Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.
Legislative inaction must be more tiring than I realized.
Still, I don't view this month as a cooling off period. If anything, it's time to turn up the heat.
Over the next few weeks, Senators will be holding "town hall meetings" in their states. Last year, these meetings came to define the health care debate. This year, they could help us reshape America's energy policy.
If you are like me and you are still stunned that the Senate refused to pass a bill that would have created nearly 2 million new American jobs, put our nation at the forefront of the clean energy market and helped end our addiction to oil, then go to a town hall meeting and tell your lawmakers what you think.
Tell them that it is in America's best interest to embrace clean energy now.
And while you are at it, please tell them to block attempts by some Senators to weaken the Clean Air Act-the 40-year-old law that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives-in an effort to further delay reductions in global warming pollution.
Some naysayers claim that voting on visionary legislation is a risky proposition when we are this close to an election. They are wrong, and history proves it.
As I wrote in a recent blog post, 13 of the most powerful environmental laws were passed during the fall of an election year or in the lame duck sessions following elections.
We can pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall, but only if we demand it of our lawmakers.
Use this August to make your voices heard. You can find your Senators' schedules by checking their Senate websites, as well as their candidate websites - Republican or Democratic.
Yesterday, the NRDC Action Fund launched a campaign featuring a powerful new ad by renowned environmental activist and celebrated actor, Edward James Olmos. In the video, which you can view here, Olmos explains what makes people - himself included - "locos" when it comes to U.S. energy and environmental policy. Now, as the Senate moves towards a possible debate on energy and climate legislation, we need to let everyone hear Olmos' message.
Hi, I'm Edward James Olmos. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I guess that's what makes Americans "locos." We keep yelling "drill baby drill" and expecting things to turn out ok. But the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing new. The oil industry has been poisoning our oceans and wilderness for decades. It's time to regain our sanity. America doesn't want more oil disasters. We need safe, clean and renewable energy now. Think about it.
Sadly, Olmos' definition of "insanity" is exactly what we've been doing for decades in this country -- maintaining policies that keep us "addicted" to fossil fuels instead of moving towards a clean, prosperous, and sustainable economy.
As we all know, dirty, outdated energy sources have caused serious harm to our economy, to our national security, and of course - as the horrible Gulf oil disaster illustrates - to our environment. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent nearly $400 billion, about half the entire U.S. trade deficit, importing foreign oil. Even worse, much of that $400 billion went to countries (and non-state actors) that don't have our best interests at heart.
As if all that's not bad enough, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels also has resulted in tremendous environmental devastation, ranging from melting polar ice caps to record heat waves to oil-covered pelicans and dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Edward James Olmos says, it's enough to drive us all "locos."
Fortunately, there's a better way.
If you believe, as we passionately do, that it's time to kick our addiction to the dirty fuels of the past, then please help us get that message out there. Help us air Edward James Olmos' ad on TV in states with U.S. Senators who we believe can be persuaded to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. If we can convince our politicians to do their jobs and to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this year, we will be on a path to a brighter, healthier future.
In a sea of bad, very bad and even worse news on the ecological/energy front, score one for the good guys. Last Friday, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) denied a permit for the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. to build a new coal-fired power plant in Rogers City, Michigan.
While the permit was NOT issued, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued a bit of a smack-down to Wolverine Power instead.
This permit denial has been a long time coming. The initial request was submitted in September 2007. Since then, groups like the Sierra Club and Clean Water Action of been on the forefront of pushing to deny the permit (along with several others.)
The permit request (No. 317-07) was for a 600 megawatt coal-fired electric power plant. After the public comment period ended in January 2009, the MDNRE requested that Wolverine submit an anlysis of alternatives for the new plant. From rejection letter (.pdf):
The analysis was to evaluate, among other things, future load requirements and the adequacy of existing supplies, including whether a reduced number of boilers or no new boilers are viable options in light of other alternatives to be addressed...
