Green Counsel

And on Page 4, a Beautiful Sunny Day

Another typical day of depressing energy/global warming related news from today's New York Times:

"Death Toll is Over 100 in California Heat Wave"
"Exxon Posts $10 Billion Profit"
"Hussein Now Awaits Verdict"
"Today: partly sunny, afternoon thunderstorms [apocalyptic and happening now], high 89"
"Death Toll From Heat in Europe Passes 80"
"Utilities Pay Scientist Ally On Warming"
"Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah"
"Series of Woes Mar Iraq Project Hailed as Model"

But on page 4, a glimmer of hope: "Hot German July Doesn't Faze Farmer Who Reaps the Sun."

The Times reports that as Germany "sizzles through what is expected to be its hottest July on record," a pig farmer from Bavaria has covered his 150 year-old 200-acre pig farm with 10,050 solar panels that can supply power to all 7,000 residents of his village when running at full capacity. The local utility buys the electricity to meet peak demand during heatwaves when air conditioners are running full blast. And the solar famer makes $600,000 per year from the sale of his electricity which will allow him to pay off his loans in 15 to 16 years.

The farm was made possible as a result of Germany's progressive feed-in tariffs that guarantee solar farmers a minimum price for each kilowatt of electricity for twenty years.

To hedge his bets, the German farmer has held on to his pigs. Meanwhile the U.S. energy pigs are hedging their bets by trying to increase fossil fuel drilling in Alaska and in the nation's coastal waters. (See, e.g., Today's NY Times: "Senate Chiefs Plan to Resist Compromise on Energy Bill".)

Men (and Woman) in Black to Decide Fate of Earth :-(

Before the end of its term last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case concerning whether the E.P.A. has the authority under the Clear Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide. The issue in the case is relatively simple: whether greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act that threaten "public health or welfare" such that the federal government may regulate them.

The EPA and the Bush Administration have said "no." They argue that the Clear Air Act mentions CO2 only in passing, and if Congress truly intended to regulate greenhouse gases it would have instructed the EPA to take aggressive actions such as it did with sulfur dioxide.

The New York Times said in its lead editorial today that the "case is among the most important environmental disputes ever to come before the court." The outcome, the Times said, "will have much to say about whether the country will be able to act more aggressively on a problem with potentially grave consequences" and may also determine whether the states may act aggressively without fear of a federal veto.

But what's truly frightening is that the Federal Government has so completely ignored the central crisis of our time that we are left clutching at straws from the Supreme Court. Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility and -- even if the Court rules that the E.P.A has authority to regulate greenhouse gases -- the Bush Administration has stated it will not do so.

Every week, there is more bad news about global warming, with evidence of deeper and broader impacts. This week, a new study indicated that western wildfires have increased “suddenly and dramatically” since the late 1980s which, according to a co-author, “appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming.” Since about 1987, fires increased in average from one week to five weeks or more, there were four times as many fires, the area burned increased more than six-fold, and the wildfire season was extended by 78 days.

The Supreme Court decision will be important, but it's going to take much more than the Supreme Court to rescue us. At this time, we must be single issue voters: any Federal, State and Local government official who doesn't take proactive material action on global warming and sustainability must be voted out of office.

And we must take action in our own lives: educate, take the bus, buy local, conserve, eat organic, recycle, re-use, make your house energy efficient, support renewable energy, proselytize, and start a sustainable business.

Corporatism in America

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. -- Franklin Roosevelt

An op-ed in the the New York Times today by law professor Nina Mendelson outlines three instances where the federal government is attempting to trump state and local laws that protect health and environment. Mendelson wonders why the "federal government is suddenly trying to block state efforts to protect public health - through bureaucratic actions largely outside public view" while "big businesses' revenues are being shielded [and] protections for consumers and the environment are being stripped away. She notes the following events:

1) In March, the House of Representative passed, and the Senate is now considering, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," that would prevent states from addressing food hazards and leave food protection solely to the FDA. The proposed law would, for example, prevent California from applying its Proposition 65, a law that protects against carcinogens, and prevent Michigan and Connecticut from requiring labels on dried fruit containing sulfites. [The op-ed piece cites a report from Rep Henry Waxman showing that since 2001 Congress has enacted 27 laws that preempt state authority in areas including health, safety, the environment and consumer protection.]

