PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:20:00 -0800

SmartMeters.com reports that IBM have been pushing for smart grids to be a part of Obama"s economic stimulus plans - Obama team consults IBM on plans for smart grid.

In considering their planned economic stimulus package, President-elect Obama’s transition team pondered how beneficial the plan would be if information technology were highlighted. Instead of consulting government bureaucrats or even academic experts at leading universities the team went to IBM. ...

According to an article appearing in December in the Wall Street Journal, IBM chairman and CEO Sam Palmisano presented information directly to Carol Browner, coordinator of climate and energy policy for the incoming administration, and Julius Genachowski – a technology adviser to the president who is rumoured to be in the running for the newly created position of United States chief technology officer. In the presentation, Palmisano explained how a $30 billion information technology stimulus would create jobs.

As part of the technology stimulus, IBM recommended three areas of primary focus: increased broadband Internet access throughout the country, continued computerization of medical records, and rolling out the smart grid to revolutionise the country’s power distribution system. IBM worked with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation think tank based in Washington D.C. to come up with the focus areas.

According to their study, IBM found that a $10 billion investment to boost America’s smart grid infrastructure would create 239,000 new jobs. IBM would stand to benefit considerably from any IT investment but would particularly within these focus areas. Big Blue figures prominently in the healthcare digitisation process as well as smart grid technology.

In his presentation to the Obama transition team, Palmisano said that small businesses would create more than half of the new jobs as a result of so-called “network effects.” For example, economic activity would naturally increase from a higher presence of broadband Internet. Rolling out the smart grid would bring a wealth of new energy technologies online.

Some countries have made major strides installing smart grids. Italy, for one, blanketed the country with the money and energy-saving devices several years ago. Power providers around the world are realising that their power infrastructure is at or past its useful age and that the time has come to make the technological leap. Typically, transformers in North American power substations are designed to last 40 years, but the average age of these devices is 42 years.

How much of the advice will be incorporated into the stimulus package that lawmakers and the Obama team are working on remains to be seen. At the end of December, Obama aides said that part of the two-year plan would include spending on traditional infrastructure, including highways, and reduced taxes.

GreentechMedia has a post on a project by a UK organisation to map smart meter projects around the world - A Smart Meter Map of the World.

Have you had trouble keeping track of smart metering projects? So have we, which is why we’re glad to see the Smart Metering Projects Map run by the Energy Retail Association in the UK.

The map essentially pinpoints smart metering projects across Europe, North America, Oceania and Asia on a zoom-able Google map. If you click on one of the flags, a few paragraphs pop up explaining the scope and purpose of the project. Distrigaz Sud, for instance, is installing 1.1 gas meters in southern Romania to offset gas network balancing concerns. The meters in the trial utilize snap-on Zigbee devices to permit communication.

In Kyrgyzstan, a utility will test out pre-paid gas meters. (Pre-paid gas meters used to be a common fixture in the U.K. after World War II and are going to be trialed in parts of the U.S. for lower-income housing developments.)

And my personal favorite, Bosnia Herzegovina’s Elektroprivreda HZ HB Mostar is installing meters that communicate through power-line networking provided by Echelon. Echelon has also landed deals, and installed, power line-enabled meters and street lights in Italy, Norway and Texas. Italy already has 30 million smart meters, according to the map, which makes the country one of the more popular nations for smart meters. Elektroprivreda will initially only put in 200 meters but wants to boost the number to 200,000.

There are no projects yet, according to the map, in South America or Africa, but there are proposals in the works for South Africa.

At the risk of sounding redundant, smart metering will be one of the major issues and market for greentech in 2009 and beyond. Proponents say that smart meters and demand response programs can substantially curb greenhouse gases and energy consumption by more finely controlling the distribution and consumption of electricity, water and natural gas. Electrical grids, water utilities and gas pipelines, however, weren’t designed with two-way communication and control in mind so bringing intelligence to these systems will require investments in networking, hardware and software.

View Larger Map

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:06:00 -0800

Grist reports that environmentalists in the US are generally upbeat about Obama"s economic stimulus plans, but would like more support for mass transit - Green leaders stimulated by Obama"s plan.

Environmental leaders gave a big thumbs-up to Barack Obama"s economic stimulus proposal on Thursday, though they pledged to continue pushing to make the bill as green as possible, particularly on transportation issues. ...

