Bleeding Heartland - energy bill

So-called energy package a disgrace for Democrats

desmoinesdem — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:00:00 GMT

If the "energy package" about to emerge in the Senate looks anything like what Kate Sheppard is hearing, Senate Democrats should be ashamed. I threw in the towel on the climate bill a long time ago, because it was clear no serious attempt to address global warming could gain 60 votes in the Senate. Still, I thought some decent provisions might survive in a scaled-back energy bill.

Not so, according to Sheppard, who's among the best reporters covering climate legislation. Sources from "several Senate offices" told her what's likely to be in the new bill, and what will be conspicuously absent:

Obviously, there's no carbon cap, that much we already knew. But there's also no other major energy efficiency standards, and, perhaps most importantly, no renewable electricity standard -not even the weak one included in the energy bill last year. [...]
Senate aides hoping to put a positive spin on the package note that it at least does not include any of the really bad measures that progressive senators were worried about, including major incentives for coal and nuclear power and the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Are we supposed to be impressed that the largest Democratic Senate majority in decades won't press ahead with "really bad measures" for the environment?

For all of President Barack Obama's talk about our clean energy future, we won't even get a renewable electricity standard to boost wind and solar production. We won't get new energy efficiency standards, even though reducing demand for electricity tends to be faster and cheaper than building new facilities to generate electricity.

The American Wind Energy Association put out an action alert urging people to contact their senators demanding a renewable electricity standard in the energy bill. If you are so inclined, you can contact your senators through this page. I will contact the offices of Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, although doing so probably won't accomplish anything.

This disgrace gives me yet another reason not to donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the future. I don't plan to waste my money or volunteer time on Organizing for America either. Obama failed to use his bully pulpit to produce a good climate bill and made stupid concessions to polluting industries along the way. He's so afraid of losing a legislative battle that he didn't even fight the good fight. But when he signs this worthless energy bill, he'll probably declare victory in a very inspiring speech.

UPDATE: How pathetic--a White House official provides a blind quote to Politico blaming environmental groups for the Senate's failure to pass a broad climate bill:

"They didn't deliver a single Republican," the official told POLITICO. "They spent like $100 million and they weren't able to get a single Republican convert on the bill."

Poor Mr. President. He could have delivered on one of his major campaign promises if the environmentalists hadn't let him down.

SECOND UPDATE: I couldn't agree more with Transportation 4 America: "With the Senate backing down on a real climate bill, it's more important than ever that next transport bill helps make climate progress."

Just what the Gulf of Mexico needs: another oil well

desmoinesdem — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Oil from BP's blown-out Deepwater Horizon well continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico and will do so until August at the earliest. In response, the Obama administration extended a moratorium on deepwater drilling for six months last week. However, the president also "quietly allowed a three-week-old ban on drilling in shallow water to expire" last week (hat tip Open Left). As a result,

Federal regulators approved Wednesday the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted a brief ban on drilling in shallow water, even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.
The Minerals Management Service granted a new drilling permit sought by Bandon Oil and Gas for a site about 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana and 115 feet below the ocean's surface. It's south of Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge and Game Preserve, far to the west of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that triggered the BP spill.

Chris Bowers put it mildly when he described the Obama administration's action here as "difficult to fathom." The president gave a speech on the economy today and talked about investing in alternative energy, but like all my parenting books say, actions speak louder than words. The greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, and BP doesn't know how to stop it, but it's business as usual at the Minerals Management Service. Nor is today's permit approval an isolated case:

In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.
The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Words fail me, so you'll have to share your thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: In 1979 it took nine months to stop oil gushing from a shallow well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Time for Congress to get serious about clean energy

IowaEnvironmentalCouncil — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:57:37 GMT

Let's tell Congress it’s time to get serious about ending our fossil fuel addiction and act now to pass an energy bill that will set the US on a path to a clean energy future.

Progress on a federal climate and clean energy bill is again being bogged down in political maneuvering. On Monday, April 26, instead of the expected and long-awaited release of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill, advocates of clean energy were greeted with news that Senator Graham, the Republican co-author of the bill, might pull his support from the legislation if immigration reform is given priority over climate on this year's Senate calendar. There is still hope that the three Senators who drafted the legislation will figure out a way to move forward—which they did in one sense by sending their proposed legislation to the Environmental Protection Agency last week for an economic impact analysis. But time is running out.

