Category Archives: 2008 elections

Barack Obama for President – You thought Bill Clinton was long winded

Posted on by
1

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. This policy goes on and on and on. Its detail has gotten even longer since October and I did not think that was possible. The format has changed too. It has more specific points now then it had then. It is a good plan and Hillary’s now looks a lot like his. There in lays the rub. There is very little difference between them so I do not understand what the chest beating and the loud shouting is all about. I suppose there has to be a reason to, “vote for me”. But I wish they would tone it down abit. I do miss Richardson’s “stop emitting” rhetoric.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Plan for a Clean Energy Future

“Well, I don’t believe that climate change is just an issue that’s convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it’s one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That’s why I’ve fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That’s why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn’t just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

At a Glance

  • Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
  • Invest in a Clean Energy Future
  • Support Next Generation Biofuels
  • Set America on Path to Oil Independence
  • Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
  • Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Speak your mind and help set the policies that will guide this campaign and change the country.

Videos on Energy

The Problem

Foreign Oil: America’s 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.

Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.

Barack Obama’s Plan

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

  • Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
  • Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future

  • Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
  • Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
  • Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
  • Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
  • Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
  • Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
  • Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

Support Next Generation Biofuels

  • Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
  • Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
  • Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
  • Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

  • Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.

Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

  • Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He’ll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
  • Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
  • Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

  • Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
  • Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

Barack Obama’s Record

  • Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
  • CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called “real as opposed to hypothetical results.”

Hillary Clinton For President – What a difference 3 or 4 months makes

Posted on by
2

Last time I visited the campaign trail there were something like 17 candidates. At the time reveiwing the candidates Energy Policies, I picked Huckabee on the Republican side of the race because A. He had a reasonably laid out policy (fully half of the Republicans did not mention energy) and B. He called for Energy Independence in 8 years (He was audaciously suggesting He would win a second term as President)

On the Democrat side I liked Richardson for his “No Emmissions Stance” but also because of his experience as Energy Secretary. I found that Obama/Edwards/Kucinich not far behind with different focii. Much has happened since then. Wow is that an understatement or what?!?! If you have been living in a Cave and not as well connected as Bin Laden you know that the field has been wacked down to 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats, so its time to take another look at their Energy Policies.

The big change in that area is with Hillary Clinton. Last time I looked she had a vague paragraph about spending 50 Billion $$’s on Energy Research and Energy Conservation. Now she has an actual policy statement. It looks amazing like Bill Richardson’s.

AS ALWAYS – CES endorses no political candidates, we simply examine their policies.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

POWERING AMERICA'S FUTURE: NEW ENERGY, NEW JOBS

Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America’s energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs.

Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary’s plan will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis.

Setting ambitious targets, the plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day.

Hillary would transform our economy from carbon-based to clean and energy efficient, jumpstarting research and development through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research. She would also spur the green building industry by funding the retrofitting and modernization of 20 million low-income homes and take concrete steps to reduce electricity consumption, including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in “Green Vehicle Bonds.”

To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation’s stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Hillary’s plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:

  • A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;
  • An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;
  • A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
  • Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;
  • 10 “Smart Grid City” partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;
  • An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of “Green Vehicle Bonds” to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;
  • A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
  • A new “Connie Mae” program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;
  • A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
  • Creation of a “National Energy Council” within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.
  • A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.

Community Energy Systems as represented by this blogger does not particularly care for the Cap and Trade proposals because in means the Energy Community in the US, which has burned and fiddled, as the rest of the World progressed will continue to do so as long they are allowed. It is nice to see that Senator Clinton has decided to get in the game. It’s nice to see that she wants the large Energy Companies to help pay for the shift to a noncarbon economy. I think that they should pay for the whole thing beginning with a requirement that their tear out all of their Gas Stations and close all their Coal Mines. That is probably too radical for her though.