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope was also effusive in a statement: "These initiatives are a win-win for a strong economy and a healthier environment. They will create good jobs here in America and reduce our dependence on dirtier energy sources like oil and coal by promoting the shift to wind and solar power and high-energy-performance, low-carbon cars and buildings." ...

Said Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, "This increased investment in renewables, efficiency, and our energy infrastructure is a crucial first step in boosting our economy, ending our reliance on dirty coal and foreign oil, and solving the climate crisis."

Blue Green Alliance Executive Director David Foster told Grist that he thinks the plan is on the right trajectory, though he hasn"t seen enough detail yet to determine whether there"s adequate funding for green programs. ...

"I think we"re waking up and realizing that this is not just the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, it"s actually going to turn into the greatest unemployment crisis since the Great Depression, and we need to focus on that human aspect of this," Foster continued. "Alcoa announced that it was laying off 13,000 employees a few days ago. All other manufacturing companies I"m aware of are thinking about this situation as in free fall. I don"t think we"ve quite grasped yet how serious the economic devastation is out in Main Street, and we need to be thinking about all the different ways we"re going to transform the economy so that long-term it delivers on the jobs we need both now and in the future."

One area of concern for environmentalists is transportation. They had hoped to see dedicated funding for mass transit in the Obama plan, but the draft in circulation doesn"t include any.

Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke told Grist she hasn"t yet reviewed the entire Obama plan, but will be working with Congress to make sure that mass transit sees increased funding, either through a stimulus bill or the transportation bill expected later this year. "There will be more than one opportunity, but it"s critical that in the stimulus package transportation, particularly transit, get much greater attention," she said. "We need greater investment not only to improve the transit systems we have, but to get more light rail, bus services, and rail, so not all Americans are as dependent on the car as they are now. People want choices and we need to provide them."

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:41:25 -0800

Over on Greentech media, there"s a piece about Obama wanting to double renewable energy production and make public buildings more energy efficient, create three million new jobs. Through his Recovery and Reinvestment Plan with strategic investments as a down payment on long term economic future.

Hopefully, he won"t have any technological favourites when it comes to biofuels...
He talks well. Watch him here.

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:30:26 -0800

Image via WikipediaIf there was any question whether President-elect Barack Obama means to bring change to the way the White House handles the environment, he has answered.

Nobel laureate Steven Chu is apparently Obama"s choice to head the Department of Energy as the prez-elect puts together his energy and environment team.

Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will be the nation"s 12th energy secretary. He should be named next week, along with other key energy and environmental posts, according to reports.

Chu is an intriguing choice. He is not and energy insider, although he played a leading role in attracting a $500M investment from BP to establish a center for renewable fuels at Berkeley. And he is known for pushing the Lawrence Berkeley scientists to focus on climate change.

Some environmentalists are applauding the selection, as it signals that Obama wants to restore the credibility of White House science

Obama"s environmental team will also likely include Lisa Jackson as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Jackson will be the first black head of the EPA and is known for her balanced approach to environmental and economic concerns.

Jackson is a former commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and currently serves as chief of staff to New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.

Nancy Sutley, deputy mayor for energy and the environment in the City of Los Angeles, will be Obama"s pick for White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Obama is likely to tap liberal environmentalist Carol Browner for a new position to coordinate policy approaches to energy, the environment, and climate change. (Browner, an EPA administrator under former President Bill Clinton, has been an adviser on Obama’s transition team.)

What Obama"s choices signal is a renewed emphasis on science, especially as it relates to energy policies, and a desire to make informed decisions about how to transform the US economy into a new green economy.

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:10:00 -0800

www.carbon-financeonline.com/
19 November, 2008

US President-elect Barack Obama has reaffirmed his election pledge to take serious action on climate change, saying that the country will re-engage with international negotiations, promote clean energy development and implement a cap-and-trade programme for greenhouse gas emissions.

In a video address to the Global Climate Summit, an event arranged by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ahead of next month"s UN climate conference in Poznan, Poland, Obama said: "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences are too serious." While he will not personally attend the UN conference, Obama said he had asked observers to report back to him.

"Once I take office, you can be sure that the US will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world towards a new era of global co-operation on climate change," he said. Obama"s pledges included implementing a federal cap-and-trade system, with strong annual targets that set the US on a course to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

"My presidency will mark a new chapter in America"s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process," he said. He promised $15 billion of support each year for the private sector to develop clean energy - including solar, wind, next-generation biofuels, nuclear and clean coal - which he estimated would create 5 million "green" jobs. "When I am President, any governor who is willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that"s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington," he said.

