America Says: Keep Your Dirty Hands Off my Clean Water

By JW Randolph. Cross-Posted from Appalachian Voices' Front Porch Blog



Some members of Congress have started a war on the Clean Water Act by attempting to revoke a vital resource that allows the EPA do its job to better protect our nation's waterways.

Congressman McKinley (R-WV01) recently introduced legislation (HR 457) for consideration United States House of Representatives that would remove EPA's ability to veto Clean Water Act permits under Section 404(c) if the permit has already been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has promised to introduced similar legislation in the US Senate. These bills might have the unintended affect of encouraging the Army Corps to approve permits quickly. Congressman Don Young (R-AK)'s bill, H.R. 517 cuts even deeper by entirely removing EPA's veto authority.

In the entire existence of the Clean Water Act (1972), the EPA has only exercised this prerogative 13 times.

The EPA recently used this long-standing though seldom-used tool to veto the Spruce Mine No. 1 permit, which would have been the largest single permitted mine in West Virginia history, because of the massive negative impacts to water quality. Mountaintop removal mines have already buried over 2000 miles of Appalachian headwater streams in a witch’s brew of heavy metals and chemicals such as arsenic, lead, chromium, mercury, and selenium.

The coal industry is attempting to nationalize this recent veto, claiming the EPA’s recent decision creates regulatory uncertainty across all industries. The truth is that Arch Coal, the company who had applied for the permit, refused to work with the EPA on modifications that would have made the mine more than likely immune to a veto.




Furthemore, Big Coal doesn’t seem to be too concerned about “regulatory certainty” when it comes to industries that depend on a strong Clean Water Act, like fisheries, outdoor recreation and tourism. Studies have shown that the annual financial benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act are somewhere in the realm of $11 billion.

However HR 457 and 517, however, truly do have national implications for communities' basic right to clean water. The EPA would lose their ability to intervene in projects that would have serious impacts to water quality, environmental and human health across the entire nation.

Appalachian Voices stands with national, regional, community, human health organizations and fisherman prepared to fight this perilous political theatre from Representatives McKinley, Young and Senator Manchin.

The Clean Water Act was put into place in the 70s, at a time when corporate pollution was virtually unregulated and a national consciousness grew that without clean water, our nation could not prosper and grow. Attempts at weakening the Clean Water should be taken seriously, because there are parts of American history that do not bear repeating.

Our children don’t need to find themselves back to a time where major rivers catch on fire. Remember the Cuyahoga!

Read more!

Obama’s Climate Omission: Can We Disagree on Climate and Win on Clean Energy?

By Teryn Norris & Daniel Goldfarb | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

President Obama’s exclusion of “climate change”from the State of the Union, combined with Carol Browner’s exit as the administration’s top climate advisor, has sparked wide debate across the climate movement. On one hand, many climate advocates are backing the president’s strategy. As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) put it, “He's trying to unify… I think it was very smart of him.”

On the other hand, climate advocates like Joe Romm of Climate Progress and David Roberts of Grist are criticizing the president for not using climate change as a central justification for his clean energy proposals. Unfortunately, even after the collapse of cap and trade legislation, Roberts and other critics continue to follow a type of policy literalism that has undermined environmentalists and climate advocates for years.

The argument goes something like this. First, Roberts claims that without climate change as the central justification, the case for federal investment in the clean energy industry “is no stronger than the argument for supporting pharmaceuticals, or telecom, or any other industry that's likely to be big in the 21st century.” (Roberts wrote partly in response to Norris’ article on the rise of “innovation hawks.”)

However, as the American Energy Innovation Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recently explained in their reports, other industries like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and computer electronics spend far more on research and development than the energy industry, due to a variety of market and non-market barriers. The underinvestment is dramatic: whereas pharmaceuticals invest about 18.7% of sales in R&D, the U.S. energy industry only invests 0.3%. The federal government already invests over $30 billion annually in health research, and $80 billion on military R&D, but only $3-5 billion in energy R&D.

Moreover, the current economic challenge from China and other “rising tigers” in clean-tech is clearer than any other industry, and it remains one of the most powerful motivating factors for the U.S. public and policymakers alike (analysts predict the global clean-tech market could surpass $600 billion by 2020). The importance of clean energy technology for the Department of Defense, and for saving the lives of American troops, is creating a new imperative in the defense community. Rising oil prices andinstability in the Middle East are simultaneously strengthening the energy security consensus to reduce U.S. reliance on oil. And disasters like Deepwater Horizon and Massey Energy continue to highlight the public health and environmental benefits of reduced fossil fuel consumption.

So much for the argument that only climate change can seriously justify major federal investment in clean energy technology over other industries. The case for expanding these investments for economic competitiveness, national security, and public health reasons is stronger than ever before. (And beyond domestic concerns, cheaper forms of clean energy can help alleviate the poverty of billions who lack electricity access and already suffer from the vagaries of the climate.)

