

Jones, a towering figure in the environmental movement, had worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality since March. He was a civil-rights activist in California before turning his focus to environmental and energy issues, and he won wide praise before joining the Obama administration for articulating a broad vision of a green economy Democrats could embrace.

------------------------

Van Jones has left the White House and will be back in action amongst the people. This will only create new and better opportunities for this great American and marvelous human being. Watch, listen and learn as he speaks about the climate crisis, the economic crisis, environmental justice, and Green jobs.

We need a Clean Energy Revolution

Excerpts from a post at Grist by Senator Bernie Sanders

The United States today spends some $400 billion a year importing oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela. Think for a moment what an incredible impact that same $400 billion a year could have on our country if that money were invested here and not abroad, in such areas as weatherization, energy efficiency, sustainable energies like wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, public transportation and automobiles that are energy efficient or don’t use fossil fuels at all.

What we are talking about is an energy revolution that leads us toward energy independence, the cessation of support for foreign dictatorships and the ability to avoid Mideast wars fought over oil. What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable us to address the global warming crisis that threatens our planet with increases in floods, drought, extreme weather conditions, disease and wars fought over limited natural resources. What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will result in cleaner air, water and food and make us a healthier nation.

And, as our nation struggles to recover from the worst economic times since the Great Depression, what we also are talking about is an energy revolution that has the capability of creating millions of good-paying green jobs.

I see a future where by 2025, we are producing a quarter or more of our electricity from clean, sustainable energy sources. I see a revitalized American manufacturing base where instead of importing 90 percent of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles, 46 percent of solar photovoltaic cells and modules, and half of all wind turbines used in the U.S., those product are made right here at home. I see a future where American companies lead the world in the production of hybrid-plug in cars and electric vehicles.

I see a future where instead of creating 330 jobs to build yet another fossil-fuel power plant, we create 4,000 jobs building a solar thermal plant that has no carbon dioxide emissions and does not pollute our air because the only fuel is endlessly renewed, no-cost sunlight. These plants, according to the Interior Department secretary, could provide up to 29 percent of the electrical needs of our country.

The bad news is that if we do not act boldly to address the global warming crisis, the consequences for our planet and future generations will be dire. The good news is that we have the knowledge and technology today, which will only improve in the future, to address that crisis. Yes, we can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emission. Yes, we can create an energy independent nation. Yes, we can create millions of good paying green jobs in the process. Let’s do it! The full post is here.

Jason Kowalski: Clean Energy & Climate Bill

Jason Kowalski, Policy Analyst for 1Sky.org in Washington DC, discusses the recently-passed American Clean Energy and Security bill and its implications for a global emissions agreement and creating new jobs in a TV news interview shown below and here (mobile phone link).

A Clean Energy Economy

Opening the Door to a Clean Energy Economy
President Obama praised historic energy legislation passed by the House of Representatives on Friday. The legislation will help America create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change. Watch his Weekly Address in the video below or here:



Portions of the transcript of the President's address:
"Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill. We’re already seeing why this is true in the clean energy investments we’re making through the Recovery Act. In California, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 permanent jobs. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people."

"The list goes on and on, but the point is this: this legislation will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. That will lead to the creation of new businesses and entire new industries. And that will lead to American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. I have often talked about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth so that we do not return to the endless cycle of bubble and bust that led us to this recession. Clean energy and the jobs it creates will be absolutely critical to this new foundation."

"This legislation has also been written carefully to address the concerns that many have expressed in the past. Instead of increasing the deficit, it is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions. It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies. It gives rural communities and farmers the opportunity to participate in climate solutions and generate new income. And above all, it will protect consumers from the costs of this transition, so that in a decade, the price to the average American will be just about a postage stamp a day."

The full transcript is here.

To see how Congress members across the country voted on the bill, view an interactive map of the US and lists of votes at The NY Times.

Clean Energy SAVES Money

Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy
A New Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists

The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy: Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health.

What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”) answers that need.

Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent regions—will share in these savings.

Net Consumer and Business Savings (by Census Region in 2030)

A link to the full report by the Union of Concerned Scientists is here.

Energy & Climate Bill passes Committee

Energy and Commerce Committee Passes Clean Energy Legislation
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved "The American Clean Energy and Security Act" (ACES Act, H.R. 2454) by a vote of 33 to 25 on May 21, 2009. According to co-sponsors Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the bill charts a new course towards a clean energy economy. It imposes the first nationwide limits to greenhouse gas emissions. The bill was called 'historic' by President Obama.

The ACES Act proposes to create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America's energy independence, and cut global warming pollution. Passage of such legislation this year is said to be crucial to demonstrate U.S. leadership on limiting greenhouse gas emissions prior to the international meeting in Copenhagen in December. Read more about the bill here.

Landmark Climate Bill Supported By Industry Giants and Enviros
According to the Energy Committee, supporters of the bill include BP America, Caterpillar, Conoco, Dow Chemical, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Shell and Siemens. Among community and environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, American Lung Association and Center for American Progress have given their support, as reported here.

Has anyone actually read the entire ACES bill?
Don't have time to read the nearly 1000 page ACES bill? No problem. 1Sky.org has read it and has provided a preliminary analysis. The analysis is condensed in tabular form for easy reading, and can be obtained here. Contact Jason Kowalski at Jason@1Sky.org with any questions or comments.

Greens take sides on the ACES bill
Longtime climate crusader Al Gore says we should do all we can to get the legislation passed, while top climate scientist James Hansen says we should demand a different, better bill, according to Lisa Hymas, Grist's senior editor.

Gore says the bill is a good starting point, and that efforts to reach compromise on it have boosted its chances of passing both the House and the Senate. He believes that he key role of the legislation is to begin that shift to lower emissions.

According to James Hansen, “The revised Waxman-Markey climate bill is too watered down to qualify as a positive step for avoiding catastrophic climate disruption.

Activists and environmental groups are picking sides or staking out positions in the middle, 1Sky.org is viewed to be in the middle, along with goups such as NRDC, Sierra Club, Apollo Alliance, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and many others.

Jesse Jenkins, of the Breakthrough Institute, believes that to drive the transition and jump-start a new energy economy we must, “make clean energy the profitable kind of energy,” as President Obama has said. The gap in price between our traditional sources of energy and new, clean energy sources, like wind, solar power and biofuels, must be closed, and this can be done in two ways. We can make conventional, dirtier energy sources more expensive. Or we can make new, clean energy sources more affordable. Jesse Jenkins worries that as currently drafted, the ACES bill will fail to effectively utilize either option, and therefore prove unable to reduce emissions or truly build a new clean energy economy.

But it ain't over, 'till it's over
The ACES bill still has quite a ways to go before passage by the full House. According to Grist's political reporter, Kate Sheppard, at least six other House committees have jurisdiction over some portion of this bill, including the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees legislation pertaining to taxes and other revenue sources. In that committee, John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered a carbon-tax bill and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has proposed a cap-and-dividend bill. Kate Sheppard writes that they will want to play a role in shaping the final legislation.


Follow the ACES Bill Debate and Updates on Twitter at Grist