In order to assure appropriate review of Wolverine's submittal, the DNRE entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). Each agency was given the task of reviewing the portion of the analysis that fell within their area of expertise. The public was provided an opportunity to comment on Wolverine's submittal...
In assessing Wolverine's submittal, the findings of the MPSC, and the response provided by Wolverine, the DNRE is persuaded by the MPSC report.
You asked for an analysis of whether the proposed plant was needed to meet Wolverine's future electicity supply needs, and to estimate the likely impact of the proposed plant on residential customer rates. The short answers to your requests are: No, the plant is not needed to meet Wolverine's supply needs and the plant would result in an estimated increase of $76.95 per month for the average Wolverine residential customer.
Not only did Wolverine overstate their case for needing the plant, they also seriously underestimated the cost to build it.
Staff expects the plant to cost at least $3,800/kW ... compared to Wolverine's [estimate of] $2,484/kW.
As Maxwell Smart would say: "Missed it by that much!" By 35% that much, in fact. Whoops.
Funny how moving to clean energy is assailed by the right for costing consumers more but they seem unaffected by increases associated with a new coal plant, innit?
The MPSC also described Wolverine Power's forecasted demand growth as "questionable and optimistic" and that "the risk associated with this uncertainty was not fully addressed".
A final report (.pdf) issued in Septmember 2009 by the MPSC points out that, (not) amazingly, Wolverine Power neglected to include other ways to meet their customers' electricity needs. You know, things like oh... "energy efficiency, load management, renewable resources, and a combination of alternatives..."
They also reference green energy changes on the horizon:
Significant changes have taken place on many fronts, including a slowing of the national and state economy, new state policy initiatives on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and pending federal legislation on the regulation of carbon emission.
The MPSC finished their letter to Governor Granholm this way:
The proposed new facility would be a costly mistake for Co-Operative customers served by Wolverine.
Ouch.
Republicans are, of course, outraged. Just outragedI tellzya:
State House GOP Leader Kevin Elsenheimer of Kewadin and Sen. Jason Allen of Alanson, who represent parts of Wolverine's service area, said the plant "would have boosted northern Michigan's economy with 2,500 good-paying construction jobs and established a base power generation source that would help the region to rebuild and grow for the future."
2,500 temporary construction jobs trumps the giant and damaging environmental impact of coal-fired power plants and a huge hike in power costs. Right. Got it.
I would have loved a more potent statement regarding the impact on our environment -- something that addresses the copious amounts of greenhouse gases emitted by these facilities and the environment damage inflicted in the mining and transportation of coal. But I'll settle for a big fat DENIED! stamp. In the end, the result is the same.
There are those who say that Michigan's manufacturing base is dead, but that's actually the wrong choice of words. Instead, it is an industry that that is, out of necessity, changing considerably to the point where it may bear little resemblance to it's history dominated by the automobile industry.
Last December, five Michigan companies were awarded a share of $15 million in federal Recovery Act dollars to expand their operations towards clean energy development. These were a mix of existing manufacturers and new upstart companies who are becoming part of the "next generation" of manufacturing in Michigan by building wind turbines, residential solar products, and other components of of where our nations energy future clearly lies.
This week, Governor Granholm announced that the state is making an additonal $20 million in funding available for this program. As part of the announcement she said:
"The companies initially funded under this program have put their Recovery Act funds to good use, leveraging private sector dollars and aggressively moving into high-growth renewable energy industries," Granholm said. "They are creating jobs and helping to diversify Michigan's economy. With this second round of grants and loans, we're helping more businesses build on our world-class manufacturing tradition, and in the process, continuing to grow the new energy economy in Michigan."
Governor Granholm should be commended for her focus on green energy development in Michigan. It is one thing for us to implement this technology, but for Michigan to truly take advantage of the opportunity this fledgling industry holds, we must become the creators of this technology. Clearly, we've only taken small steps thus far, but at least they are steps in the right direction.
