Why the traditional media should not have blogs. Thursday morning, “Senior National Correspondent” Jake Tapper headlined his “Political Punch” blog

Bill: “We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy” to Fight Global Warming

Stop the presses! An ABC News exclusive — the former President and husband of the Democratic candidate says the only way to fight global warming is to slow down our economy! Needless to say, Drudge ate it up as did the Republican National Committee. As did more than 100 blogs by Thursday night (including Think Progress). And the Clinton campaign even felt obliged to point out that, in fact, “President Clinton was making the opposite point”.

The AP story with the full video is here. Curiously, the AP reporter never mentions the supposedly stunning statement by the ex-prez. Hmm. Maybe this was an ABC News exclusive for a reason. Tapper “reports”:

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?

I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy…. So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort… I’m not quite certain.

Hmm. Jake Tapper is not quite certain what Clinton meant. What to do? I know — let’s quickly take the most sensational possible interpretation and splash it all over the web without actually listening closely to what Clinton said or — shudder — asking him what he meant — or even searching the blogosphere to see if Clinton has ever talked about this before (anyone who saw the videos of the Clinton Global Initiative or read my blog on it knows Clinton believes the exact opposite). Nooooo. That would be too easy. Tapper has managed to combine the worst of traditional journalism and the blogosphere. But I digress.

Let’s look at what Clinton actually said, in context, which, strangely enough, Tapper reports:

Read more

For those remaining 7 or 8 3 or 4 people who still buy the Bush rhetoric that he cares about global warming and is committed to addressing the problem with new technology, Exhibit 435C for the prosecution is the just-canceled “clean coal” project called FutureGen.

[Amusing anecdote for FHA -- Future Historians of American -- I once had a boss at the US Department of Energy who practiced repeating "clean coal" in front of a mirror so as not to break out smiling when uttering that oxymoron.]

Yes, I know Bush said as recently as Monday (in the most vetted of all Presidential speeches), “Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions.” But he wasn’t lying or flip-flopping or anything. He didn’t say, “We are funding new technologies….” or “Anyone who actually meant what they said would keep funding new technologies….” Give the guy a break. He said, “Let us fund new technologies….” He was imploring Congress for help in a “Let my people go” vein.

Yes, two months ago, “administration officials were calling it a ‘centerpiece‘ of their strategy for clean coal technologies,” but centerpieces are largely decorative, no?

This is sort of a setback for those who believe coal gasification combined with carbon capture and storage could be a major global warming solution. I say “sort of” for two reasons. First, the program was being horribly mismanaged:

“The idea of FutureGen makes complete sense,” Dr. Moniz [under secretary of energy during the Clinton administration] said. However, a study he helped direct concluded earlier this year that the FutureGen project was badly structured, with confusion about whether it was a research project or a demonstration. Among its problems, he said in a telephone interview on Friday, was that it has “a cast of thousands” ….

Apparently the too-many-cooks overseeing FutureGen couldn’t make up their minds whether they were developoing new technology or demonstrating existing technology. Hey. No big deal. We have a decade. Why not do both?

The second problem: The goal of FutureGen was to “validate the engineering, economic, and environmental viability of advanced coal-based, near-zero emission technologies that by 2020″ will produce electricity that is only 10 percent more expensive than current coal-generated electricity.

So the project was either doubly pointless or doubly cynical, depending on your perspective. After all, by the time this technology was ready to commercialize on a significant scale in the early 2020s, the world will have built or begun construction on more than a 1000 GW of coal plants, using traditional technology that is not designed for carbon capture and storage. The climate will have been destroyed irrevocably before Futuregen could have accomplished anything useful in the marketplace. Also, we will still need a mandatory cap on carbon emissions to make future FutureGen plants viable because they will be more expensive than traditional plants even in the 2020s. Since the Bush administration opposes a mandatory cap, the whole R&D effort looks like another delaying action … if you were inclined to take anything the Administration says seriously, of course.

No wonder people in the energy business called the project NeverGen.

(You can read more on the cancellation here.)

Just after yesterday’s post on photovoltaic (PV) installs in CA and NJ, I found a 43-page update from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in my inbox. The second paragraph of the executive summary tells the good news:

Despite the transition to a new program, demand is robust. In the first twelve months, demand for CPUC-administered California Solar Initiative incentives exceeds California’s total installed solar from the previous 26 years. Since 1981, California installed 198 megawatts (MW) of grid integrated solar statewide. From January 1 through December 31, 2007, the California Solar Initiative program has applications for 208.6 MW of new solar. Disregarding applications that have been withdrawn or rejected, the program has received 7,541 applications, worth $558 million in incentives. Residential applications dwarf all others (6,712 applications) and are 89% of the total applications, but only comprise 15% of the total MW in the active applications. The 829 non-residential applications from commercial, government, and non-profit applicants make up 11% of the total applications. The non-residential applications are 176.8 MW in active applications.

In 2006 the U.S. installed 108 MW of PV. If most of the 209 MW of applications reported above are built in 2008 (18 MW where already operating in 2007), we will see at least a doubling of U.S. PV.

The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is budgeted for $3.3 billion of incentives over 10 years for 3,000 MW. Incentives will decrease in ten steps over the 10 years so even if applications in the first year are $533 million, this does not indicate CSI will run out of funds. Non-residential applications appear to be ahead of goals, while residential is lagging somewhat.

Also, Cooler Planet has added more features to their interactive map, so you may want to check it out again.

– Earl K.

Okay, you’re annoyed you can’t watch 24 or a full season of House or The Office — and yes, A Daily Show is kind of lame these days. But on the bright side, as a UK Times headline notes:

Viewers turned off by Hollywood writers strike ‘may never switch TV on again’

Yet, as is so typical of the MSM traditional media, they completely missed the real story — the connection to global warming: Turning TVs off equals using less electricity equals emitting less carbon dioxide.

How much less?

American TV networks have lost almost a quarter of their audiences because of the Hollywood writers’ strike, according to new figures, and executives fear that “orphaned” viewers may never return.

Now I know what you’re thinking: Joe is off his meds again Joe, what about the substitution effect? Won’t people just do something else that uses energy? And indeed the article says,

Writers as well as studios are worried that lost viewers may never return to TV, instead finding new ways to entertainment themselves, such as YouTube, Facebook or video games. The most recent figures show that YouTube has had an 18 per cent surge in traffic, while visitor numbers to other websites, such as Crackle, have seen doubled, albeit from small bases.

But first of all most people leave their PCs on all the time anyway, or they have one of those flying toaster climate-destroyers screen savers. Second of all, many people are multi-tasking when they watch TV — blogging, checking emails, playing their Game Boy [I mean seriously, who could possibly watch Las Vegas and do nothing else at the same time -- give the public some credit, people!]

Now if we could only get the reality TV show writers and staff to strike….