Tag: energy

Focus on climate, not just energy

The New York Times gets it — the climate crisis is, in fact, a crisis and requires more than the rather timid approaches we’ve taken so far. While it calls the House energy bill a good start — I think it is unfortunately weak — it castigates a Senate that is likely to gut what little good is in the bill. It says “there are small but disturbing signs that what this country might have to settle for is another energy bill.”

The atmosphere in the Senate is just short of mutinous. The mandatory cap on emissions has virtually no Republican support. There is talk of a turf war between two key Democrats, Barbara Boxer and Max Baucus, whose committees share jurisdiction over the bill. On Thursday, 10 Democrats from states that produce coal or depend on energy-intensive industries said they could not support any bill that did not protect American industries from exports from countries that did not impose similar restraints on emissions.

That means that the current bill, with its relatively weak 17 percent cut by 2020, is likely to look far different come the fall — especially with the White House remaining “disengaged” on an issue that was one of Barack Obama’s chief focuses during the campaign.

What is needed “is a climate bill,” the paper says, “one committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in a way that engages the whole economy and forces major technological change.”

Without such a bill, America will lose the race against time on climate, lose the race for markets for new and cleaner energy systems, and forfeit any claim to world leadership in advance of the next round of global climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

U.S. inaction might then lead to international inaction as the developing economies — in particular, India and China — point to us as hypocrites and refuse to play ball on the issue.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Drilling deeper into the polling

A Monmouth University survey of a five-state region issued today would appear to show support among Shore residents for oil and gas drilling off the coast, though the poll also found that residents want more to be done to protect the coastline.

The numbers are sowmehat contradictory, though not surprising, given the structure of the poll, the demographics of the counties included and the rise in awareness of gas prices over the last two years.

Consider the poll results on the drilling question:

Opinion is a more divided on the question of drilling for oil or gas off the Atlantic coast, although support for this option has increased in the past two years. Just under half of coastal residents (46%) would support drilling in the ocean for energy resources, compared to 37% who are opposed and 12% who have no opinion. Two years ago, coastal resident support for drilling in the Atlantic stood at 33%, opposition at 40%, and no opinion at 24%. It appears that the increased support found in the current survey has come from a decrease in those who were on the fence about the issue in 2007.

The increase in support has also come more from some regions than others. Only 37% of coastal New York residents support drilling for oil in the Atlantic, about the same as the 35% who favored this in 2007. However, a majority (51%) of New Jersey coastal residents now support ocean drilling, up from 30% two years ago. Support from Delmarva residents is also higher in the current survey than two years ago. However there are some differences within that region – a majority of residents in coastal Maryland (65%) and Delaware (52%) support ocean drilling, while fewer Virginia (42%) coastal residents share that view.

Gas prices have been fluctuating over the last two years, but no more than they have since the Gulf Coast region was hit by a pair of devastating hurricanes — Katrina and Rita — in 2005.

The difference, I think, has to do with public activism on the issue last spring following the second major spike in prices in a relatively short time and the role that gas prices and energy issues played in the 2008 presidential race. Remember “Drill, baby, drill” and the Clinton and McCain gas-tax holidays? Drilling was a major piece of the Republican energy plan during 2008 — a fact reflected in the political demographics of the counties surveyed. Just four of the 11 counties included backed then-candidate Barack Obama; seven backed John McCain.

Consider:

  • The two New York counties — Nassau and Suffolk — both backed President Barack Obama; only 37 percent of New Yorkers surveyed back drilling.
  • Three of the four New Jersey counties went for McCain; 51 percent of New Jerseyans backed drilling.
  • Sussex County in Delaware and Worcester County in Maryland both backed McCain; both also backed drilling in the survey.
  • Virginia is the anamoly. Two of the three counties backed McCain, but they continue to oppose drilling.

I am not disputing the polls results or questioning the methodology. What I am saying is that factors like political leanings may play a role in the results.

There is a danger that polls like this could be used to push the public toward what I believe would be a wasteful intrusion into the ocean ecosystem.