In a press briefing on Monday, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said he expected the US delegation to Poznan to "participate fully and give us an indication of where things might go in future". De Boer outlined three main outcomes he hopes to see from the conference: the first version of the negotiating text that will lead to a new climate change agreement; for ministers to give a vision of future co-operative action; and the formal launch of the climate change adaptation fund.

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:42:07 -0800

In his interview with Barbara Walters, Barack Obama said one of his first tasks when he moves into the White House is to make it green.

Obama said he plans to sit down with the chief usher and evaluate the mansion"s energy efficiency. He hopes to show the American people that gaining greater energy efficiency in your home is "not that hard."

A lot of people have proposed ideas on how Obama could make the White House eco-friendly, like turning the lawn into an organic garden, but this step that he is taking is most important. If he"s going to ask the American people to conserve and make changes in their homes, he also has to do it.

I"d personally like to see him install energy and lighting management systems, which have been proven to go a long way in cutting energy use and costs. Also, installing some renewable energy sources like solar PVs or rooftop wind turbines would be a great example.

We"ll be watching closely to see what changes he ultimately makes.

via Huffington Post

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:33:00 -0800

The Obama-Biden Plan

The energy challenges our country faces are severe and have gone unaddressed for far too long. Our addiction to foreign oil doesn"t just undermine our national security and wreak havoc on our environment -- it cripples our economy and strains the budgets of working families all across America. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have a comprehensive plan to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Energy Plan Overview
Provide Short-term Relief to American Families
Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
Create Millions of New Green Jobs

Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

Affiliated Greentech Portals at Investorideas.com Renewableenergystocks.com and Environmentstocks.com

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:32:48 -0800

Now that the election is over and Americans have selected Barack Obama as our next president, it is time to get back to work.

I"m not going to dwell on the historical heft of this event; many people have and will.

Suffice it to say that, regardless of your politics, you had to be proud to be an American last night. We are truly the land of promise and opportunity.

And it is opportunity that I hope President Obama will focus on when he takes office in January.

Now is the opportunity to transform our economy from one based upon greed, deception, and pollution to one of green, transparency, and solutions.

We heard a lot from both candidates about the new green economy, a new energy economy, during the campaign. Much of it was aspirational and not entirely pragmatic.

As he moves forward with his plans, I"d like Mr. Obama to live up to this statement from his speech last night:

"I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree"

It is time for us to get a realistic path forward for the new green economy, which is the best way to turn this economy around and move America forward again.

But it is important to take pragmatic steps within the limitations of the current economic climate.

We need real answers about how Mr. Obama plans to move this economy toward its green future. The goals he outlined in the campaign -- 5 million jobs and $150 Bn -- may not be realistic in the short term.

But in tempering his ambitious goals, I hope Mr. Obama will stick to his guns on going green.

It is important to our future that we have realistic, measurable goals and strong leadership at this time -- now more than ever -- especially on alternative energy, climate change, and overhauling the financial sector.

Related articles by Zemanta

Visit my Blog...

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:37:55 -0700

(This post is the text from a talk I gave today at St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church in Philadelphia, as part of their Election "08 Forum.)

I"ve spent the past few weeks researching John McCain and Barack Obama on the issues of energy and the environment. I"ve looked at their published platforms, reviewed their speeches and debate appearances, and scanned the opinions of a gaggle of pundits.

And, after all that research, I"m reminded of a TV commercial from the 70s, the one with the French chef comparing margarine and butter. "There is no differ-ance…" he exclaimed.

Well, there"s not exactly no difference between the two on energy and the environment, but the similarities outweigh the differences, with the differences mostly in the details and ideology.

Senators McCain and Obama have been talking the good talk in terms of the environment. And their focus on energy independence has, along with last summer"s high gas prices, raised awareness about the need for alternatives, including wind, solar, and even clean coal and nuclear.

McCain and Obama both support a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions, which uses a limit on carbon emissions to force reductions and provides emissions permits (or the right to emit CO2) to be traded between sources.

McCain would give away some of the carbon credits, while Obama wants to auction the credits off to the highest bidder. Both would use profits from the sale of credits for investments in clean energy technologies.

Both candidates acknowledge that "human-caused climate change is real and urgent," which has some expecting a sea-change in climate legislation, green energy investments, and leadership on setting a new global climate agreement.