Unfortunately, our politicians today are too often focused on the quick fix, adding a hundred jobs here, a hundred jobs there, all while ignoring the groundwork that must be laid to add tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs down the road.
The question that remains is will Michigan's next Governor recognize the importance of promoting Michigan as the epicenter of this new industry, or will they take a sink or swim approach with what little manufacturing we have leftover from our days as the automobile capitol of the world? Let's hope it's the former, but it's certainly an issue that must be explored as the election season moves forward.
I wanted to point everyone to Governor Granholm's diary at the Huffington Post:
The battle against global climate change was kicked into a new gear this month, and Michigan is leading the charge.
That's right: Michigan.
The so-called "rust belt" state that has been putting cars, trucks, and SUV's on the road for over 100 years is putting the pedal to the metal on making the U.S. less reliant on fossil fuels.
The Governor lays out how we have to put our old ways of thinking behind us and embrace "new technology, new ideas, and a new era of cooperation that will purposefully drive Michigan and America into the new clean-energy future."
She also challenges the doubters who advocated "pulling the plug on Detroit" to "plug in to the power of American ingenuity and American transformation. Plug in the new electric car, made in America, by your neighbors in communities across the country."
Twitter Pete has some advice for us today in a DNews editorial on energy, and it proves to be the perfect example of just how slippery this guy really is. Watch him simultaneously embrace and reject Obama's plans, and continue what evidently is going to be a never-ending campaign against Jennifer Granholm. This is Pete's playbook in a nutshell: Grab the popular ideas for your own, ignore the facts that show that the Democrats are already moving in that direction, and speak to the crazy base with carefully planted talking points. The opening paragraph is all you need. Can you pick out the dog-whistles that only Republicans can hear?
The spin doctors, talking heads and special interest groups have surrounded energy policy and prices with a rhetorical fog that obscures the real issue: Michigan and the nation need an "all of the above" balanced energy policy that is based upon common sense.
Hoekstra manages to pander to everyone with this cheap trick of an editorial. The first point on Pete's 5-point attack - energy efficiency. Pete says that is the way to reduce costs, and he is correct there, but he totally ignores the fact that we already passed the bills in Michigan last year that are providing for that. Here's Pete:
Reducing the demand for gasoline, electricity, natural gas and other energy will help hold down prices. In the long run, families and businesses could use the money saved through energy efficiency for other goods and services, helping to strengthen our economy.
No doubt. That's what the governor and the Democrats fought for last year, and passed in the energy plan that the Republicans tried to obstruct. Here is today's reality:
Consumers Energy is embarking on one of the largest energy-efficiency efforts in the state's history - a six-year, $500 million plan to help residents and businesses save on energy bills.
"The biggest share of the money is going toward rebates, directly for customers," said Terry Mierzwa, manager of marketing, energy efficiency and research for the Jackson-based utility.
...
The six-year goal of the program is to reduce electric usage by 6 percent and gas usage by 4 percent.
The energy bills approved last year by Gov. Jennifer Granholm require a program like this but do not include specific penalties if goals are not met.
If there were penalties, you can bet that Pete would complain about that, but the important point here is that he blows right by the fact that we are already moving down the efficiency road in Michigan, thankyouverymuch. And we really should also point out that the Obama stimulus provides for $325 million in Michigan for weatherization and efficiency programs - and Pete voted against that. Hoekstra and the Republicans like to talk the talk on efficiency, but they sure wouldn't lift a finger to help us get there.
You know that ANWR will be in this one. Come see over the jump...
A recent analysis from US News and World Report says no. They identify 15 companies that are prime candidates not to survive 2009.
Chrysler. (Privately owned; about 55,000 employees). It's never a good sign when management insists the company is not going out of business, which is what CEO Bob Nardelli has been doing lately. Of the three Detroit automakers, Chrysler is the most endangered, with a product portfolio that's overreliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs and almost totally devoid of compelling small cars. A recent deal with Fiat seems dubious, since the Italian automaker doesn't have to pony up any money, and Chrysler desperately needs cash. The company is quickly burning through $4 billion in government bailout money, and with car sales down 40 percent from recent peaks, Chrysler may be the weakling that can't cut it in tough times.
