Why do politicians like Darrell Issa seem to want clean energy to fail?

Republicans have bullied the clean energy industry for months, pointing to flimsy evidence for why the government should slash funding for the industry, even as Big Oil subsidies continue.

On the heels of passing legislation that slashes clean energy funding 13 times, House Republicans are fulfilling the oil and coal industry’s wish list with next week’s Domestic Energy Production Act.

Although clean energy creates hundreds of thousands of better paying jobs, Republicans looking to gain ground in an election year have disparaged these jobs as less valuable. Mitt Romney’s former economic adviser said as much: “I am buying that they’re rooting against the economy somewhat because they think that the short-term pain of, you know, the next four months is much better than having additional four years of pain under Obama.”

Republicans have made green jobs a political target, at the behest of their oil and coal allies:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the 1603 tax credit reimbursement program is a “Solyndra-style stimulus program.” This program has created thousands of jobs, 5,000 projects, and helped the industry grow during tough times. “Listen, the American people continue to ask the question, ‘Where are the jobs?’ They deserve answers, and they deserve the truth.”

House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa called green jobs “propaganda” in a recent staff report. Issa also recently released a video making fun of the BLS’s broad definition for green jobs, calling them “groovy.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “This is the no-more-Solyndras amendment,” speaking on his amendment that would ban a loan guarantee program for renewables, even though the program itself has expired.

Jordan labelled green investments wasted dollars: “The president said that we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And he promised that our country would create millions of green jobs which would help us compete in the global economy. Over three years into this gamble, available evidence demonstrates these efforts have wasted vast sums of taxpayer money and have failed to achieve the stated goals.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) at a Feb. 19 news conference: ”There’s a fundamental difference in approach. And this is the challenge that faces us. The reason our economy is stagnant is because we haven’t let the free market work. The government keeps getting in the way. Now is the time to pick the Keystone economy over the Solyndra economy, to pick the American people over big government and to pick prosperity over stagnation.”

Mitt Romney: [Obama] said he was going to create some 5 million green energy jobs.  Have you seen those around here anywhere?  No, as a matter of fact he’s gone after energy.

Romney says the Chevy Volt, is an “idea whose time has not come,” saying, “I’m not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt.”

While Republicans call for a “free energy market” devoid of subsidies to clean energy, they continue to support hundred-year-old subsidies for oil and coal. Though the House GOP prefer to point to failures, clean energy is seeing historic levels of investment — reaching $257 billion worldwide — helped by public-private investments in the industry.

by Jackie Weidman

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe just announced that the Senate will vote next Wednesday on his resolution (SJR 37) to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. Inhofe’s fevered push for this resolution is no surprise, considering that he’s received $688,417 in contributions from electric utilities and mining companies during his congressional tenure.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, a rule finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in December 2011, would require steep reductions of mercury, lead, arsenic, and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants, the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions in the United States. These contaminants are linked to birth defects, brain damage, learning disabilities, cancer and other serious ailments.

EPA predicts that mercury and air toxics reductions will save 11,000 lives annually and prevent more than 100,000 asthma and heart attacks yearly, resulting in net economic benefits of up to $80 billion annually.  On top of these benefits, investments in the manufacturing, installation, and operation of pollution-control equipment to clean up these pollutants will create jobs.

Mayors, public health groups and small business recognize the overwhelming benefits from reducing mercury pollution.

Some 91 mayors across the country, including New York City’s Michael Bloomberg, Los Angeles’ Antonio Villaraigosa, and Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel, sent a letter to the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, stressing that “this long overdue safeguard will reap tremendous benefits for our communities.”

A broad coalition of public health and civic organizations oppose the Inhofe CRA and support the mercury regulations, including the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Small Business Majority and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Small Business Majority – representing more than 28 million small businesses in the U.S. – also opposes Inhofe’s CRA, acknowledging the job-creating potential of EPA regulations.

And yesterday, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) stood up for the health of Tennesseans, saying “the rule will pretty much finish the job of implementing national clean air rules that will greatly improve the health of Tennesseans…. We don’t want to permanently have three of the top five asthma cities in the U.S.”

He also acknowledged that utility companies have known that the standard was coming since 1990.

Meanwhile, Republican-backed political action committees (super PACs) are aggressively in favor of the Inhofe resolution.  The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and its new sister super PAC, American Commitment announced a similar multimillion-dollar campaign to push the CRA through state office visits, phone calls, and television ads targeting specific senators.

The Chamber of Commerce released a ridiculous ad earlier this week asking, “will the EPA turn off your air conditioner?”  The ad ignores all credible assessments of the impact of the rules, including one from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation showing these regulations will not jeopardize reliability.

Last fall, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to pass a similar Congressional Review Act resolution blocking the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, but it failed in the Senate by a vote of 41 to 56.

