NewEnergyNews: BIG WIN OVER EMISSIONS

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

Every day is Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • Weekend Video: Spray On Solar
  • Weekend Video: Wind In The Rural Landscape
  • Weekend Video: What Dark Snow Means
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

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

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHERE NEW ENERGY NEEDS TO BE
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-KUWAIT’S POSSIBLE SOLAR
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHAT INDIA WIND NEEDS
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • TTTA Thursday- HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WORKS
  • TTTA Thursday-HOW WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  • TTTA Thursday-POLITICS AND THE EPA
  • TTTA Thursday-THE ENORMOUS LED OPPORTUNITY
  • THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE NEW INTELLIGENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, May 15: MINNESOTA’S SOLAR AMBITIONS IN CONTEXT; RHODE ISLAND’S FIGHT OVER OCEAN WIND; VC MONEY FOR SMART GRID STEADY

    AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW OIL MARKETS ARE MANIPULATED
  • QUICK NEWS, May 14: HUGE BUFFETT WIND BUY IN IOWA; THE VALUE OF ARIZONA’S SUN; MINNESOTA LOVES WIND
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE VALUE OF SOLAR WITH STORAGE
  • QUICK NEWS, May 13: HOW BIG OIL USES REPUBLICANS; WIND SAVES MONEY FOR RATEPAYERS – STUDY; BRIGHTSOURCE EXEC TALKS SOLAR TOWER TECH & BIZ
  • --------------------------

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

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012) by Anne Butterfield (Boulder Daily Camera via NewEnergyNews)

    From the sparring at the first presidential debate, it's pretty sure that energy has become a divisive as well as a competitive issue. Both President Obama and Governor Romney want to be the triumphal producer of energy.

    However Romney likes to smear climate change concerns and clean energy investments, as if all of them go like Solyndra, where a half a billion in loan guarantees went down with the company, as he crowed that 50 percent of clean energy investments supported by the stimulus bill had gone belly up. This was dubbed the "lie of the night" by Michael Grunwald, author of a book about the stimulus bill, citing that maybe one percent of government backed clean energy ventures failed.

    Try getting that rate of safety in your investing. According to a new poll by Hart for the solar industry, voters seem to know that loan guarantees are a steadfast service of government and highly safe, as the Solyndra debacle was deemed unimportant by respondents. Ninety-two percent of registered voters found it important that solar be more widespread, with 70 percent believing that the federal government should be doing more to promote it with incentives (with 71 percent of swing voters feeling this way).

    And, sigh, with tens of thousands of wind power jobs on the chopping block already, Mitt Romney opposes the renewal of the Production Tax Credit. This, even as red states need it renewed, putting him in the dog house with GOP politicians such as Senator Chuck Grassely of Iowa whose state produces 20 percent of its power from wind, and Governor Brownback of Kansas who has made vigorous pleas for the extension of the credit, due to expire this at the end of this year.

    Didn't Romney get the memo? Republican governors are making hay with clean energy such as Haley Barbour and Chris Christie. To Mississippi, Barbour brought four solar sector firms to Mississippi along with two in biofuels plus a clean tech car venture with China. Christie made New Jersey a leading solar market in the nation, this year contending with California for first place.

    But Romney and other high priests of the GOP act as though the only real energy is the type that can be burned, and somehow, Obama has nibbled at this hemlock by constantly touting his success with fracking and his openness to the XL pipeline.

    A truly strange specter is that pipeline; it lets our heartland be used as a byway for tar sands products (which sink rather than float when spilled), so they can go straight to international markets. We get the downsides and none of the upsides -- even as the pipeline could increase gasoline prices in the Midwest, which would lose its existing access to tar sands products.

    One plausible upside of the pipeline being routed through the United States (where it might be built quickly, as would not happen in the alternative route through western Canada) is that it could strengthen the hand of President Obama in his suite of sanctions against Iran, including a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Our recent frack-mania allows our nation to resume oil production levels not seen for 15 years and thus strengthens our hand. Three weeks ago Iran admitted having problems selling oil due to U.S. and European sanctions; now the nation's currency is in free fall.

    One certainly hopes that tar sands will thrive mightily as a "psy-ops" against Iran and not as a chemical weapon against our climate, as Dr. James Hansen has sternly warned.

    Never bounded by his prior convictions about the climate, Romney crows that he would authorize the pipeline on day one and build it himself if need be (as if he in his wingtips could "John Wayne" his way around an oil field). It's all such a sham he-man rodeo.