Moody's rates them as a "very high credit risk." They haven't got much cash on hand, have lots of debt and owe substantial interest payments in the near future.
I really wonder how Chrysler manages to stay so out of touch. Here's a good example. Did you know Chrysler makes a hybrid? Neither did I until I went looking. Know anything about it? Go watch the demo. I'll wait.
The first thing they tell you about are the 18-inch chrome-clad wheels. Hello? Do they really think that chrome-clad wheels are the most important feature of a hybrid vehicle? I guess they do.
Let me clue you Chrysler - that's not what potential hybrid buyers care most about. Start talking about the technology. Talk about energy efficiency. Talk about how many miles per gallon you get in the city.
Then again, maybe not. The reviews don't leave you running for a test drive. From Edmunds.com:
Unless you need to tow a boat or a big trailer, the flashy 2009 Chrysler Aspen's moment has passed -- even with the new hybrid.
The hybrid gets a combined 20 mpg - up five from the non-hybrid. The MSRP is $45,270. That's some awfully big bucks for awfully poor mileage. I guess that's why they talk about the chrome-clad wheels. Sigh.
I'd say "wake up," but it might be too late even if they do.
According to the MOP [Mob of Pundits] crowd, American car companies have messed up -- making too many trucks and sport-utility vehicles, ignoring consumer and governmental demands for more fuel-efficient vehicles and, as Will stated in a column last week, entering "improvident labor contracts" with the UAW.
It's baloney.
Americans went truck crazy in the 1990s and in the early years of this century, making light trucks more than 50 percent of new vehicles annually sold in this country, for the same reason they are in danger of re-embracing that madness -- cheap gasoline. They were enabled by lawmakers who, with one hand, pushed car companies to increase technical fuel efficiency while using the other to give American consumers the least-expensive gasoline in the developed world.
Increased technical fuel efficiency plus low-cost gasoline fueled consumer demand for more driving and bigger and more powerful vehicles with which to do that driving. Gasoline consumption in the United States soared . . . until high fuel prices restored some sanity to the U.S. consumer automotive market.
As Brown reminds us, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and even Mercedes-Benz all had some kind of truck or SUV too because they were following "market demand." Nobody twisted our arms and forced us to buy the gas guzzlers.
What about the critics who say, "but look at that fuel-efficient, gas-electric Toyota Prius hybrid?"
Go ahead and look at it, preferably in Japan, where the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) has done a marvelous job of coordinating industrial and energy policy into a vehicle development and consumption strategy that makes sense. We have no such government-industry cooperation in the United States. We have no industrial policy, no energy policy, which largely is why we now have a core segment of our natively owned manufacturing infrastructure teetering on the brink of collapse.
Furthermore, Brown points out that European and Asian countries tax horsepower. The least-efficient motor fuels are taxed heavily, while favorable treatment is given to more efficient fuels, such as diesel.
Calumet Township in the U.P. is getting serious about green energy, and their impetus came from some local students who were working on a class project about alternative energy.
Wind turbines are getting to be a popular method of electricity production, and now in Calumet Township, there are ordinances governing the use of the machines.
At its regular meeting Friday, the Calumet Township board of trustees unanimously approved three ordinances for small and large wind turbine use, and a schedule of fees.
The ordinances went into effect immediately.
Township Superintendent Paul Lehto said he doesn't expect anyone will be interested in establishing a wind farm because there aren't any pieces of property large enough to accommodate such a facility, however, he thinks institutions in the township (hospital, schools) and some businesses may eventually be interested in establishing wind power.
And in related news, at the regular quarterly meeting of the Keweenaw National Historical Park, staff members revealed they're looking into the possibility of developing geothermal energy for the park and its Heritage Site partners.