Bush is addicted to lies and subtrefuge

Posted on by
3

And even the WALL STREET JOURNAL AGREES with me. I am not going to reprint the whole article here because it is 5 pages long but the synopsis is that Bush has had a new “fuel” source per year since he announced that the USA is addicted to oil. 2 years ago Hydrogen was gonna be our savior. Now its switchgrass ethanol. Fact is it takes the political WILL to implement new clean energy advances and political will is something the Bush administration has but not GOODWILL.

http://www.iogen.ca/news_events/iogen_news/2006_02_02_addiction_treatment.pdf

 

The Wall Street Journal

 

Addiction Treatment

Bush’s Latest Energy Solution,

Like its Forebears, Faces Hurdles

Fuel from ‘Cellulosic Ethanol’ Is Costly, Hard to Dispense;

Broad Political Support, Enthusiasm From Detroit

By JOHN J. FIALKA and JEFFREY BALL

Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

February 2, 2006; Page A1

With oil prices stuck at more than $60 a barrel, President Bush is touting “cellulosic ethanol” as a 21st-century

panacea for the U.S.’s addiction to oil. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Mr. Bush said energy made from

“wood chips, stalks or switch grass” could be available at gas pumps in six years and could supply nearly a third of

the fuel needed to keep Americans on the road.

The plan is the latest in a long line of promises from Washington to back new forms of alternative energy, going

back to President Carter’s promotion of synthetic fuels. It offers some intriguing new technology and the possibility

of widespread support from environmentalists, farmers and auto makers.

Like earlier promises, most of which failed, Mr. Bush’s surprise promotion of cellulosic ethanol also faces huge

hurdles. For one, the budget-constrained White House is offering little money to back up its rhetoric: just $150

million next year, hardly enough to revolutionize a multibillion dollar energy market.

The fuel also faces distribution problems and a lack of properly equipped vehicles. And an unpopular gas tax might

well be needed to make ethanol a competitively priced product at the pump.

The proposal marks a switch in emphasis for a politically weakened president. The administration previously has

said the route to energy independence lay in encouraging domestic oil and gas drilling, including opening the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge. Such proposals, which have repeatedly died in

Congress amid bitter political wrangles, were notably absent in this year’s

speech.

By contrast, cellulosic ethanol can draw support from a surprisingly diverse

political coalition. Scientists, investors and policy makers say it is increasingly

viable to make fuel from farm waste, also known as “biomass.” For one, it is

cheaper than corn-based ethanol, the fuel that has been a heavily subsidized

favorite in Washington. Private-sector investors — from Virgin mogul Richard

Branson to Canada’s Iogen Corp. — are putting money into the concept in hopes

of seeing an ethanol boom in the U.S. similar to one in Brazil.

Environmentalists like the idea because burning the fuel doesn’t pollute as much

as conventional gasoline. Defense hawks, notably Reagan Secretary of State

George P. Shultz and Clinton Central Intelligence Agency Director James

Woolsey, promote it as a way to boost national security. Struggling U.S. auto

companies like it because they have a competitive advantage over the Japanese

on so-called flexible-fuel vehicles that can switch between gasoline and

alternatives.

And because the fuel can be made from a wide range of agricultural products, it draws backing from a

geographically diverse range of politicians, from New York Republican Gov. George Pataki to a bipartisan group

of elected officials in California. The fuel is even popular in farm states such as Iowa that tout conventional cornbased

ethanol, since it can make heavy use of corn stalks.

Many experts say conservation or a gas tax is the best way to dent import demand. Mr. Bush has rejected these

approaches as conflicting with his free-market bent and has preferred throughout his term to focus on new drilling

and new technologies. The White House estimates the president has provided $10 billion in spending on new

energy technologies since taking office in 2001.

Beyond ethanol, Mr. Bush’s new “Advanced Energy Initiative” includes spending for research on hydrogen cars and

hybrid-car batteries that can be recharged overnight, as well as money for solar and wind energy. His grand goal, as

he stated in his national address, is “to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”  

 

Significant Departure

That would mark a significant departure from the future the government now predicts.

OH I am sorry…not a lie, its a significant departure…I will have to remember that, … a significant departure..