    And no one mentioned the climate -- in spite of hundreds of thousands of petition signatures demanding the topic. Neither candidate pushed clean energy as the vote winner that poll after poll have shown it to be. Authors for DBL Investors in their study of green energy exclaim, "We all need to understand that green jobs are not the idle dreaming of a small group of partisan activists and insiders, but a source of livelihood for millions, literally in all parts of the country." The light shines in the darkness but the darkness of our politics has not understood it.

    Author's note: Want to support my work? Please "fan" me at Huffpost Denver, here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-butterfield). Thanks.

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

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

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

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

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

    Your intrepid reporter

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

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

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

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Monday, September 17, 2007

    BIG WIN OVER EMISSIONS

    Will this legal victory incline the carmakers to submit to national emissions standards? Or will they appeal and take their chances with the more conservative judges on the Supreme Court?

    Court Rules Vermont Can Regulate Auto Emissions
    September 13, 2007 (Dow Jones Newswire via CNN Money)
    and
    States Are Closer To Trimming Autos’ CO2 Emissions; The move by 12 states could coax congress to pass efficiency limits
    Mark Clayton, September 13, 2007 (Christian Science Monitor)

    WHO
    Judge William K. Sessions III, chief judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont; plaintiffs [General Motors Corp. (GM) , DaimlerChrysler (DAI), auto dealers and industry trade groups (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, CEO)]; State of Vermont and environmental groups (Phyllis Cuttino, director, Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency, attorney Matt Pawa, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense; Steve Hinchman, attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)

    Looks like the District Court Judge got the message. Will US carmakers?

    WHAT
    Judge Session ruled that Vermont is legally entitled to set vehicle emissions standards.

    WHEN
    - Decision handed down September 13.
    - Vermont’s standard: Effective 2009, cars and trucks must reduce emissions 30% by 2016.
    - Carmakers contend the standard requires a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 40+ mpg while the current federal CAFÉ standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.5 mpg for light trucks in 2008.

    WHERE
    California led the way with standards pushing the carmakers to improve. 10 states now have such laws and 6 more (Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota) are in the works, strengthened by this ruling. These states make up half the US car market.

    WHY
    - The decision is widely seen as a setback for carmakers. Though the judge found only that the plaintiffs failed to prove that tougher the Vermont emissions regulations were "sufficiently draconian" to "essentially usurp" the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fuel-economy standards, the suit was actually an effort to avoid the economic burden of meeting stricter emissions standards.
    - More rulings and actions are expected. The EPA may be forced to enforce the Clean Air Act and back the states’ requirements. The pending laws are more likely to pass. Congress may be emboldened to strengthen pending national CAFÉ standards. Other carmaker lawsuits trying to stop legislation may be dropped.

    Seems like California is going in the right direction. Will the country allow it to lead? (click to enlarge)

    QUOTES
    - Sessions: "History suggests that the ingenuity of the industry, once put in gear, responds admirably to most technological challenges…In light of the public statements of industry representatives, history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the Court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California's (greenhouse gas) regulations."
    - McCurdy (plaintiff): “[We are] studying the decision and considering the options, including an appeal…It makes sense that only the federal government can regulate fuel economy…Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally rather than piecemeal and will continue to work with the Congress, NHTSA and EPA to reduce our oil dependence while increasing fuel economy."
    - Cuttino, enviromentalist: "Today's ruling by the U.S. District Court is more proof that auto industry arguments opposing meaningful fuel efficiency increases are no longer credible…[It] bluntly articulates what Americans overwhelmingly believe, what the National Academy of Sciences has found and what foreign automobile manufacturers have demonstrated: greater fuel efficiency is achievable without sacrificing vehicle size or power."
    - Pawa, environmentalist:"This extremely important ruling makes clear that the US EPA and states acting under the Clean Air Act do have the power to set more stringent emissions limits on cars and can also regulate greenhouse gases…"
    - Michelle Robinson, Union of Concerned Scientists: "We've got a similar dynamic here to what was happening in the 1990s with states leading with strict standards on tailpipe emissions of nitrous oxide and other pollutants – and the EPA and federal government finally following…"
    - Hinchman, environmentalist: "The court is looking carefully at the industry's argument that this will bankrupt us and drive us to ruin…The judge found the so-called obstacles to be overstated and that the industry has the financial resources. It's ironic because this is a step that's going to help the US auto industry. They should fire their lawyers and promote their engineers."

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home