Kudos! Never let it be said Yoopers are behind the times.
Slowly more of the details surrounding the House vote on the financial rescue package last Monday when 133 of 199 Republicans voted no despite John Boehner's, the House Minority Leader, efforts in favor of passage are surfacing. And once again, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Livonia) displayed his pettiness and inability to be civil to those he disagrees with.
Another Boehner ally, Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter of Michigan, physically turned his back on the leader during a tense closed-door GOP conference meeting Sunday night.
People who were in the room said McCotter left abruptly after Boehner told members not to attack one another. Boehner tried to reach out to McCotter as he left. McCotter kept walking.
McCotter wants his way, or no way. His definition of compromise is he decides and you go along. He's not a team player. Ol' thin-skinned Thad doesn't have the temperament to work with others.
If you couldn't get your job done, walked out of key meetings and turned your back on co-workers, what would happen to you? You'd lose your job. McCotter should lose his.
The Politico article tells us a few more choice tidbits about that vote. At his press conference immediately following the vote, Boehner evidently hurting from the defeat lashed out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"We had a dozen members that we thought that we had a really good chance of getting on the floor," Boehner told reporters afterward. "And all that evaporated when the speaker spoke."
But, not so fast. When cooler heads prevailed, out came the real story.
By Monday afternoon, staff members in the offices of Republican leaders were blaming one another for the failed vote.
Blunt said he had come to the floor thinking 75 Republicans would support the plan. He was off by 10 - just short of the 12 that were needed to turn defeat into victory.
But Boehner told a different story. He said that the GOP leaders never thought they'd get more than 68 Republicans to support the bill - and that he sent Blunt to tell Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) as much nearly two hours before the vote.??"I sent [Blunt] down to talk to Hoyer, 11:30, quarter to 12, somewhere in that time frame," Boehner said. "We had a pretty good idea where we were, where we thought we could get to. And Hoyer knew."
Boehner added: "I did not talk to [Hoyer], so I don't know what their conversation was. [Blunt] and I had that conversation. We talked about 'Should we just rise [walk out]?' It wouldn't have been good, but I thought it would have been better than this. It really doesn't make any difference."
Democrats, for their part, said they assumed Blunt was lowballing his whip count to force Pelosi and the Democrats to line up more votes from their members.
Meanwhile, Americans continue to feel the brunt of Congress' folly.
Suppose you're an undecided voter. You don't know a lot about Tim Walberg, but you've gotten his glossy flyers in the mail. You've seen Mark Schauer's name somewhere, but really, you don't know much about either of them. What do you do?
For many, you type "Tim Walberg" and "Mark Schauer" into Google. Focusing on Walberg, what do you get? The first five results are all either pro-Walberg or neutral-- Walberg's House website, Walberg's blog, Wikipedia, Walberg for Congress, and a National Journal profile. (The old Walberg Watch address comes in at number nine, while the new Walberg Watch is rapidly rising, now nearing the top of the second page).
Many people will probably stick to those five results, too. Of those results, only the Wikipedia article even comes close to offering different points of view, but only in the context of controversies that have arisen for Walberg. It doesn't keep up with current issues.
So how do we fix that? How do we make sure that Walberg's side of the story isn't the only one being seen? One way, of course, is for Walberg Watch to rise in the Google page ranking, and that's happening slowly on its own. But, oddly enough, Tim Walberg gave us another way of getting opposing viewpoints into the top Google rankings, albeit not directly.
I like Tom Walsh. I really do. He is one of my favorites. But today's Freep column entitled, "Will lawmakers' fears cost state new energy policy?" misses the mark on just who is responsible for the delay in getting this work done. Just like last year's budget crisis, short government shutdown, and the subsequent MBT surcharge mess all of that created, the press erroneously tries to spread the blame evenly between both chambers on the energy bills - and that is just plain wrong.
Michigan's legislators appear poised to blow it again.
Poised to punt away a chance to create thousands of jobs.