The Results of the Bali Summit on Climate Change

Posted on by
1

The reporting about the Climate Change Summit in Bali was atrocious. That is why I held off writing anything about it until the dust had started to settle. I hate “horse race” style reporting where there is “almost an agreement”, then a suprise compromise, then a new wrinkle, finally an extended meeting that leads to A BREAK THROUGH! I do not mean to poopoo the accomplishments of either Kyoto (I lobbied for it) or even Bali, but it was clear that all the Bush administration wanted was to push the whole thing off until the next administration. He accomplished that, signed the Energy Bill and then turned around and used the bill to block California’s attempt to crack down on tailpipe toxins. And he did it with that gotcha smile of his. He knows that California will win its suit to do just that, because of the waivers they have gotten in the past and because the SUPREME COURT has always said they can. Again that will be on someone else’s watch…what a prick!

http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

As you can see, all the fuss was about 5 pages of text.

Advance unedited version

Decision -/CP.13

Bali Action Plan

The Conference of the Parties,

Resolving to urgently enhance implementation of the Convention in order to achieve its

ultimate objective in full accordance with its principles and commitments,

Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global

priorities,

Responding to the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that delay in

reducing emissions significantly constrains opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels

and increases the risk of more severe climate change impacts,

Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency1 to address climate change as

indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained

implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in

order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing, inter alia:

(a) A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for

emission reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance

with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of

common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and taking into

account social and economic conditions and other relevant factors;

(b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including,

inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation

commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction

objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of

efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national

circumstances;

(ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the

context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology,

financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable

manner;

(iii) Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing

emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and

1 Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Technical Summary, pages 39 and 90, and Chapter 13, page 776.

Advance unedited version

2

the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of

forest carbon stocks in developing countries;

(iv) Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, in order to enhance

implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention;

(v) Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets, to enhance the

cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, bearing in mind

different circumstances of developed and developing countries;

(vi) Economic and social consequences of response measures;

(vii) Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging

multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on

synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support mitigation in a

coherent and integrated manner;

(c) Enhanced action on adaptation, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) International cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation actions,

including through vulnerability assessments, prioritization of actions, financial

needs assessments, capacity-building and response strategies, integration of

adaptation actions into sectoral and national planning, specific projects and

programmes, means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions, and

other ways to enable climate-resilient development and reduce vulnerability of all

Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing

countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change,

especially the least developed countries and small island developing States, and

further taking into account the needs of countries in Africa affected by drought,

desertification and floods;

(ii) Risk management and risk reduction strategies, including risk sharing and

transfer mechanisms such as insurance;

(iii) Disaster reduction strategies and means to address loss and damage associated

with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly

vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change;

(iv) Economic diversification to build resilience;

(v) Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging

multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on

synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support adaptation in a

coherent and integrated manner;

(d) Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation

and adaptation, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Effective mechanisms and enhanced means for the removal of obstacles to, and

provision of financial and other incentives for, scaling up of the development and

transfer of technology to developing country Parties in order to promote access to

affordable environmentally sound technologies;

(ii) Ways to accelerate deployment, diffusion and transfer of affordable

environmentally sound technologies;

Advance unedited version

3

(iii) Cooperation on research and development of current, new and innovative

technology, including win-win solutions;

(iv) The effectiveness of mechanisms and tools for technology cooperation in specific

sectors;

(e) Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action

on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation, including, inter alia,

consideration of:

(i) Improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources and

financial and technical support, and the provision of new and additional

resources, including official and concessional funding for developing country

Parties;

(ii) Positive incentives for developing country Parties for the enhanced

implementation of national mitigation strategies and adaptation action;

(iii) Innovative means of funding to assist developing country Parties that are

particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change in meeting the

cost of adaptation;

(iv) Means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions on the basis of

sustainable development policies;

(v) Mobilization of public- and private-sector funding and investment, including

facilitation of carbon-friendly investment choices;

