by Richard W. Caperton

The American Wind Energy Association has just released a plan to phase out the Production Tax Credit, an important federal incentive that has led to the doubling of wind generated electricity. This proposal would provide wind companies with six years of certainty before eliminating it.

This makes the wind industry the only energy resource that has volunteered to help reduce the deficit and our country’s huge debt.  Now, it’s time for Big Oil and the rest of fossil fuel industries to propose a plan to phase out their permanent special tax breaks, some of which have been in place for nearly a century.

It’s worth highlighting two points from AWEA’s proposal.  First, the PTC must be extended through 2013 during the current Congressional lame duck session, using the language that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan support.  Second, the phaseout must include long-term certainty so that a healthy, diverse supply chain remains in place.

The complete letter is available here and is pasted below:

Read more

by Lorne Stockman, via Oil Change International

ExxonMobil recently issued its latest global energy projections in a report called the “2013 Outlook for Energy: a view to 2040.”

The report (pdf) is chock full of figures and graphs showing an inexorable rise in global energy demand and supply, as well as the growing market for Exxon’s products.

As can be expected, the report shows that despite some recent efficiency gains, the world is on course to consume ever growing amounts of energy, a large proportion of which will likely be derived from fossil fuels. Exxon places global growth in energy demand at 35% between 2010 and 2040.

In this regard, the report is in line with recent business-as-usual forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).

But the report differs greatly from the IEA’s report in some vital areas. The IEA is a public agency, funded by the tax dollars of developed countries including the United States, while Exxon is the world’s largest private oil and gas company, with a self-interested agenda behind every public communication it makes.

It’s perhaps no surprise that the Exxon Outlook fails to mention that if energy demand were to rise 35% to 2040, and if 60% of energy demand in 2040 were to be met by oil and gas as Exxon predicts (the IEA has it at 50%), then the planet would be on an unstoppable collision course with a 4 degree Celsius warmer world. While the IEA’s report was very clear about where current energy demand trends will lead it was also clear that this could be avoided if serious action is taken soon.

Our collision course with a 4 degree world was recently highlighted by the World Bank, a relatively recent convert to the urgency of climate change action that still needs to match its actions with its words. On the release of a recent report called Turn Down the Heat, the Bank’s President Jim Yong Kim said:

Read more

by Clint Wilder, via Clean Edge

“Clean tech is dead. The same way that the Internet was dead in 2000.”

To me, in assessing the state of the clean-tech industry in my final CE Views column of 2012, that may well be the quote of the year. Its source was Mitch Lowe, founder and managing partner of Greenstart, an incubator for software-based clean tech startups. Lowe’s sarcastic and insightful quip deftly describes the industry’s current condition: it’s transitional, challenging – and not going away anytime soon. Or ever.

Having covered the high tech and clean tech industries since 1985, I’ve seen countless hype waves come and go. The bursting of the Internet bubble around 2000 that Lowe referred to is still by far the biggest hype-and-crash that I’ve witnessed, Solyndra or no Solyndra. But in both high tech and clean tech, two things are always true. Hype about the latest new new thing (think Donald Trump exclaiming, “Huuuge!”) always exceeds the (long-term) business reality. And just as important to remember, what I will call the reverse hype – the naysaying and death knells from the doomsayers – always overstates reality as well. Remember, hype is not just buzz; it’s short for hyperbole, which means exaggeration. It may have been good for Internet stock valuations in 1999 or, I would argue, for shale-gas speculators today – but it’s not a long-term business strategy.

Mainstream media memes like “clean tech is dead” are understandable. They’re simple, easy to comprehend, and fit nicely into a Tweet, TV news chyron, or cocktail party conversation starter. But reality is always far more complex.

I don’t mean for one minute to minimize the obstacles faced by the clean-tech industry as we head into 2013. For most sectors and companies, 2012 has ranged somewhere between challenging and brutal. (Solar installation and deployment has been a notable exception, with the U.S. market on track for 50 percent growth in 2012 and SolarCity’s forthcoming IPO capping off the year). Public and private funding is hard to come by, policy is uncertain if not hostile, stock prices are battered, and low-cost natural gas has made the grid-parity game for renewables more daunting. It’s probably the most challenging environment for the industry since at least the Great Recession of 2008-09, if not the early 2000s when clean tech’s challenge was trying to get noticed at all.