Critics of Senator Obama say that he has not yet put forth any major legislation or initiative on the environment, while Senator McCain was the lead sponsor of the first climate change legislation, McCain-Lieberman, which called for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain is still a leader in this regard, calling for 60 percent reductions by 2050; Obama wants an 80 percent reduction in that same time frame, which is closer to the UN recommendation.

I"m not sure setting the higher target -- or even McCain"s lower target – is feasible early in the next administration, so we may see them change their positions once elected.

On a number of issues, McCain and Obama have already backtracked on earlier positions. Obama originally opposed offshore drilling; he later embraced it when it was clear a majority of Americans were in favor. McCain has long opposed renewable energy tax credits, which provide incentives for renewable energy generation, but voted for them in the $700B bailout package. (His objection, apparently, is not to the concept, but the structure of the existing tax credits.)

Back in May, McCain said offshore drilling would have little impact on gas prices; by the convention he was chanting "Drill Baby Drill." Obama also initially supported subsidies for ethanol; in part, to please his corn-rich state of Illinois. He now says he would consider withdrawing that support if it proves to have negative impact on food prices.

Both candidates support drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska"s Central North Slope – the 23 million acres set aside by President Harding in 1923 as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy. And they both oppose drilling in Alaska"s National Wildlife Refuge on the eastern end of the slope. (Governor Palin vows to "work on John" about ANWR, but I don"t think she"ll get very far with it – he"s long been against this political hot potato.)

Surprisingly, Obama and McCain have both come out in support of clean coal technologies. This is something many environmentalists are strongly against and may be another issue where the candidates could reverse their position once elected. "Clean coal" has a lot of baggage – even within the utility industry, with its haphazard approach to exploring options such as Carbon Capture and Storage, Coal-to-Liquid conversion, and scrubbers for existing coal plants.

All three approaches are expensive, unproven propositions; environmentalists argue the money is better spent on renewables.

Then there is nuclear. McCain is calling for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, with an ultimate goal of 100. Setting aside the unresolved questions about waste storage, which is an area in need of serious investment, in my opinion, this position is not without controversy. (McCain, by the way, supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility in Nevada; Obama opposes it.)

Energy analysts who have looked at McCain"s goal think it wildly ambitious, given the costs to build such plants, permitting hurdles, opposition, and the time frame for construction. Obama is willing to consider nuclear as part of the mix, but wants to emphasize renewables.

Obama is equally ambitious when he claims "we can create 5 million new jobs, easily," if we subscribe to his proposed investment of $150B over ten years in clean energy and infrastructure. A worthy goal and one that is not without some research to back it up. But I"m not sure how this can be paid for, especially with recently high levels of government spending associated with the "Surge" and "Splurge" – the war in Iraq and the bailout.

One area that has been only tacitly addressed and could potentially have the largest impact on meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets and stimulating the economy is energy efficiency. Unfortunately, efficiency is about as sexy as Jimmy Carter"s cardigan sweater, thus the candidates have not been talking about it on the Campaign Trail. Nevertheless Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute and others have argued that efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama and McCain both want to set building efficiency goals. Obama proposes weatherizing 1 million low-income homes annually and McCain wants to start by "greening" the federal government, which has over 3.3 B square feet of offices.

Obama also wants to expand the federal grant program to help states and municipalities build more efficient schools, libraries and police stations that adopt the US Green Building Council"s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles. He also wants to get rid of traditional incandescent lights by 2014, which should be a boon to CFL and LED producers.

Both support efforts to improve the grid and increase percentages of electricity from renewables: Obama envisions 25% of consumer electricity coming from renewables by 2025 (renewables recently topped 10%, according to the Energy Information Association) and McCain has commented that wind could provide 1/5 of electricity supply by 2030 with the right tax credit structure.

On automobiles, McCain has voted against Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, while Obama supports raising and perhaps doubling those standards (currently 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks) over the next 20 years.

And, finally, the two candidates don"t see eye-to-eye on two environmental tax issues: renewal of the Superfund clean-up tax on polluting industries (McCain = nay; Obama = yea) and Obama"s proposed Windfall Profits Tax, taking "excess" profits away from oil companies to support alternatives and offer a "rebate" to individuals and couples ($500/1000) to help offset fuel costs.

In the end, there are a lot of overlaps in their positions, with a few critical differences, mostly in the details or ideology. It is clear that the potential for leadership on energy and the environment is the strongest since Clinton and Nixon.