2) The Bush Administration is trying to trump the State's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1967, California has been allowed to set its own automotive pollution limits, subject to limited review by the EPA, and California has set limits (which ten other states intend to adopt) on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. This spring, the US Dept. of Transportion (in its new fuel economy standards for light trucks) stated that the exclusive federal authority to set fuel-economy standards bars California's emission limits, because car manufacturers might comply with emission limits by increasing fuel efficiency. [Go here for more info.]

3) The FDA recently released standards that say that state agencies and courts cannot require any safety information on drug labels beyond what the F.D.A requires.

Mendelson notes that federal environmental and health regulations have historically provided a floor of minimum protection, whereas the States have frequently provided higher groundbreaking health and consumer laws. She does not answer her question that asks why the federal government is suppressing State regulations, but here's a possibility:

Corporations will do what they can, and where they can, to challenge laws that challenge their profits. In today's political climate, it's easier for corporations to influence policy in Washington where at least two branches of government are captured by corporate interests. It's much harder to control fifty messy statehouses (especially the unruly ones, like California) which, while far from perfect, are smaller, closer and currently more responsive to the People -- the once and future source of power in our democracy.

"Talking 'bout My (Distributed) Generation"

Several years ago, I attended a conference about renewable energy at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The City Bar is a great granddaddy of a bar association -- housed in a beautiful but stodgy old building with many of its members hailing from the largest and oldest law firms in New York -- and I was pleased that the City Bar was so forward-thinking to have a conference on renewables.

The conference, however, was immediately disappointing; it was mostly about financing and siting issues relating to large wind projects, with almost nothing about solar, distributed generation or energy efficiency -- the things I was most interested in.

Upon reflection, the reasons were obvious. Clearly, large wind projects were moving forward and law firms wanted the legal work. But beyond that, why is large wind moving forward faster in the U.S. than other renewables? Is it solely that large wind technology is inherently better and more cost efficient than other renewables? Is it a quirk of nature that large wind is more efficient than solar? Or is something else going on?

Whatever technical advantages large wind may have, one major institutional factor favoring large wind is that it fits the model of traditional electricity generation. Although large wind has great environmental benefits, from an energy and economic perspective it is similar to coal, natural gas and nuclear. The power is generated in large facilities and transmitted through the electric grid to consumers. Large wind is financed, sited, developed, and implemented almost identically to how the energy business has been conducted for years by utilities, governments, lenders and lawyers.

By contrast, distributed generation -- where energy is produced at the point of use and every home and business can be an energy producer -- is revolutionary and threatening to those who benefit from the current infrastructure. For that reason (and others), it doesn't receive the same favor from governments as coal, natural gas and nuclear, and is resisted by utilities and other entrenched interests. This is one reason why, for example, utilities in the United States are almost universally against improved net metering laws (that allow locally generated electricity to be put back into the grid). Utilities claim there are "safety" issues, but there doesn't appear to be evidence of danger, and the real reason appears to be that distributed generation is threatening to utilities' income base and method of doing business.

The benefits of distributed generation are great: a more stable grid, more energy security, more efficiency, elimination of transmission costs and waste, and more possibilities for use of renewables such as solar and small wind. Fortunately, the institutional barriers against distributed generation can be largely overcome by good government policies and sufficient incentives to get the industry started, as evidenced by German and Japan. New Jersey and California have made signficant strides, and the province of Ontario just implemented a "Standard Offer Contract" (similar to feed-in tariffs in Germany).

All the states and the federal government need to implement similar programs so that the next City Bar program on renewables will focus on legal issues relating to distributed generation.

"Reality has a well-known Liberal bias"

Take a look at Stephen Colbert's roast of our President at the White House Correspondent's Dinner:

www.thankyoustephencolbert.org

Gas Still Too Cheap

NPR's Morning Edition had an interesting story this morning ("High Gas Prices Quietly Welcomed by Environmentalists") about whether gasoline consumption can be better curbed through regulation or through high prices (particularly a tax).  Economists feel that gasoline prices would need to double and remain there (i.e. $7-8/gallon) before behavior would really change, and advocate a gas tax to get us there.  The externalities (accidents, smog, global warming, etc.) are simply not reflected in the current price of gasoline. Environmentalists, however, feel that a gas tax is a complete political dead-horse, fearing that it would be extremely unpopular with most Americans, and advocated regulations requiring 40mpg automobiles (as exist in Europe).  Economists note that the 40 mpg averages in Europe exist, not because of regulation, but because of high prices (through taxes) that have existed for decades.   

