Reports of the demise of the clean energy industry have been, well, exaggerated (see “Global recession? Must be time for the media’s alternative-energy backlash“).

The American Wind Energy Association reports:

The wind energy industry installed over 2,800 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity in the first quarter of 2009, with new projects completed in 15 states and powering the equivalent of 816,000 homes….

The new wind power projects add up to 2,836 MW, according to initial AWEA estimates.  The total wind power generating capacity in operation in the U.S. is now 28,206 MW, enough to serve over 8 million homes and avoid the emissions of 52 million tons of carbon dioxide annually””the equivalent of removing 8.8 million cars from the road.

And this is after a record 2008 (see “U.S. wind energy grows by record 8,300 MW“). Here is where states now rank by wind capacity:

Read more

Obama is keeping his promise to restore science to its rightful place with sharply increased funding for research and development, which started with the stimulus package.  As Greenwire reports in “Obama promises record U.S. research spending” (subs. req’d):

In his first major science address since taking office, President Obama promised today to increase U.S. public and private spending to historic highs for science research and development.

“I’m here today to set this goal: We will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development,” Obama said during a speech at the National Academy of Sciences.

He added, “We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race…”

Specifically, the White House said the stimulus bill provided $21.5 billion for research and development and the fiscal 2010 budget proposal includes $150 billion over 10 years for renewable energy research as well as $75 billion to make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit.

In another set of stirring remarks — well, stirring if you’re a scientist or care about science (full text here, plus story on teleprompter “mutiny” that got almost as much attention in the MSM as the gist of his remarks) — Obama again said energy and climate were the top priorities: Read more

Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter, who announced his switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party today, will remain a key swing vote in a Senate locked by GOP filibusters on green economy legislation like cap and trade, renewable energy standards, and green jobs programs. Specter will be joining a bloc of conservative Democratic senators who are publicly skeptical of President Obama’s clean energy agenda, and who have repeatedly voted against Obama’s proposal to place limits on global warming pollution:

Supporting a filibuster for green economy legislation: Roll call votes #125, 126, and 164.

Requiring that green economy legislation not affect the cost of energy production or use: Roll call votes #116, 117, and 169.

Ideologically, Specter is in line with Democrats like Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who worries that Obama’s clean economy proposal may “suck money” from his state, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is “against forcing petrochemical companies” to “bear the brunt of new costs,” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who worries cap and trade “could have a negative impact on our economy.”

Specter, whose top donors include the electric utilities Exelon Corporation and PPL Corporation, has told Pennsylvania students that “his main platform in running for re-election is global warming.” There’s still time for him — and the Democrats he’s joining — to build that platform, but more change will have to come.

In a stunning piece of political theater with dramatic consequences for clean energy, global warming, and the entire progressive agenda, the Washington Post has just reported:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

Needless to say, as a Republican facing a tough primary challenge from the right, he was a lost vote on global warming legislation.  One assumes that if he is going to seriously run as a Democrat, he’ll support an energy and climate bill.

Here’s more:

Read more

Top Story

LOBBYING: Industry dollars go to a handful of influential Energy and Commerce members

As always, Congress is driven by the Golden Rule — whoever gives the gold, makes the rules:

Electric utilities, oil and gas corporations, coal producers and other energy industry interests poured more than $375,000 into the coffers of House Energy and Commerce Committee members during the first three months of 2009, according to an E&E examination of campaign finance records.

The dollars flowing to Energy and Commerce members — particularly Democratic moderates — further highlights the high stakes for the industry as lawmakers prepare to mark up a Democratic climate change and energy legislation next month.

At the top of the list for Democrats was former committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), who pulled in about $47,000 from the energy industry. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) — another moderate Democrat and former chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over climate issues — came in at a close second with more than $41,000.

Other major Democratic recipients of industry cash were much further down the list in terms of committee seniority but also represent swing votes on energy and climate legislation. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas) picked up $30,000, Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) received about $22,000, and Rep. Zach Space (D-Ohio) received $27,000.

Space, a two-term lawmaker from a district that is a major hub for the coal industry, was among one the more prodigious fundraisers among all House Democrats, pulling more than $420,000 in the first three months of 2009. Space’s district leans Republican, and he is virtually certain to have a tough re-election fight next year.

Industry officials say financial contributions to lawmakers typically are a reflection of providing backing for members who understand and traditionally support their position on any number of legislative issues and say there is little relation between campaign donations and lawmakers’ position on any singular issue.

Still, those donations are also a slice of what has become an all-out lobbying blitz on both sides — involving contributions, direct lobbying and public relations campaigns — in advance of legislation that will likely have dramatic ramifications for the energy industry.

More details below:

Read more

Long-time reader Gail, who has been at Wit’s End in NJ for an even longer time, directs me to today’s New York Times editorial, “April Heat,” and gives her reply — I have a slightly different take — all of which are below.

She asked to file this under humor.  Why not?

Thanks to global warming, the NYT will be able to write lots and lots of these faux poetic, unintentionally ironic, pro-heat-wave editorials in the future:

Read more

[JR:  I have added the "(small)" here, since it will become increasingly clear that the impacts of global warming on our current emissions path are so catastrophic that they trump all other concerns and we must pay any price, bear any burden to stop them.]

Are green energy industries about to ruin the environment and undermine national security? Are they engaged in the ecological equivalent of mountaintop removal? Are they the new Big Oil, making us dangerously dependent on imported strategic resources?

Those questions are implied in “Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret“, a provocative article in the current issue of The Atlantic. Author Lisa Margonelli points out that wind turbines, hybrid cars and some other green technologies carry “their own hefty environmental price tag”, including the use of rare-earth minerals extracted from open-pit mines or imported from places like China.

I’ve encountered similar concerns among members of the U.S. intelligence community: In the pursuit of green energy, will we trade our dependence on one imported strategic resource – oil – for dependence on other imported strategic resources?

Read more