Poised to again display cluelessness, rather than leadership, about the need for a bold, new approach to energy policy.
Members of the state House and Senate do have a chance this week to redeem themselves, to earn respect from a citizenry that sadly has come to expect ineptitude.
Walsh goes on to tell us that they can vote this Wednesday for energy bills that "set a target that 10% of Michigan's power come from renewable sources by 2015, boost energy efficiency efforts, and set the stage for construction of new, cleaner power plants by DTE Energy and CMS Energy". Sound familiar? That is because the House passed this back in April with strong bipartisan support.
Why would the Senate Republicans deny Michigan this job creating opportunity? Could it be that the Mackinac Center was against it? How about Dick DeVos? You know that these are the players that are pulling the strings in the Michigan Republican Party. They are calling the shots, and they didn't want this to happen. Came right out and said so. Mike Bishop got his orders from his owners and decided to drag this out as long as he possibly could. When the Senate finally got around to moving the bills in late June, once again they passed legislation in the dead of night with changes made that they knew would be unacceptable to the House and the governor in a move that was widely condemned by, well, nearly every newspaper in Michigan, and further delayed this process. Time for vacation!
And you know what? It worked. Now, the excuse is "the election".
A Lansing lobbyist told me Friday that the Legislature probably will delay acting on the energy bills until the lame-duck period after the November elections, or until next year.
The reason? Fear of casting a vote that might irk some citizens just before the election.
And if they had done it back in April, that wouldn't be an issue now, would it? No. We could have joined the other 28 states that are already enjoying job growth and investment from implementing a renewable portfolio standard.
Granholm, who has been aggressively recruiting advanced energy and other clean-technology firms to locate in Michigan, told me Friday that she has been embarrassed -- during talks with global energy firms and journalists from national publications -- to admit that Michigan still has no target for renewable energy.
"I keep telling my staff, we have two years and four months left in office," Granholm said. "When we look back at this extended period of economic crisis, will we be able to say we used it to really diversify the economy and change the mind-set of our citizens?"
Even T. Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas oilman and Republican Party activist, is now an outspoken advocate for wind, solar, natural gas and other energy alternatives.
Will our Lansing legislators finally find the will to act, or will they wimp out again on energy policy as the jobs exodus from Michigan continues?
We'll find out this week.
And once again, the blame is spread across the board, even though House Democrats got the job done months ago. It was Senate Republicans who held up the budget process last year, it is the Senate Republicans holding up the energy policy this year. Want proof? Just follow all these links, or hit my diaries and start reading back. It's all there.
You would think that a Congressman who signs his letters "I work for you" would be happy that constituents were interested in sharing their perspective about an issue, especially one he was grandstanding about. But sadly, Thaddeus McCotter was indignant that MoveOn.org organized citizens to deliver a petition to his office about energy policy.
Before anyone even arrived he sent out an official email, using your tax dollars by the way.
When you read between the lines, he wanted a counter-protest. Someone also called the police while we were assembling in the parking lot. Yes, that's right. Livonia's finest just happened to show up at 11:58 and follow us to his office.
Follow me on the flip to see what these "extremists," who weren't protesting anything by the way, but merely delivering a petition, looked like and get the details.
Vowing the voices of the vast majority of the American people would not be silenced by the Democrat Congress' Stalinist tactics, Republicans took to the dimly-lit, microphone and C-SPAN-silenced House floor. There, they demanded a vote to lower gas prices by unleashing America's oil and energy resources" from the clutches of the left-wing special interests controlling Speaker Pelosi and her Democrat Congress.
It's Swift Boat ads all over again. Our fine friend Thaddeus and his cohorts think they can spin, lie and bully their way into another election year. All of a sudden August 2008 is feeling a lot like August 2004.
What's Thaddeus huffing and puffing about? Let's take a look.