(vi) Financial and technical support for capacity-building in the assessment of the

costs of adaptation in developing countries, in particular the most vulnerable

ones, to aid in determining their financial needs;

2. Decides that the process shall be conducted under a subsidiary body under the

Convention, hereby established and known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative

Action under the Convention, that shall complete its work in 2009 and present the outcome of its work to

the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its fifteenth session;

3. Agrees that the process shall begin without delay, that the sessions of the group will be

scheduled as often as is feasible and necessary to complete the work of the group, where possible in

conjunction with sessions of other bodies established under the Convention, and that its sessions may be

complemented by workshops and other activities, as required;

4. Decides that the first session of the group shall be held as soon as is feasible and not later

than April 2008;

5. Decides that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the group, with one being from a Party included

in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Party) and the other being from a Party not included in Annex I to

the Convention (non-Annex I Party), shall alternate annually between an Annex I Party and a non-

Annex I Party;

6. Takes note of the proposed schedule of meetings contained in the annex; 7. Instructs the group to develop its work programme at its first session in a coherent and

integrated manner;

Advance unedited version

4

8. Invites Parties to submit to the secretariat, by 22 February 2008, their views regarding the

work programme, taking into account the elements referred to in paragraph 1 above, to be compiled by

the secretariat for consideration by the group at its first meeting;

9. Requests the group to report to the Conference of the Parties at its fourteenth session on

progress made;

10. Agrees to take stock of the progress made, at its fourteenth session, on the basis of the

report by the group;

11. Agrees that the process shall be informed by, inter alia, the best available scientific

information, experience in implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and processes

thereunder, outputs from other relevant intergovernmental processes and insights from the business and

research communities and civil society;

12. Notes that the organization of work of the group will require a significant amount of

additional resources to provide for the participation of delegates from Parties eligible to be funded and to

provide conference services and substantive support;

13. Strongly urges Parties in a position to do so, in order to facilitate the work of the group,

to provide contributions to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process and the Trust Fund

for Supplementary Activities for the purposes referred to in paragraph 12 above and to provide other

forms of in kind support such as hosting a session of the group.

Advance unedited version

5

ANNEX

Indicative timetable for meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group on

Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention in 2008

Session Dates

Session 1 March/April 2008

Session 2 June 2008, in conjunction with the twenty-eighth sessions of the subsidiary

bodies

Session 3 August/September 2008

Session 4 December 2008, in conjunction with the fourteenth session of the

Conference of the Parties

– – – – –

That is it! Yes there are 13 other COP 3 documents, 11 othe CMP documents and 1 AWG 4 documents, but the above is the heart of the agreement. It would have been nice if someone in the press would have published it and not left it up to the U.N.

An Inconvenient Truth Wins In Court – New Party Wackos Lose Again

Posted on by
Reply

 Al Gore wins again. The British Court has ruled that the science does support the “broad claims” of An Inconvenient Truth. There goes another one of Rush Limbaugh’s notorious lies. So much for the “11 massive flaws” in Al Gore’s arguements. Still should it be shown in public schools? I have my doubts which I will express tomorrow. But for now I’ll just bask in the glow…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=8

Gore’s climate film has scientific errors – judge

· Court rules documentary can be shown in schools
· Presentation is ‘broadly accurate’ but lacks balance

Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were “nine scientific errors” in the film.

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US vice-president’s views on climate change.

The film was broadly welcomed by environmental campaigners and scientists on its release last year, and while they did point out that it contained mistakes, these were relatively small and did not detract from the film’s central message – that global warming was a real problem and humans had the technology to do something about it.

The judge made his remarks when assessing a case brought by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of a political group, the New party, who is opposed to a government plan to show the film in secondary schools.

The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views. The “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.

The judge also said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools and Families to make clear to teachers some of Mr Gore’s views were not supported or promoted by the government, and there was “a view to the contrary”.

He said he had viewed the film and described it as “powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced”, built around the “charismatic presence” of Mr Gore, “whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change”.