Next week, it’s time for Senators to stand up against Inhofe’s CRA. It’s  nothing but an irresponsible, industry-supported attack on American’s right to clean air.

Industry is about producing more, more, more. And that means sucking up more and more energy. But it doesn’t have to be that way. If industrial development is viewed through an efficiency lens, America could grow its industrial strength while using substantially less energy.

As part of its Reinventing Fire series, the Rocky Mountain Institute has outlined a plan for increasing the U.S. industrial base 84 percent by 2050 while using 9 percent less energy. The plan is founded on a concept RMI has been championing for many years: integrative design. By taking advantage of system-wide efficiency opportunities at facilities rather than one-off projects, the need for expensive pieces of equipment diminishes, often reducing the upfront cost and accelerating savings.

RMI has produced a great new video on the concept. It’s worth a look:

Related Posts:

• Energy efficiency, Part 2: The limitless resource
• Picking up the $500 Billion Bill on The Ground: Driving the Next Industrial Revolution Through Efficiency

Saab, the Swedish automaker left for dead after being jettisoned by General Motors in 2010, has been purchased by National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS). The company plans to turn Saab into an electrical vehicle maker.

NEVS is owned by Kai Johan Jiang a Chinese entrepreneur educated in Sweden, and Sun Investments, a Japanese company. The plan, according to NEVS is to “meld Swedish car design and manufacturing know-how with Japanese electric vehicle technology to promote premium electric vehicles in China.”

The goal, according to comments made Wednesday at the announcement of the purchase, is to design an electric vehicle for sale in China based on the existing Saab 9-3 small sedan platform using Japanese-made batteries. The car would go on sale in late 2013 or early 2014. Meanwhile, a team of roughly 200 designers — far fewer than the 3,000 employees Saab employed until recently — would be working in Trollhatan, Sweden, site of the Saab factory, on an entirely new vehicle.

Some analysts have questioned the acquisition, particularly the use of the 9-3 as the model for the first electric car:

“Because of the challenges of battery capacity, most electric cars were small and designed for city driving, while the Saab 9-3 was a midsize car, something that could leave it with a short driving range in its usual environment.”

But the shift for Saab is an illustration of the broad changes that car companies are being forced to make.

The road to becoming a Swedish-designed, Japanese-outfitted, Chinese-distributed electric car manufacturer has been a long one for Saab. The company was started during World War II as an airplane manufacturer, with the the automobile division branching out after the war. Over the next few decades, Saab developed a steady and devoted following, particularly for its 900 and 9000 lines. In 1989, after a disappointing roll out of the 9000, General Motors purchased a 50% stake in the company. In, 2000, GM purchased the other 50%, thus making Saab a wholly owned subsidiary.

In late 2011, Saab filed for bankruptcy. Although there were rumors about possible interested buyers, it seemed like the end for Saab. In it way it was. After the recent acquisition by NEVS, Saab will never be the traditional car manufacturer it once was — and it may never even come to the United States again.

However, this possible loss for die-hard Saab enthusiasts is a big gain for environmental advocates. With Saab now only supporting electric vehicles, its brand could help boost prospects for the technology.

Though the market for EVs in China is still small, NEVS hopes the addition of state-of-the-art Japanese electronics and battery technology — in addition to the power of Saab’s brand — will help give the project legs wheels.

Max Frankel is a senior at Vassar College and an intern at the Center for American Progress.

One of America’s largest health care companies is warning that climate change will worsen public health problems and make it more difficult to provide services.

Kaiser Permanente is the biggest non-profit health care company in the U.S., serving more than 9 million people with an operating revenue of $44 billion. Speaking to Andrew Winston of the Harvard Business Review, a Kaiser spokeswoman explained why the health care giant is concerned about a warming planet:

I spoke recently with Kathy Gerwig, KP’s Environmental Stewardship Officer, to find out. I expected a more typical answer about achieving GHG reduction goals or doing the right thing. What I got instead was one of the most straightforward statements about the role of climate change in public health and in corporate strategy.

As Gerwig put it, “there’s credible evidence of significant climate change that will impact our ability to provide quality health care.”

…”What we know so far about the repercussions of climate change isn’t good,” Gerwig says, “such as water shortages and increased wars over resources, and all the health issues that go along with those.”

In February of this year, Kaiser announced it would reduce greenhouse gases 30 percent by 2020 compared to 2008 levels. The company says that the health care industry accounts for 8 percent of America’s greenhouse gas emissions.

As Kaiser’s spokeswoman points out, these greenhouse gas targets aren’t just for public relations — they stem from a corporate recognition that extreme weather will threaten more people directly, while also exacerbating spread of diseases due to flooding, water shortages, and warming temperatures.