"the Democrat Congress' Stalinist tactics"
Stalinist? Hardly. Last Friday the House voted to adjourn and take a five week recess, same as they do every year at this time. Same as they did when Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich were Speaker and the Republicans were in the majority and setting the agenda. Under House rules--which is an extended version of Robert's Rules of Order, motions to adjourn are not debateable. The body votes immediately on the motion. If the motion passes--all you need is 50%+1 of those present--the session ends and everyone goes home. It's the way every legislative body works.
So for all the bluster, nothing unusual happened. McCotter only wants you to think something happened. The majority sets the agenda. It always has. Tom DeLay constantly reminded us the fact, by refusing to entertain legislation to end the war, rescind the Patriot Act, create a sustainable energy policy, or investigate the long list of Bush administration abuses. Funny how Republicans want one set of rules for them and another for everyone else when it suits them.
"they demanded a vote to lower gas prices by unleashing America's oil and energy resources from the clutches of the Left-wing special interests controlling Speaker Pelosi and her Democrat Congress"
If this weren't sad, it would be funny. After Dick Cheney held closed meetings with the heads of energy companies to fix prices (anyone remember Ken Lay and Enron?), it's hard to believe the Republicans can say this with a straight face. What Thaddeus is really saying is "Republican and big oil interests are different from the Majority's, and we don't like it." If you listened to scientists instead of oil company lobbyists once in a while Thad, you might figure out that drilling in the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico isn't going to fix our energy problems, nor will it lower gasoline prices.
This is our generation of Americans' 'Boston Tea Party!'
Wow! I had no idea that John Adams and the Sons of Liberty were shills for whale oil companies.
House Republicans will be rearranging schedules, flying thousands of miles, and refusing to take a paid vacation. Instead, the GOP will take to the House floor every day to ensure the voice of Americans' is heard; there is a vote to make our country energy secure and independent; and keep America the greatest nation on Earth!
Flying thousands of miles. Now that's a way to conserve energy.
Thad, your constituents are curious--why--during all those years of a Republican majority in both chambers--wasn't a comprehensive energy policy developed?
Oh, I forgot. Drilling in the Arctic is your energy policy.
A word to the wise about your excessive use of exclamation points, Congressman McCotter. They make you look silly and they make creative writing teachers cringe.
Wizardkitten often points out that alternative energy can return economic prosperity to Michigan given the proper tools, i.e. a "strong renewable portfolio standard that would position us to recruit companies that will be pouring investment money into the places where there is demand."
Our state legislators may be underwhelmed by WK's opinion and intellect, but maybe they'll listen to a researcher. According to Greenbiz [emphasis added]:
Renewable energy accounts for the employment, directly or indirectly, of 2.3 million people worldwide, with the largest gains made where governments support renewables, according to a Worldwatch Institute study.
"It depends very, very strongly on government policy and investment private companies take," said Michael Renner, Worldwatch researcher and author of the "Jobs in Renewable Energy Expanding" report. "Even in the years up to now, we have clearly seen countries that give consistent, strong support, for example in Europe, in Germany and Spain."
The United States had 200,000 direct and 246,000 indirect (i.e. suppliers that provide equipment components) jobs in 2006, due mostly to support from individual states. And the future looks rosy worldwide:
Long-term outlooks put the number of wind energy jobs by 2030 at 2.1 million and solar jobs by that same year at 6.3 million. More people will be employed not only in manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels, the study says, but in installing, operating and maintaining the equipment, all jobs that will contribute to local employment growth.
Guaranteeing renewable energy will be available from the grid and setting guaranteed rates for buying renewable energy are components necessary for growth according to Renner, but suprisingly, government subsidies may only be important short-term.
Even though governments have supported the growth of renewables, Renner pointed out that at least in one case, government does not need to increase or maintain high subsidies.
"In Germany for example, the level at which alternative energy, solar, wind and so on are being subsidized deceases each year," he said. "The key is it provide the overall framework that allows investors to say, 'This is something that is not going to lose money forever, this really is a good prospect...this can stand on its own feet.'"