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we are going to get better fuel efficiency (through either taxation or regulation) until we have leadership from either side of the aisle in Washington.

Note also another story on Morning Edition this morning concerning an organization in Indiana promoting car pooling by matching people up using a method similar to online dating ("Carpooling Best Sampled One Day Per Week").

Extension of Solar Tax Credit Proposed in Washington

An important and necessary extension of the solar tax credit has been proposed in Washington -- "Securing America's Energy Independence Act"  -- which would extend the solar tax credit for eight years and increase the credit cap from $2000 per system to $2000 per kilowatt.   Because this would extend the credit for eight years (from two years), it is much more likely to help build the solar industry.  According to Renewable Energy Access, "A long-term extension, [experts] say, is essential to reducing the cost of solar energy, as it would create market conditions that allow solar companies to make investments and drive down costs through economies of scale."

Cape Fear, Massachusetts

The Boston Globe reported this week that the Cape Wind project is nearly dead, with a new proposed amendment to the Coast Guard Bill in Congressional Committee that would defer decision-making authority to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is opposed to the project. It's like a bad remake of Cape Fear where you're just about to save yourself but then your internal Kennedy, so often the victim of being divided and conquered, divides and conquers yourself.  And when you're about to lift your head, the Fossil Fuel Gods come in for the final bludgeoning.

Here's Greenpeace's call for help:

*****************************

We've seen the political influence of big oil before, and even drawn a connection between financial contributions and congressional voting records - before anyone had heard of Jack Abramoff. But this takes the cake. Congress is actively killing America's first offshore wind farm, and only YOU can stop them. Even President Bush has admitted that our nation is addicted to oil and we need alternative energy. But Congress can't seem to get enough of the oil drug, or at least the financial contributions from the oil industry. Oil industry lobbyists negotiated an 11th hour back boardroom deal that could kill Cape Wind forever.

Congress comes back to Washington in two weeks, and I hope they'll return to find a mountain of angry emails, faxes and phone messages. Take Action! Tell Congress not to block the future of wind energy.

<http://usactions.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=97&ref_source=listssavecapewind>

This is just the start. We've been working to make Cape Wind a reality for more than two years, and we can't give up now. As soon as Congress comes back, you'll be hearing from us again, and I hope you'll be ready to act quickly.

Sincerely,

Kate Smolski

Clean Energy/Cape Wind Campaigner

Greenpeace USA <http://www.greenpeaceusa.org>

A Humpty Dumpty World

At a time when the White House and Congress all seem to be captured by corporate interests, it can be hard to believe that the United States government -- a democracy in name -- represents the will of the people.

Although after years of conservative appointments it's becoming less frequent, occasionally the Courts -- the least democratic of the federal branches, relatively insulated from the political process with lifetime appointments -- can be most protective of the environment and the citizenry.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the EPA and Bush Administration's New Source Review policy that would have loosened emission rules and allowed older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls.

Judge Rogers accused the EPA of trying to redefine language in the Clean Air Act to selectively exclude many facilities from the requirement that they install new air-pollution controls when making significant upgrades. The Court believed that when Congress required upgrades for a "modification" it meant any modification. The Court stated that "[o]nly in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words [to define "modification"] while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a worldview."

As Grist pointed out, "Americans who breathe scored a big victory . . ."

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127.html

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/03/20/

Sicking the IRS on Greenpeace

Anyone who's taken on corporate interests in an environmental battle knows that the corporate arsenal includes litigation, advertising, public relations, "non-profit" front groups, disinformation and lobbying, among other strategies.  ExxonMobil combined tactics, with a front-group/lobbying one-two punch, in an effort to challenge Greenpeace's tax exempt status.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a non-profit "watchdog" group known as Public Interest Watch (PIW) successfully lobbied for an IRS tax audit of Greenpeace.  PIW's tax filing from August 2003 to July 2004 states that $120k of $124k of income came from ExxonMobil and, according to Greenpeace, the IRS acknowledged that their investigation arose from PIW's complaint.  Greenpeace was notified in March that it retained its tax exempt status, but the three month audit procedure surely cut into Greenpeace's other work.

Source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/4619