The mistakes identified mainly deal with the predicted impacts of climate change, and include Mr Gore’s claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting in either west Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’.” He accepted that melting of the ice would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported “by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

The nine points: fact or fallacy?

· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” – but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring

· It spoke of global warming “shutting down the ocean conveyor” – the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was “very unlikely” that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down

· Mr Gore had also claimed – by ridiculing the opposite view – that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”

· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established

· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: “It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from … population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability”

· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was “insufficient evidence to show that”

· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned “swimming long distances to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm”

· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”

· This article was amended on Friday October 12 2007. A panel in the article above listing the significant errors found by a high court judge in Al Gore’s documentary on global warming was labelled The nine points, but contained only eight. The point we omitted was that the film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”. The missing point has been added.

The Energy Bill May Pass..Ok so everyone is real excited and the internet is a vibrating so I put this up but TGI(WB)F shall not be ignored!

Posted on by
Reply

Desktop Background Header Faded Logo

 Insider Tagline White
Dear Doug,By just picking up your phone, you could help combat global warming and diversify America’s energy supply.This week, Ray LaHood will vote on whether to put America on the path toward a clean energy future.  All the pieces are in place:  A national renewable electricity standard means consumers across the country would save more than $13 billion on their energy bills by 2020. Raising fuel economy standards will save American consumers $25 billion at the pump, create 170,800 new jobs in America, and cut U.S. global warming pollution from passenger vehicles 21 percent by 2030.

Harnessing energy from clean, renewable resources and making cars that go farther on a gallon of gas would create jobs, save consumers money, and significantly reduce global warming pollution. Congress must pass strong final legislation now!

Your Representative’s vote is key to determining whether or not we will take this crucial step.

Our Call Center makes it painless for you to call your Representative’s office and ask that your elected member of Congress cast a vote that will put us on the path toward a clean energy future. Call now!

Thank you for your help in putting America on the path towards a clean energy future!

Sincerely,

Greg Haegele
Greg Haegele
Director of Conservation  

Lower Pollution Levels Lead To A Vibrant Economy

Posted on by
1

Germany is a perfect example of how producing energy with no pollution (in many case no burning) leads to an economic expansion and creates new good paying jobs. Bush and the Republicans have been wrong all along. Nixon, Reagan and Bush oh my!

Green revolution in the making –

innovative German

environmental protection efforts

Sierra,  Jan-Feb, 1995  by Curtis Moore

<< Page 1  Continued from page 6.  Previous | Next

The cumulative effect of all these programs is to place Germany in a commanding position as nations beset with environmental problems search for ways to reduce pollution quickly and inexpensively. Thailand, for example, decided to install scrubbers on its coal-fired power plants after a single episode of air pollution in Mae Mo District sent more than 4,000 of its citizens to doctors and hospitals. Smog-bound Mexico City has been forced to implement emissions controls on cars and factories. Taiwan is even going so far as to require catalytic converters for motorcycles. Such mandates will almost inevitably benefit Germany because, as Harvard Business School economist Michael Porter explains, “Germany has had perhaps the world’s tightest regulations in stationary air-pollution control, and German companies appear to hold a wide lead in patenting–and exporting–air pollution and other environmental technologies.”

In the United States, however, where environmental standards were relaxed by a succession of Reagan/Bush appointees, often in the name of competitiveness, “as much as 70 percent of the air pollution control equipment sold…is produced by foreign companies,” according to Porter, whose 855-page study of industrial economies, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, examines the impact of environmental regulations on competitiveness.

Germany’s actions continue to contrast sharply with those of the United States, even under President Clinton, whom most environmentalists supported as the green answer to George Bush. Germany’s emissions limits on power plants and incinerators are 4 to 300 times more stringent than those of the United States. German companies that generate electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable forms of power are reimbursed at twice to three times U.S. levels. German recycling is mandatory, while American programs are usually voluntary where they exist at all.