Both candidates believe that climate change is an urgent issue, are committed to energy independence and investments in alternatives, and want to make green jobs a reality. Senator McCain has long been a conservationist, in the Teddy Roosevelt Republican mold, and Senator Obama has been engaged in environmentally friendly proposals since his time in the Illinois Senate.

The big question is the economy. There are troubling signs that the double edged sword of the economy and war may impede progress on the environment and a new energy economy in the coming administration. Oil could go as low as $50/barrel before it bounces back, which it will, and the financial crisis is likely to drag on, if it hasn"t already moved from Recession to Depression.

Unfortunately, the environment and all things green tend to thrive in positive economic times; it is still considered a luxury issue. That may all change if oil and gas supplies have indeed hit peak – Russia, Norway, and Saudi Arabia are all in decline -- if the impacts of climate change begin to be felt more acutely, and, frankly, if we can demonstrate that the best way to rebuild our economy is to do it around something more sustainable than new home sales, consumer spending, toxic mortgages, and credit default swaps.

In my view, the next President must stay the course in his pursuit of a new green economy, but be realistic about costs and timing. Right now, we"ve heard mostly platitudes.

Practical solutions exist and we need to accelerate the adoption of low-carbon energy sources, raise efficiency standards to spur development of energy efficient products, and improve the electricity grid and energy infrastructure. This will require a laser-like focus on the lowest cost solutions and make trade-offs where necessary.

In the end, policy action is only a partial solution, innovation and entrepreneurship is critical. We can"t expect the government to do it all – especially now that they are taking over the entire financial services sector.

Let"s hope the next president, whoever he is, heeds the words of Oxford professor Steve Rayner, to paraphrase, "We don"t need a silver bullet, but rather silver buckshot" to tackle these issues.

We need to make the environment and energy part of the economic and national security agenda. I think Senators McCain and Obama both realize this; and whoever wins on November 4th will set aside platitudes for pragmatism.

PainlessPump.com :: Election '08 | Articles

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:30:00 -0700

Before delving into the details of Senator McCain"s energy plans, it"s worth noting how remarkable it is that our final choice should be between two candidates who view our energy and environmental challenges so similarly, even if their preferred solutions differ markedly, both in execution and in their underlying philosophy. It was not at all a forgone conclusion that the ultimate Republican nominee for President would consider climate change as a problem rivaling energy security, or that he would regard action on the former as a means of addressing the latter. Several of Senator McCain"s challengers in the primaries appeared to view climate change as either a hoax or a nuisance issue. In essence, Senator McCain"s proposals would create a transition plan for moving the US economy towards using much less imported oil, improving overall energy efficiency and reducing emissions. This would be achieved by ramping up domestic energy production, encouraging new energy and efficiency technology, and putting a market price on greenhouse gas emissions.

If you asked me for the single-sentence summary of the McCain energy plan, it would be nearly identical to one for the Obama Plan: "Make the US more energy independent and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through an emissions cap and trade system and other measures." The energy and climate sections of Senator McCain"s campaign website mirror these priorities. Although it has gained considerable detail since I reviewed it in January, it remains less specific than Senator Obama"s site. That no longer appears to be an omission, but rather a reflection of a profound philosophical difference in their approaches.

Where Senator Obama"s energy plan relies heavily on mandates or incentives for specific technology pathways--electrified vehicles, for example--Senator McCain"s emphasizes outcomes and offers incentives based on making progress towards them. For example, his Clean Car Challenge provides consumers with incentives for purchasing advanced technology vehicles based on the reduction of CO2 emissions they achieve, with zero-emission vehicles (tank-to-wheel) qualifying for a $5,000 tax credit. In addition to a tax credit for R&D, he proposes an X-Prize-like $300 million payoff for a quantum leap in vehicle battery technology. He would also end both the subsidy for domestic corn ethanol and the tariff on imported ethanol, forcing US ethanol producers to compete with other fuels, and particularly with more energy-efficient cane ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean.

This emphasis on outcomes also applies to Senator McCain"s approach to vehicle efficiency. Rather than calling for further increases in the recently-enacted 35 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy target for 2022, he has proposed strengthening CAFE enforcement by increasing the fines for missing the targets already in place--something that has received scandalously-little attention. This currently amounts to $55 per car for each mile-per-gallon below the standard. In 2006, for example, Daimler Chrysler paid $30 million in fines on 196,000 imported Mercedes Benzes, or $154/car. If CAFE is to be an effective tool for promoting fuel efficiency, rather than just measuring it, it must have sharper teeth than that.