More after the jump

The mammoth costs to environmental and human life as a result of a recent mine disaster and a growing oil spill should be loud and clear wake-up calls to Congress: “Time is running out; the costs of business as usual are growing and unacceptable.”

American industry, looking to Congress for clear rules, say time is running out, too.

Some businesses are saying publicly that without federal climate and clean energy policies, they will move their clean energy operations abroad to countries that are committed to clean energy. In an interview in the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday, GE CEO Jeff Immelt said the U.S. has already fallen behind in the global clean energy race and called for federal clean energy standards. "Some leadership in Washington would be helpful," he told the Chronicle. He also said that if the United States doesn't adopt clean energy policies, GE will have to go overseas: "We have to go where the action is."

A 2010 climate/energy/jobs bill could set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.

Numerous studies have shown the job creation potential of climate and clean energy policies, including studies of the thousands of green jobs that have already been created in places like California, Pennsylvania and Ohio thanks to strong measures that have been implemented in those states. Iowa is no exception, with a growing sector of clean energy jobs. Nationally, studies have projected that a federal climate and clean energy bill could create between 1.7 and 1.9 million jobs (The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy; Clean Energy and Climate Policy for U.S. Growth and Job Creation).

The Iowa Environmental Council is asking its supporters to call or email their Senators and President Obama this week and urge them not to delay action on comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation.

Follow this link to find a sample email, which can be sent directly from the Council's website to Senators Harkin and Grassley and President Obama.

Or if you wish to call in your comment to President Obama, call 202-456-1111. Senator Harkin’s phone number is 202-224-3254 and Senator Grassley’s phone number is 202-224-3744.

Obama having second thoughts on new offshore drilling?

desmoinesdem — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:31:51 GMT

A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama advocated expanding offshore oil drilling in a misguided attempt to reach out to Republicans on energy legislation. The president told a town-hall meeting audience on April 2, "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." Think Progress exposed the inaccuracies in the president's comments at the time, and the April 20 explosion at British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon oil rig was a tragic reminder of how much can go wrong with offshore drilling. Eleven workers were killed in the accident, and the resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico still has not been contained. If it hits the Gulf Coast, the environmental and economic damage will be immense.

Last week, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs insisted that the tragedy had not given the president second thoughts about offshore drilling:

Obama still believes that "we have to have a comprehensive solution to our energy problems," and the spill did not open up new questions about his drilling plan, [Gibbs] said. [...]
"We need the increased production. The president still continues to believe the great majority of that can be done safely, securely and without any harm to the environment," he said.

However, presidential adviser David Axelrod announced on ABC's Good Morning America program today that

there's a moratorium on the expansion until the recent spill can be controlled and investigated.
"No additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here," he said.

Mike Lillis is absolutely right:

For the White House, the timing of the spill couldn't have been worse. If Obama had stuck with his guns in opposing new drilling, he'd be seen as a prophet in the wake of this week's Gulf disaster. Instead, by trying to make concessions to Republicans - most of whom won't support a climate bill in any event - he's simply alienated his conservation-minded supporters to no tangible benefit.

Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, says that any climate change bill including more offshore drilling will be "dead on arrival" in Congress. Let's hope that message will resonates with the president. I also hope the administration will follow through on promises to make BP pay the full cost of cleaning up the oil spill.

On a related note, Mike Soraghan reports in the New York Times that BP "joined with other oil companies last year to oppose stricter safety and environmental rules" for oil rigs. I'm not surprised, and I'm not optimistic that the current disaster will lead to significantly stronger regulations on existing rigs.

UPDATE: I posted the Sierra Club's statement after the jump. It's worth a read.