These threats are already evolving. Warming temperatures are helping to spread dengue fever in 28 U.S. states; flooding in Australia has increased outbreaks of the deadly Hendra virus in humans; and a changing climate could also influence genetic changes in bacteria like E.Coli, making them more deadly.

In 2009, the University College London Institute for Global Health issued a report concluding that climate change “will have devastating consequences for human health.” The report also warned that the potential global health impacts are “not being grasped by the healthcare community or policymakers.”

Related Posts:

• Top medical groups warn Americans of health risks posed by climate change
• The Lancet’s landmark Health Commission: “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”
• British Medical Journal: Climate change “poses an immediate and grave threat, driving ill-health and increasing the risk of conflict, such that each feeds upon the other.”

by John Walke, via NRDC’s Switchboard

The Senate soon will take up a bill that represents an irresponsible attack on Americans’ right to clean, healthy air. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is expected to call for a vote in the next week on a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution (S.J. 37, pdf) to eliminate EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants. These standards are projected to avoid up to 11,000 premature deaths, 130,000 asthma attacks, and 5,000 non-fatal heart attacks every year. Senator Inhofe’s action is the legislative equivalent of an atomic bomb, destroying these health standards with a radioactive spillover that would prevent EPA from adopting meaningful replacement standards to protect Americans from mercury and some 80 other toxic air pollutants that cause cancer and other health hazards.

In light of this reckless action, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the rhetoric and arguments wielded by critics are just as sharp and reckless. Many of these statements by congressional and industry naysayers reveal a startling degree of disdain for life-saving limits on air pollution and health standards to protect Americans, including vulnerable children and the unborn.

So in their own words, here are some of the more outlandish statements from congressional opponents and industry lobbyists attacking the mercury and air toxics standards and their health benefits:

• In response to concerns by pro-life evangelical Christians that part of being pro-life means protecting the unborn from the brain and nerve damage caused by neurotoxic mercury pollution, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) retorted that “[t]he life in pro-life denotes not quality of life but life itself.”
• The conservative Cornwall Alliance defended its opposition to these clean air standards and other health safeguards by declaring that “most environmental causes promoted as pro-life involve little threat to human life itself, and no intent to kill anyone.”
• The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), has weighed in on the mercury and air toxics standards that annually will prevent [pdf] up to 11,000 premature deaths, 130,000 asthma attacks and 5,000 non-fatal heart attacks. Speaker Boehner’s contribution to the debate? Calling these health standards “red tape.”
• Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), while noting helpfully that he was not a “medical doctor,” nonetheless asserted at a congressional hearing that there was no “medical negative” to mercury and soot pollution. He went on to claim that EPA’s numbers on premature deaths that the mercury and air toxics standards helped avoid were “pulled out of the thin air.” Unsurprisingly, real doctors at the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics wrote Barton expressing that they “were shocked at such statements.” [pdf]. These actual doctors responded to Barton’s outrageous statements as “professionals that treat patients who are impacted by lung, cardiovascular and neurological impairments” linked to air pollution. These doctors “see in the patients we treat what [] the scientific literature lets us know to expect: that air pollution makes people sick and cuts lives short.”
• The House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held a hearing where the Republican majority chose as its only medical witness the Chief Toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Downplaying the well-understood health impacts of soot pollution, this Texas official took the tack of arguing [pdf] that “[s]ome studies even suggest PM [particulate matter] makes you live longer.” This flies in the face of long-established scientific understanding and a multitude of per-review studies. (See here [pdf] and the attachment identifying dozens of these studies.)

Read more

A round-up of the top climate and energy news.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce a proposal Friday to tighten the nation’s soot standards, a move that could help deliver major health benefits by the end of the decade but force some oil refiners, manufacturers and other operations to invest in pollution-abatement upgrades. [Washington Post]

A new world disorder is increasingly evident at the Rio+20 conference as traditional blocs of international alliances break and reform, making an overarching deal “extremely difficult”, the chief negotiator of the host nation warned on Wednesday. [Guardian]

A new high resolution computer model reveals that over the next 4 decades, rising ocean acidity will likely have profound impacts on waters off the West Coast of the United States. [ScienceNOW]

A New York State Supreme Court justice has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to end New York’s participation in the multIstate carbon trading system known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. [New York Times]

The Union of Concerned Scientists has revised a report accusing major US companies of distorting the public conversation about climate change, saying it made a mistake counting donations from General Electric to think tanks. [Guardian]

A new innovation has the U.S. clean-energy business buzzing, one with big political risks and potentially bigger economic and environmental rewards. It isn’t a wind turbine, or a solar panel, or an electric car. It’s Chinese cash. [Wall Street Journal]

The geopolitics of the new Arctic entered the mainstream on August 2nd 2007. [The Economist]