Senator McCain"s approach to climate change builds on the first cap & trade bill that he co-authored with Senator Lieberman in 2003 and reintroduced in the Senate in 2005 and 2007. His current version of this proposal would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 60%, compared to 1990 emissions, with milestone targets along the way. The first of these would see US emissions return to 2005 levels by 2012. That would make for a relatively soft transition, since 2006 emissions were below 2005"s, and a slowing economy is liable to reduce them further. The gradual phase-in of auctioning for emissions permits would also ease the transition into this otherwise radical means of transforming the US energy economy. However, as I noted in my analysis of Senator Obama"s plans, cap & trade would still function much like a tax on the entire economy, with potentially serious consequences during a major economic downturn. The odds of enacting and implementing such a system in the next two years have clearly diminished within the last month, no matter how high a priority either candidate deems climate change to be.

The most notable departure from Senator McCain"s focus on outcomes, rather than specifying technology, involves nuclear power. He has described nuclear energy as a centerpiece of his energy security and climate change program and proposed building 45 new nuclear reactors in the US by 2030, with a target for eventually building 100 new plants--presumably to counteract the eventual retirement of most of the existing fleet of 104 reactors, some of which date to the early 1970s, with the newest having been completed in 1996. This is a very ambitious goal, and it represents one of the biggest differences between the energy plans of the two candidates. Senator McCain"s confidence in nuclear power appears to rely as much on the decades-long experience of the US Navy with nuclear propulsion as on the current power reactor fleet that supplied 19% of all US electricity generated last year. Senator Obama has frequently expressed concerns about the safety, security, waste disposal and proliferation risks of nuclear power, and although he supports it in principle, it is not obvious that any of the nuclear plants for which permit applications have already been submitted would proceed in an Obama administration.

As helpful as more nuclear power plants would be for reducing the emissions that accompany our current reliance on coal-fired power plants, along with enabling truly zero-emission electric vehicles--as opposed to those that merely shift their emissions to a central power plant--nuclear is no quick fix. Considering that the only US nuclear power plant already under construction--following a 20-year hiatus--is not expected to start up until 2013, the 2030 timeline for achieving the 45-reactor goal looks just barely long enough. Perhaps that explains Senator McCain"s emphasis on drilling for oil and gas in portions of the US currently off-limits to exploration, as a transition strategy to buy time for renewables and nuclear power to ramp up.

His support for expanded drilling covers the estimated 18 billion barrels of undiscovered potential oil resources and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that were restricted by the recently-expired federal drilling ban, but it apparently does not extend to lifting the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR.) While the mantra of "Drill Here, Drill Now" may seem overly simplistic, inclusion of conventional energy recognizes two key facts of our energy security challenge: The US still possesses enough remaining hydrocarbons to make a serious dent in our oil imports--though not to displace them entirely--and those hydrocarbons represent a concentrated and efficient energy source (in the energy return on energy invested in producing them, EROEI,) on a scale that renewable energy will not attain for years to come.

Although many of the elements of Senator McCain"s plan look sensible, I still struggle with the notion of energy independence that underpins much of his--and Senator Obama"s--energy strategies. Although Senator McCain has recently refined his goal of "strategic independence" to encompass backing out Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, we might get greater benefits from a more positive strategy of working with our natural hemispheric allies, such as helping Mexico revitalize its flagging energy industry and partnering with Brazil to develop its vast new oil finds, while we expand our own sources and use energy more efficiently. That would enhance energy security in a manner more consistent with the Senator"s general espousal of free trade principles.

With regard to energy and the environment, voters face a difficult--and thus extremely fortunate--choice between two candidates who treat the energy crisis and climate change with the seriousness that these closely-connected issues deserve. The proposals of either one would move us much closer to a coherent and practical national energy policy, something that we have not had for far too long. At the same time, the differences in their approaches are significant and merit careful consideration. While Senator Obama"s plans may depend too heavily on help from a federal government that could be over-extended by a number of other pressing concerns, Senator McCain"s may rely too much on free market solutions that would be a tough sell in light of perceptions concerning the causes of the current financial crisis. And if elected, either one would find himself facing a powerful Congressional majority with its own ideas for solving these problems. The one certainty is that I will not lack for suitable topics on which to blog in 2009.

Visit my Blog...