Read more

If you’re a conservative, this image of Cleveland from 1973 taken before the Environmental Protection Agency started cleaning up our skies should make you care about the environment:

That’s according to a new paper from UC Berkeley, anyway.

In a study released this week, UC Berkeley researchers looked at how conservatives respond to messages about protecting the environment. Rather than being moved by the moral arguments that progressives often make, the study found that conservatives responded to images and videos within a “purity/sanctity” frame:

The purity/sanctity-themed article stressed how pollution has contaminated Earth and people’s bodies, and argued for cleaning up and purifying the environment. To enhance those themes and elicit disgust, the accompanying images showed a person drinking filthy water, a city under a cloud of pollution and a forest full of garbage. The neutral article talked about the history of neckties.

Participants were then asked to rate how strongly they felt certain emotions, including disgust, in response to what they’d read. Next, they reported how strongly they agreed or disagreed with such statements as “It is important to protect the environment,” “I would support government legislation aimed at protecting the environment” and ‘I believe humans are causing global warming.”

Overall, the study found that the purity-themed message inspired conservatives to feel higher levels of disgust, which in turn increased their support for protecting the environment.

Interesting. Let’s test out the study. Theoretically, that response to “purity” would make this photo of a severely asthmatic child living near a coal plant in Nevada an effective message for conservatives:

It would also make this photo of Pennsylvania resident Sherry Vargson lighting her methane-contaminated tap water on fire from fracking a pretty effective tool:

Read more

by Jessica Goad

As Washington struggles to address the country’s growing deficit, a new report released today finds that the federal government has lost its grip on finances in a different way.

An analysis from the Government Accountability Office reveals that the government does not keep track of the amount and value of hardrock minerals – gold, silver, copper, etc. – mined on public lands that are being given away to private companies.

Because the government does not collect royalties on these minerals, it claims there is no reason to keep track of this information:

We found that federal agencies generally do not collect data from hardrock mine operators on the amount and value of hardrock minerals extracted from federal lands because there is no federal royalty that would necessitate doing so.

The reason that companies mining hardrock minerals on public lands are exempt from paying royalties is a law passed almost 150 years ago, called the General Mining Act of 1872.  To this day, it is the law of the land when it comes to extracting hardrock minerals from the federal estate.  This means that mining companies are able to extract taxpayer-owned copper, gold, silver, and other minerals for nearly nothing in exchange.

Other resources extracted from public lands, like oil, coal, and natural gas, are subject to royalties of some sort, generally in the realm of 8-12.5 percent.  And while the federal government receives payments for drilling and mining in other ways like bonus bids and rents, royalties provide a significant amount of money to taxpayers:  GAO found that the total royalties received on coal, oil, and natural gas totaled $11.4 billion in 2011.

Although data on how many hardrock minerals are being extracted from public lands isn’t tracked, there have been some attempts at estimating what this loss to taxpayers looks like.  Using data from 1993, the Department of the Interior approximated that more than $6 billion worth of hardrock minerals was extracted from federal lands in fiscal year 2011.

Today’s report underscores the need  for greater disclosure of what is extracted from public lands, while also reforming the 1872 mining law and requiring companies to pay a royalty on the minerals that they extract.  Democratic members of the House Committee on Natural Resources pointed out that reforming the law could raise $300 million every year.

Reforming outdated policies like the 1872 mining law and subsidies for oil companies in order to help address the deficit are also important in the context of other extreme policies that have been proposed.  For example, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) recently called for selling off or trading public lands in order to reduce the deficit.

As Rep. Raul Grijalva, who requested the report along with Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), put it:  “Everybody’s penny-pinching, and here’s a penny we haven’t pinched.”