There is something else to consider, as well. There is a tendency for people to support things in theory, but when reality hits they change their minds. Ask them if they support drilling and they say yes; put a real plan on paper or start moving the trucks and ships in and it is likely that they will shout no. I base this on my years covering zoning fights in which residents gather together to fight warehouses or massive housing complexes on properties in their so-called backyard that had been zoned for those uses for years. We tend to be oblivious to these things until we realize that we might be staring at a busy loading dock — or that our sunny day at the beach or afternoon on the fishing boat might be affected by a massive derrick off shore.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Energy ground zero

Clean coal may be coming to New Jersey — a Massachussets firm wants to build a $5 billion, 500-megawatt electrical generating facility that would capture emissions, pump them a hundred miles and store them under the Atlantic Ocean.

If approved and built, it would be the first plant of its kind and would move us in a new energy direction, say advocates. It would allow us to continue using coal — the cheapest energy source — without its polluting effect, they say.

But there is a flaw in the reasoning. Finding a way to limit or eliminate the emmissions from energy sources seems a positive step, until it is made clear that there are other environmental problems with coal and other fossil fuels.

Even if the sequestration process works flawlessly, we’re still left seeking energy sources that require us to disturb large amounts of land — to find the coal and to create the piping infrastructure that would allow us to bury it.

I think Jeff Tittel, president of the New Jersey Sierra Club is correct:

“Coal is like heroin — cheap, plentiful and addictive, but very dangerous and to get it they take down mountains along with square-miles of trees, adding to the carbon output and environmental damage.”

Rather than find ways to make bad fuels less bad, we need to reduce our energy consumption — more efficient homes, cars, buildings — and find ways to make truly renewable sources like wind and solar cheaper.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Helping homeowners go green

The Assembly today passed legislation that has the potential to jump-start the solar industry in New Jersey, even if it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

Here is a description of the bill — sponsored by local legislators Linda Greenstein and Bonnie Watson-Coleman — from a Democratic majority release:

The measure (A-1558) would require a developer of a residential development of 25 or more units to offer to install a solar energy system when a prospective owner enters into negotiations, provided installation of such a system is technically feasible as determined by the Department of Community Affairs in consultation with the Board of Public Utilities.

“We must reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive fossil fuels by making use of renewable energy resources that can save consumers money and ensure our precious natural resources,” said Watson Coleman (D-Mercer). “By using solar energy for heat and electricity we can significantly reduce the emission of dangerous greenhouse gases.”

True. But what about subsidies and incentives for those of us in older housing, which is far less energy efficient? I know the state is basically broke, but interest-free loans (and grants to low-income homeowners) for conversion to alternate fuels, for conservation measures, etc.? Consider how much energy we might save if we could upgrade some of the older housing in Trenton and how much money those homeowners could save?

California and several other states already are doing some innovative things, including allowing towns to help homeowners by using special assessments:

The goal behind municipal financing is to eliminate perhaps the largest disincentive to installing solar power systems: the enormous initial cost. Although private financing is available through solar companies, homeowners often balk because they worry that they will not stay in the house long enough to have the investment — which runs about $48,000 for an average home and tens of thousands of dollars more for a larger home in a hot climate — pay off.

But cities like Palm Desert lobbied to change state laws so that solar power systems could be financed like gas lines or water lines, covered by a loan from the city and secured by property taxes. The advantage of this system over private borrowing is that any local homeowners are eligible (not just those with good credit), and the obligation to pay the loan attaches to the house and would pass to any future buyers.

The idea of public financing for home solar systems began two years ago in Berkeley. While it took months to untangle the legislative knots at the state level and get banks lined up to back the project, the concept took on a life of it own.

Cisco DeVries, who developed the program for Berkeley but has since moved on to a company that administers and finances similar programs for many towns, said: “I’ve never been part of something like this where the power of an idea has grabbed so many people so quickly. It is viral.”

In California, about a half-dozen cities including San Francisco and San Diego are already committed to their own solar programs. And outside of California, at least a half-dozen states, including Arizona, Texas and Virginia, have introduced bills to allow municipal financing. Colorado has already passed a version of the law, and the City of Boulder is on the verge of beginning a program.

Municipal financing comes on top of other government supports. California residents receive a straight rebate for about 20 percent of the cost of a solar power system. In addition, a federal income tax credit for 30 percent of the cost of installing solar panels was extended to participants in the municipal loan programs as part of the economic stimulus bill passed by Congress. And there are efforts to change the federal tax code further so that cities can borrow the money to lend tax free.

There are critics who say such a solar plan is not cost-effective, that we should focus on efficiency — but that’s too small-bore given the problems we face (both in terms of energy use and cost). We have to find ways to do both.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.