The car companies have come back to DC begging for money. But this time they have put on the table serious restructuring plans. At first glance, Ford’s (here) appears to me sounder than GM’s (here). I’m interested in your opinions.

Assuming we believe they will do what they say, the reports reveal a fair amount about the company’s plans for cleaner car. Interestingly, Ford does not use the word “hydrogen” or “fuel cell” at all — a huge shift from even a year ago when briefings that I received from the car company suggested they were still enamored of “The car of the perpetual future.” For Ford, the future now seems to be electrons:

The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles, as battery costs improve and as the transition from Hybrids to Plug-in Hybrids to Battery Electric Vehicles occurs.

If Ford follows through with this vision, then they are likely to survive and thrive in the coming years, since electricity is the winning fuel (see “Why electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence“).

GM’s plan is not as sharp. First off, GM is still pushing its corn ethanol yellow-washing:

Read more

E&E News PM (subs. req’d) has a taste of what it will be like when progressives run things:

“Green” power transmission to move renewable energy to population centers will be part of the economic stimulus bill Democrats move early next year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today.

Finally, we can start to think strategically about how the government can enable the future, rather than disable the future, as we’ve seen for the past eight years. The government was critical to enabling most of the key infrastructure efforts in this country — the railway system, the electric grid, the interstate highway system, and the Internet.

The next big thing is a smart, green power grid that enables rapid growth of efficiency and demand management, wind power, solar baseload, and plug in hybrids (see “An introduction to the core climate solutions“). That grid is arguably the biggest bottleneck to the green transition.

Read more

I have been quite critical of the mainstream media for using the global recession to attack clean tech (see “Global recession? Must be time for the media’s alternative-energy backlash“).

One reason the storyline was lame is that a recession this deep is going to hit all new capital projects (see “Note to media: Credit crunch kills dirty stuff, too“). A second reason is that there had been no evidence that clean tech was being harder hit than any other sector and some reason to believe it would be hit less hard (see “Despite market downturn, cleantech venture investment hits record $2.6B in 3rd quarter“). And, of course, the election of a Barack Obama means there is going to be a massive infusion of funding for clean tech.

While it is premature to say that green tech won’t suffer seriously from the recession — after all, we don’t know how long and strong the slowdown will be — the WSJ acknowledged today it may have have been premature in proclaiming trouble for one of the biggest recent winners in the clean tech business:

Read more

I have argued that Obama won’t be able to ratify any global climate treaty that is likely to come out of Copenhagen next December. Since the only thing worse than no global climate treaty in 2009 is a treaty that the President can’t get ratified, Obama, I believe, should be lowering expectations rather than making promises he can’t keep.

Greenwire reports (subs. req’d) that Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a former senior Clinton administration climate official, said something quite similar (though for slightly different reasons):

“We do not want to repeat Kyoto, where you go and negotiate something and then you can not deliver it…. That’s the worst of possible worlds, because nothing happens.”

… Claussen’s Pew Center has been among the most vocal of the groups trying to lower expectations on the timing for a new international climate agreement given the state of play in Washington. Claussen said she does not think Obama and Congress can finish cap-and-trade legislation in 2009. And she wants the Copenhagen deadline pushed back to give the United States the time it needs to finish its climate law.

Claussen and her colleagues said European officials have told them privately that they are aware of the tight U.N. schedule. But they cannot say this publicly for fear it will disrupt momentum toward a final climate deal. While Claussen credits Obama for giving some important signals on his position, she would like to see him go a step further and tell international officials that the United States won’t be ready to negotiate and agree to a final climate pact by Copenhagen.

If expectations are not lowered before Copenhagen, Claussen said, she worries that the U.N. talks could collapse, generating a fresh round of antagonism toward the United States.

“That,” she warned, “really doesn’t benefit anybody.”

I have talked to a number of colleagues with congressional experience who are skeptical that something as complicated as a national cap & trade bill could be completed in 2009, especially given everything else on Obama’s plate.

I believe the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process can’t survive in its current form. But even if you think it can, Obama should try to delay Copenhagen until after there is a U.S. climate bill. It would be crazy for him to commit to something in international talks in 2009 that he can’t get through his own Congress as a domestic bill in 2010.

And I would repeat that if a Copenhagen Protocol does not include a binding commitment by China to cap emissions by 2020 — with some restrictions on how fast emissions can grow between now and then — it has no chance whatsoever of getting 67 votes in the U.S. Senate at any time during Obama’s term(s) in office. I would go even further: Such a flawed global climate treaty in 2009 might actually undermine chances for a U.S. domestic bill in 2010.

E&E News has more opinions on this subject:

Read more

A guest post by Eban Goodstein, Professor of Economics at Lewis & Clark College and Project Director of the National Teach-in on Global Warming Solutions.

One thing you can do to stop global warming right now is tell a teacher–a friend, your kid’s teacher, a cousin, or a colleague–about The National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions, set for Thursday, February 5^th.

With the election over, it is tempting to assume that the hard work is done. But the same coalition that has stifled progress to date–the fossil fuel industry, along with “government is the problem” politicians–are still in Washington, still fighting to preserve the “business as usual” that unchecked, is on track to destroy half the life on the planet. The only thing powerful enough to overcome DC gridlock is a mobilized American public–so get moving, and tell a teacher (or a leader at your church, synagogue or mosque) to join the Teach-In!

This Wednesday, 12/03 you can join Stanford climate scientist Dr. Stephen Schneider on our teach-in organizing call, at noon EST. Steve will update us on the scientific backdrop facing the new President in the first 100 days.

Call in number is 1-218-486-8700, passcode 020509.

Participation in the teach-in is easy:

Read more

The NYT reports:

One of the highest tides in its history brought Venice to a virtual halt, rekindling a debate over a plan to build moveable flood barriers in an effort to save the lagoon city from high tides.

City officials said the tide peaked at 61 inches (156 centimeters), well past the 40-inch (110-centimeter) flood mark, as strong winds pushed the sea into the city.

Venice has been plagued by flooding for a long time, of course, in part because it has been sinking. But 156 cm flooding just happens to be right in the middle of the most recent scientific estimate for human-caused climate change (see “Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100“). So Venice give us a glimpse of the whole planet’s future.

And that future is triage – figuring out which coastal cities can be saved in a practical and affordable manner. Venice has pursued the expensive MOSE project (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico or Experimental Electromechanical Module), albeit slowly:

Read more