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

President Obama’s legacy will be defined by a number of issues: the stimulus package; killing Osama bin Laden; his endless battles with Congress; his support for gay marriage.

But arguably the biggest issue he’ll be judged on — one that is still rarely mentioned in Washington policy circles — is climate change.

It is true that this President has done more than any other leader in American history to promote clean energy. But that will only be one piece of his legacy. The rest of his climate record will be marked by his decision to allow drilling in the rapidly melting Arctic ocean, his choice to approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline, and his ability to once again lead on pricing carbon. These are all still very much up in the air.

Van Jones, the former White House “Green Jobs Czar” and a progressive moment builder, is warning the President that he needs to find the “courage” to stand up and deal with these issues in a climate context. In an interview with science writer Chris Mooney for Mother Jones Magazine, Jones says he believes that climate will be “the issue he’s judged on”:

Mother Jones: What would real climate leadership look like? You gave President Obama a “B” or “B-” on the environment in his first term, what would he have to do to earn an “A” in the second one?

Van Jones: An “A” would be a major energy and climate bill as a centerpiece of his legacy. He obviously has to deal with the economy and the budget issues that the Tea Party keeps trying to politicize. And there’s a question of immigration reform, which is critical as a major part of the progressive coalition. But, ten years from now, twenty years from now, the only thing people are going to be asking of this president is either, why he didn’t find the courage to do something on climate change, or they’re going to be asking how he found the courage. I think from the viewpoint of history, this is going to be the issue that he’s judged on. We’ve seen a lot of conversation about this fiscal cliff, which is an invented, manufactured crisis, but very little talk about the climate cliff, which is a real, unavoidable crisis.

So if we can have the president of the United States on TV every day talking about the manufactured fiscal cliff, then he can use all of those resources to put pressure on Congress to do something about the real climate cliff.

After his re-election last month, President Obama hinted that he might once again talk about climate change in his second term: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t…threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”

However, in his first post-election press conference, the President backed away from acting on climate and attempted to separate the environment from the economy: “If the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody is going to go for that. I won’t go for that.”

The White House likes to point to the stimulus package, EPA regulations, and other executive orders as evidence of the President’s work on climate — often without really talking about climate. While these actions do set us on a pathway toward emissions reductions, they are still not nearly close to what scientists say we need, and not quite bold enough to convince countries like China and India that the U.S. is leading internationally on climate.

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen a range of new research telling us that we are on the brink of catastrophic climate change — right now. In the next twenty years, everything we know will be influenced and transformed by climate. And when people look back, they won’t be nitpicking about which policies did more to incrementally reduce emissions.

Assuming that Obama stays mum on climate, they’ll be asking why the President of the United States didn’t use the opportunity to rally the country when the science demanded it.

Photo: Bob Berwyn

by Bob Berwyn, via Summit County Citizens Voice

Colorado’s old lodgepoles aren’t the only forest giants that are dying. Around the world, the biggest, oldest trees that harbor and sustain countless birds and other wildlife, are meeting the same fate.

Three of the world’s leading ecologists say they’ve documented an alarming increase in the death rate of trees between 100 and 300 years old in many of the world’s forests, woodlands, savannahs, farming areas and even in cities.

“It’s a worldwide problem and appears to be happening in most types of forest,” said lead author Professor David Lindenmayer, of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions and Australian National University.

“Large old trees are critical in many natural and human-dominated environments. Studies of ecosystems around the world suggest populations of these trees are declining rapidly,” he and colleagues Professor Bill Laurance of James Cook University, Australia, and Professor Jerry Franklin of the University of Washington, concluded in their report, published last week in Science.

“Research is urgently needed to identify the causes of rapid losses of large old trees and strategies for improved management. Without … policy changes, large old trees will diminish or disappear in many ecosystems, leading to losses of their associated biota and ecosystem functions,” the researcher said.

Lindenmayer said the first clue to the loss of big old trees came from examining Swedish forestry records going back to the 1860s. Then, a 30-year study of mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests in Australia confirmed not only that big old trees were dying en masse in forest fires, but also perishing at ten times the normal rate in non-fire years – apparently due to drought, high temperatures, logging and other causes.