Still, support for Germany’s environmental initiatives is by no means unanimous. Wolfgang Hilger, for example, the chairman of Hoechst, Germany’s largest chemical company, complained bitterly in 1991 that the government had lost all sense of proportion. He claimed that regulations had jeopardized 250 jobs at his company, and threatened it with a $100-million loss. But Hilger represents a minority view. Most German citizens and businesses remain convinced both that environmental protection is essential and that the technological innovation stimulated by stringent environmental requirements will, over the long term, strengthen their national productivity and competitiveness.

Tragically, U.S. political leaders continue to embrace the outmoded and false view that the environment can be protected only at the expense of the economy, when the truth is precisely the opposite. Meanwhile, products of American genius continue to depart for Japan, Germany, and other nations, only to be sold back to U.S. industry sometime in the future. So far, the homes-from-pollution process hasn’t traveled full circle back to its place of invention in the United States. But don’t be surprised if sometime soon you see a piece of wallboard being nailed into a new office or a remodeled home only to find it boldly emblazoned: “Made in Germany.”

Why Ray Lahood is not running for the 18th District?

Posted on by
2

Here is the real reason that Ray Lahood is not running for Congress again. He sent me this letter after I wrote him to support increases in the CAFE Standards. When he finally gets around to it in the letter below…it turns out he supports a much lower CAFE Standard than I was asking for. In fact its the “Floor” or the lowest standard that President Bush Proposed!

The politicians have been told for years by the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries that:

1. renewables are “years” away from being able to helpay LaHood Member of Congress

2. nuclear will have to be part of the mix

3. that we must drill and mine on environmentally sensitive  areas to be energy self sufficient

4. people who say other wise are out to destroy our economy

They have said it for so long that the politicans came to believe it. Now that the world is changing the energy companies can’t say “oh we were lieing to make more money”. So they are just mum and as the Environmental Storm brews all the dinosaurs are running to get out of the road.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

select intelligence oversight panel ranking member

subcommittee onagriculture, rural development,

food and drug administration,

and related agencies                CONGRESSMAN RAY LAHOOD

subcommittee onlegislative branch                                                                                               18TH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS


 

November 14, 2007

Mr. Doug Nicodemus

948 E. Adams

Riverton, IL 62561

Dear Doug:

Thank you for contacting me and sharing your concerns about global warming and our nation’s energy supply. It was good to hear from you on these important issues, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

America must take responsibility for its energy needs, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, promote clean renewable energy sources, and implement a plan to keep our economy growing and our nation safe. It is my understanding that, even though the United States is the world’s third largest crude oil producer, less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 20 percent from the Persian Gulf, 15 percent from Africa, and 15 percent from other regions. Given these facts, I believe that we need to continue to research and develop alternative fuel choices, reduce our consumption of oil through conservation, and work to increase our domestic petroleum supply.

Any energy policy that addresses our petroleum needs must look at increasing our domestic supply. Several areas in the country offer opportunities worth exploring to increase domestic petroleum production, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), other areas in Alaska, the Rocky Mountain region, and along the continental shelf. The technology exists where we can safely extract oil and natural gas from these areas and not adversely affect the local and regional environment. Increasing efficiencies and technological advancement allow us to capture more resources from a smaller footprint.

Two bills aimed at reforming our energy laws, H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, and H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, both recently passed the House of Representatives. However, a number of concerns have arisen with both of these pieces of legislation.

The unfortunate reality is that neither of these bills does anything to help develop our own domestic supply of oil, but rather punishes America’s oil and gas workers by raising taxes, imposing new fees, and putting the brakes on energy exploration, making us even more reliant on foreign oil. Other concerns arose from the amendment offered by Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico. His amendment, which was accepted and included within the final legislation, requires electric suppliers to provide 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2020. The intentions of this amendment are good; however, it unfortunately implements a standardized requirement for the entire country without taking into account the specific needs of individual states. While this new mandate may be easily fulfilled by certain areas of the country that have readily available access to renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, and solar, it becomes more difficult and costly to implement these requirements for other parts of the country where such amenities are not easily found. At the same time, I am also concerned that this legislation

respond to:

1424 longworth house office building                     fj  100 NE monroe                           O 3050 montvale drive                      D  209 west state
washington, DC 20515                                                              peoria, IL 61602                                     springfield, IL 62704       jacksonville, IL 62650

(202)225-6201                                                                   (309)671-7027                                   (217)793-0808                                       PHONE/TTY (217) 245-1431

FAX (202) 225-9249                                                           FAX (309) 671-7309                            FAX (217) 793-9724                               FAX (217) 243-6852

INTERNET: WWW.HOUSE.GOV/LAHOOD/

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER


 

Mr. Doug NicodemusNovember 14, 2007

Page # 2

excludes nuclear energy from being defined as renewable. This would make it increasingly difficult for states such as Illinois to meet these new energy restrictions where nuclear is the dominant form of energy used.

This legislation also failed to address an important issue which I have consistently been concerned with, the promotion of fuel efficient vehicles. Of the 20 million barrels of oil the U.S. consumes in a day, 67 percent is used to power our cars. If Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were increased by only three miles per gallon, not only would it save you money, but it would steeply reduce the amount of oil consumed each day by our country. We already have the technology to increase CAFE standards, and it is the single most important thing we could do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Consistent with this goal, in the new 11 Oth Congress, I have signed onto legislation, as I have done in the past, which would increase our automobile fuel efficiency standards in the United States, H.R. 656. This legislation, introduced by my colleague from Washington, Representative David Reichert, would prescribe CAFE standards for automobiles manufactured after 2016 of at least 33 miles per gallon. This legislation has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, I will closely monitor the progress of this legislation, hopeful that it will reach the House Floor for a vote so that I may continue to show my support for it.

As a result of my dedication to decrease America’s dependence on oil, while researching alternative forms of energy, I was happy to vote to support and pass H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, by a vote of 264-163, earlier this Congress. This bill will repeal a number of tax credits given to major oil corporations in the hope that this would generate investment and research in new and renewable energy alternatives. It will also amend certain deepwater oil and gas leases, issued during 1998 and 1999, to incorporate specified price thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions. The funds generated from this legislation would then be put into a ‘Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve Fund’. The money in this fund would go to researching and developing new and renewable alternatives to petroleum energy in order to wane America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I will continue my dedication to promoting alternative and renewable fuel choices to help lessen our dependence on foreign oil as we continue to work through the 110th Congress. Please feel free to contact me again should you have any further thoughts or concerns.

Sincerely,Ray LaHood Member of Congress


 


 


 

RHL/mjr

Al Gore Wins the Nobel Prize – nah nah nu nah nah

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.aspx/IDp~1572/George%20W.%20Bush%20imitation/Funny%20videos/

The above link will take you to a hysterical video that fuses a bit by Will Ferrell from Saturday Night Live and a kid (maybe 15 or 16 years old) lip sysnching the bit. The bit itself is funny and without his image it shows how well Farrell does George Bush II’s voice. But there is something about adding the kids image that ratchets up the hilarity level. It sums up the Bush administrations attitudes towards not only energy, but the environment as well. And the kid get George Bush’s ADD like movements so much better than Will.

Al Gore in this blog’s estimation may be single handedly responsible for saving this planet. Think how far we would have come on this issue if he had been President for last 7 years. No Nukes…like the Satan Dick Cheney is currently trying to spend 50 billion dollars on, and no pulling out of the Kyoto Accords. Instead we would have had massive spending on Solar and Wind. The economy must shift. Thank god Al Gore recognizes it. And told the rest of the world.

The Best Energy Policy in the Presidential Race – Drum roll please

Posted on by
Reply

The real Difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats recognize that the carbon economy has to end if we are to survive as a species. The Republicans still believe that the carbon economy is here to stay, we have just have to make it “better”. That was a tenable idea (though wrong) 30 years ago. It is dead wrong now.

Richardson is by far the best candidate on Energy Issues. However, the Democrats get it – the Republicans don’t.  Energy will be one of most important issues if not THE most important issue of the 2008 race.