The evidence that alternative energy can create jobs is there, now we just need our Senate Republicans to pull their heads out of the 19th Century.
Today the team is in Texas participating in the 2008 North American Solar Challenge. Throughout the winter, the team optimized and redesigned their vehicle, Continuum, providing many enhancements over the car they raced in Australia.
The challenge officially began on July 13, but the team has been on-site for weeks prepping and going through the qualifying events. The team is completely "on their own" when it comes to maintaining and repairing the vehicle during the race. When there's a breakdown or problem of some sort they need to fix and improvise with what they have - no sending out to a machine shop to make a part.
The flexibility and teamwork that these students learn not only in building the car, but in repairing and dealing with the glitches that come up just before and during the race is incredible. Think about this for a minute. A team of students is making a car run on the energy collected from a few square inches of solar panels.
They, their knowledge and experience are a valuable commodity in any alternative energy market, not just solar. At this point of the competition, the team is in first place after starting in the pole position. You can read more about their day-to-day activities on their blog. There are some great pictures of the car too!
SOLVE THE ENERGY CRISIS OR DIE, ALBERT GORES THEME
___
Good Morning Flint! 07/17/08 by Terry Bankert
http://goodmorningflint.blogsp... Chat at:
http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic... ___
*****
With crisis , (energy, food, economic stability),and change swirling around us, how do we sort out the serious alternatives from the poorly thought out or presented crap we are fed daily by politicians and the media?
"The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," he ..(Albert Gore)...said in a midday speech to a friendly crowd of mostly young supporters in Washington. "And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake."[2]
In the end its about people. Who leads, survives, and what they say. To be a responsible citizen you have to believe in something or some person and work to cause change. The option is to be couch potato cattle just waiting for the slaughter while complaining. I believe in Albert Gore and the need in this country for alternative fuels. Issues worth fighting for. How about you? The following are from 6 articles on the Gore environmental breaking news.- Terry Bankert
Yesterday former Vice-President Al Gore challenged Americans to produce 100% of our electricity from renewable energy --- and truly clean carbon-free sources, within ten years.
It's time that more politicians step up and talk about reality.
Gore spoke about the three most important issues facing our country: the economy, energy policy, and national security. He also spoke about how they are related.
We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways to destroy our planet.
You gotta love it! The Christman Building has been recognized as the region's greenest structure.
It's also the first building in the world to receive two platinum LEED certifications - one for the shell and exterior and one for Christman's office space.
Read about it in today's LSJ. What I love about this is that long term planning and design was combined with the historical preservation of a building to create an award winning energy efficient structure.
OIL, HOW HIGH WILL IT GO
"One of the biggest challenges our country faces is our addiction to oil."[N]
Oil is up by almost 30 per cent this year alone. That's not the fault of greedy energy companies, or that other current favorite, unscrupulous speculators. It is a simple fact of economic life in a world economy that is, in effect, experiencing a new industrial revolution among half its population.[T2]
______________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 5/21/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people... _________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogsp... Flint Talk
http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic... _______________________
BLOGGING FOR MICHIGAN http://bloggingformichigan.com/ Great information from caring people in Michigan USA
________________________
REFLECTIONS;Watching our economic decline reminds me of watching the decline of a parent. You don't notice many of the little adjustments made then one day the end is at hand. I feel the same way about our middle class. Possibly its going away. We do not notice the little adjustment but one day the end is near, gas is $10 a gallon, food cost quadrupled, we cannot afford houses, our kids cannot afford an education, the rich are richer and the poor are poorer and the poor are now a larger group because we are in it. Its happening ....unless we act united as a country with strong leadership.,kiss your life style good bye. Will you be able to explain to your grandchildren why you did nothing to protest what is happening, today. Count me in for the battle how about you.? [trb]
In a sea of bad, very bad and even worse news on the ecological/energy front, score one for the good guys. Last Friday, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) denied a permit for the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. to build a new coal-fired power plant in Rogers City, Michigan.