Looking round the world, the scientists found similar trends at all latitudes, in California’s Yosemite National Park, on the African savannahs, in the rainforests of Brazil, the temperate forests of Europe and the boreal forests of the far north. Losses of large trees were also pronounced in agricultural landscapes and even cities, where people make efforts to preserve them.

“It is a very, very disturbing trend. We are talking about the loss of the biggest living organisms on the planet, of the largest flowering plants on the planet, of organisms that play a key role in regulating and enriching our world,” said Professor Bill Laurance of James Cook University.

“Large old trees play critical ecological roles. They provide nesting or sheltering cavities for up to 30 percent of all birds and animals in some ecosystems,” Laurance said. “They store huge amounts of carbon. They recycle soil nutrients, create rich patches for other life to thrive in, and influence the flow of water within landscapes and the local climate.

“Big trees supply abundant food for numerous animals in the form of fruits, flowers, foliage and nectar. Their hollows offer nests and shelter for birds and animals like Australia’s endangered Leadbeater’s possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) – and their loss could mean extinction for such creatures,” he continued.

“In agricultural landscapes, large old trees can be focal points for vegetation restoration; they help connect the landscape by acting as stepping stones for many animals that disperse seeds and pollen,” he concluded.

The alarming decline in old trees in so many types of forest appears to be driven by a combination of forces, including land clearing, agricultural practices, man-made changes in fire regimes, logging and timber gathering, insect attack and rapid climatic changes, said Franklin.

“For example, populations of large old pines in the dry forests of western North America declined dramatically over the last century because of selective logging, uncharacteristically severe wildfires, and other causes,” Laurance added.

The researchers likened the global loss of big trees to the tragedy that has already befallen the world’s largest mammals, such as elephants, rhinos, tigers and whales, cautioning that almost nowhere do conservation programs have the time-frames lasting centuries, which are needed to assure the survival of old trees.

“Just as large-bodied animals such as elephants, tigers and cetaceans have declined drastically in many parts of the world, a growing body of evidence suggests that large old trees could be equally imperiled,” they warned.

The study triggered a call for an urgent world-wide investigation to assess the extent of big tree loss, and to identify areas where big trees have a better chance of survival.

Bob Berwyn is the editor of Summit County Citizens Voice. This piece was originally published at Summit County Voice and was reprinted with permission.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that she’s forming a “climate change caucus,” and argues that Hurricane Sandy “changed a lot of minds” on the topic. [The Hill]

Climate change has the potential to stoke regional instabilities and fuel international tensions, according to a major new report from the US National Intelligence Council. [Guardian]

ExxonMobil said Tuesday that it does not support imposing a carbon tax as a way to raise revenue and help avoid the fiscal cliff — further deflating hopes that the long-shot proposal could find its way into the final deal. [Politico]

Federal officials have given energy and mining companies permission to pollute aquifers in more than 1,500 places across the country, releasing toxic material into underground reservoirs that help supply more than half of the nation’s drinking water. [ProPublica]

The Koch brothers will postpone their semi-annual meeting, which was originally scheduled to be held next month. It will now be held in April. In an e-mail to friends, Charles Koch says he wants to reflect on the results, and on election data, before he huddles with fellow business leaders. [National Review]

Seven Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states announced plans Tuesday to sue the Environmental Protection Agency, saying it is violating the Clean Air Act by failing to address methane emissions from oil and gas drilling. [Associated Press]

A London Assembly report on air pollution has flagged up a statistic that up to 9% of deaths in London can be attributed to man-made airborne particles. [Londonist]

China allocated a total of 13 billion yuan ($2 billion) this year from central government funds for domestic solar installations, Xinhua News Agency reported. [Bloomberg]

The small kerosene lamps that light millions of homes in developing countries also contribute to global warming, say researchers. [Zee News]

Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) forecasts global energy consumption will rise 35 percent by 2040, driven by China and India, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing the company’s latest long-term energy outlook. [Fuel Fix]