GULF COAST--(ENEWSPF)--April 30, 2010. As oil from a massive Gulf Coast offshore drilling disaster began to touch the shoreline, White House senior adviser David Axelrod announced on Good Morning America that "no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here."
In response to the spill, Sierra Club has created an online Oil Spill Action Center with updated information, and volunteer sign-ups.
Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune:
We are pleased that the White House is signaling a suspension of any new off-shore drilling during the investigation, but there should be no doubt left that drilling is too dirty and dangerous for our coasts and the people who live there. This offshore facility was supposed to be state-of-the-art. We've been assured again and again that the hundreds of offshore drilling rigs along our beaches are completely safe. Now, we've seen workers tragically killed. We've seen our ocean lit on fire, and now we're watching hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic oil seep towards wetlands and wildlife habitat.
This same disaster could happen at any one of the hundreds of drilling platforms off our coasts, at any moment. It could happen at the drilling sites they've proposed opening along the beaches of the Atlantic Coast.
We don't need to pay this price for energy. We have plenty of clean energy solutions already in place that will end our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, create good, safe jobs, and breathe new life into our economy. We can save more oil through simple efficiency measures than could be recovered by new drilling on our coastlines.
This disaster changes everything. We have hit rock-bottom in our fossil fuel addiction. This tragedy should be a wake up call. It's time to take offshore drilling off the table for good.
Oil Spill Facts:
* The oil spill exceeds the worst-case scenario predicted by BP when it filed its exploration plan with the government. The spill is estimated at roughly 210,000 gallons a day. In BP's exploration plan, the company outlined a worst-case scenario of 162,000 gallons a day.
* The disaster may have been prevented by a special shut-off switch, but BP did not purchase the switch and after drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore drilling, decided the device wasn't needed. [Wall St. Journal 4/30/2010]
* At its current rate, the spill could surpass by next week the size of the 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped lead to the far-reaching moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts
* Some estimates show it could take 3-4 months to contain the spill. By that time, the spill could exceed the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.
* 59 Fatalities, More Than 1,300 Injuries, 853 Fires. There have been nearly 60 casualties and more than 1,300 injuries on the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico alone since 2001. "Working in the oil industry is more dangerous than working in coal mines." CBS, 4/22/2010
BP Facts:
* $5.6 Billion In Profits. During the first quarter of 2010, "BP said its profit rose to $6.08 billion from $2.56 billion during the same period of 2009. Excluding the impact of energy prices on unsold inventories as well as $49 million of one-time items, and BP would have earned $5.65 billion, topping consensus estimates by about $900 million." Profits increased 135% from 2009. Bloomberg, 4/27/2010
* 41% Raise For BP's CEO. "Chief Executive Tony Hayward's total remuneration and share awards rose 41% in 2009 on performance bonuses from improved operations which made the company one of the best performing oil majors in the fourth quarter, despite lower full-year profits due to the fall in the oil price." [Wall Street Journal, 3/5/2010]
* $16 Million In Lobbying. BP spent $16 million lobbying in 2009. Opensecrets
* $3 Billion In The World's Dirtiest Oil. Meanwhile the company invested $3 billion in 2007 in the dirtiest source of oil on earth: Canadian tar sands. "The result will be the development of a major new Canadian oil field and the modernization and expansion of the Toledo refinery to allow far greater use of Canadian heavy oil and to increase clean fuels production by as much as 600,000 gallons a day." Climate Progress, 12/18/2007
* $900 Million In Alternative Energy Budget Cuts. In 2009, BP cut its alternative energy budget to between $500 million and $1 billion from $1.4 billion in 2008. "BP has shut down its alternative energy headquarters in London, accepted the resignation of its clean energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves likely to be seen by environmental critics as further signs of the oil group moving "back to petroleum." [The Guardian, 6/28/2009]

I wish this were an April Fool's joke

desmoinesdem — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:00:58 GMT

As you probably heard yesterday, President Barack Obama announced plans to expand drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast of the U.S.. Not only that, he insulted environmental advocates and their "tired" arguments against drilling.

I have nothing profound to say about this decision, but when even a big Obama fan like Oliver Willis says the administration "Clearly Took Stupid Pills Today," that ought to tell you something. Increasing our offshore extraction of oil won't reduce our reliance on imports from the Middle East, and Obama knows it won't. This is just a political ploy to win some votes in the Senate while making the president look like he holds the reasonable middle ground.

Once again, Obama makes a big concession to the corporate/Republican position at the beginning of the negotiating process, without gaining anything concrete in return. A good negotiator would make that kind of concession to close the deal, and only in exchange for something significant (like a hugely ambitious renewable electricity standard).

The Senate energy bill (let's not even pretend it's a "climate change" bill anymore) will probably allow more offshore drilling that the president announced, and that will probably be fine with the White House. Environmentalists will be asked to clap louder at "progress" or be grateful that Obama didn't sell us out in a more egregious way.

I am tired of having to fight this kind of battle when the Democrats control Washington. It's another reason I probably will never again give to Democratic committees at the levels I did from 2004 through 2007.

UPDATE: I recommend reading this post at EnviroKnow: "Dems More Trusted on Energy than Any Other Issue, Yet they Continue Pursuing Polluter-Friendly GOP Ideas."