The second reason Roberts criticizes President Obama is that he believes “The only way that well-worn partisan division can be transcended is through reference to climate change.” In anotherreaction to Obama's decision, Roberts asserts that “telling the truth about climate change is also good politics.”

Could it be true that only climate change can transcend partisan divisions? Was the president wrong to appeal to a broader set of public interests to advance clean energy RD&D investment and a portfolio standard? Let’s revisit the latest public opinion analysis. In a recent report titled "Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming: Increasing Partisan Divide on Energy Policies," the Pew Research Center concluded:

“Views about climate change continue to be sharply divided along party lines… Among Republicans, only 38% agree the earth is warming and just 16% say warming is caused by humans… Just 14% of Republicans say global warming is a very serious problem and 27% view it as a somewhat serious problem; only about a quarter (24%) think it requires immediate action by the government… Among Republican registered voters who agree with the Tea Party, fully 70% do not think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth is warming.”

No wonder Republican strategists have successfully used climate change as a wedge issue to rally their base and tarnish Democrats. Even with cap and trade gone, the Republican leadership sees opposition to EPA greenhouse gas emissions authority as a major linchpin of its 2012 election strategy.

How could Roberts and others possibly get the idea that focusing on climate change is good politics in this environment? Contrary to their assertions, a focus on climate change would only serve toundermine the possibility of clean energy reform, fueling an ever-greater climate war and potentially contributing to another major Democratic defeat in 2012.

Based on this data, the recent collapse of cap and trade, and the current state of climate change politics, we conclude that the president’s choice made sense. Although climate change remains extremely divisive, Gallup and Pew polling continues to indicate that federal investment in clean energy technology remains one of the most popular forms of energy policy. These investments will drive down the price of low-carbon energy and pave the way for stronger deployment efforts -- perhaps even including a strong carbon price at some point -- both here and in the developing world, where the vast majority of future emissions will originate.

The question is not whether climate change is an important reason for action on clean energy. That is obvious. The question is what type of political and policy strategy can successfully expand the national clean energy consensus and begin shifting us in the right direction. In this context, the role of effective leaders is not just to "speak truth to power," but to bridge our divides to achieve the outcomes we need.

We can agree to disagree on the role of climate and focus on policy achievements in the near and medium term. Climate change will eventually get its moment in American politics. Until then, Obama and his administration have outlined a new approach, and climate advocates would be wise to get behind it.

Read more!

The Rise of Innovation Hawks

By Teryn Norris | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

Last night, President Obama crystallized a new moment in U.S. political and economic history. The president is declaring it the “new Sputnik moment,” but whatever the label, it represents a major development in U.S. politics.

The catalyzing force behind this trend is the rise of China and the aftermath of the Great Recession, which is quickly producing new political fault lines. Just as the rise of the Soviet Union caused a fundamental political realignment in the United States, so the rapid rise of China is causing another today.

This realignment is just beginning, but one of the clearest implications is the rise of a new national economic strategy based on “innovation economics.” Instead of emphasizing spending cuts, even in the face of the Tea Party and new Republican House, Obama strongly promoted an active, innovation-centric federal strategy at the front and center of his agenda – a first for any modern president.

The key to American leadership in the face of China, Obama argued, is to make large-scale federal investments in the three pillars of economic competitiveness: innovation, education, and infrastructure. “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” he declared. “That's how we'll win the future.”

By embracing an investment-centric strategy, Obama adopted a growing expert consensus: modern economic growth primarily emerges from technological innovation, and the federal government plays a central role in innovation. The information technology revolution was grounded in federal investments in microchips and the Internet – especially by the Department of Defense – and so were major growth sectors like aviation, biotech, and others.

Read more!

Obama's Breakthrough

By Devon Swezey, Originally Published at the Breakthrough Institute

With last night's State of the Union address, President Obama has shifted the debate from the partisan climate wars to an expansive energy innovation policy which has the potential to draw support from across the political spectrum.

"In embracing breakthrough innovation for solar and nuclear power alike -- for economic competitiveness rather than climate reasons -- President Obama took a bold first step toward a national commitment to energy innovation that is in the long tradition of bi-partisan support for science and technology," wrote Breakthrough Institute co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in a statement. "While the road forward will not be easy, at least it is one America has traveled before."

In a State of the Union speech framed centrally around restoring America's global economic leadership, President Obama argued forcefully for increasing federal investment in energy innovation, declaring that "breakthrough" technologies have driven decades of innovation that "created new industries and millions of new jobs."

Obama's speech was a rejection of proposals to cut federal spending across the board, as he finally made the case before the American people about why public support for innovation is critical for the country's long-term prosperity:

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs - from manufacturing to retail - that have come from those breakthroughs."

In its recent report, "Where Good Technologies Come From," Breakthrough Institute documents how America's blockbuster pharmaceutical drugs, high-yield agricultural crops, and revolutionary technologies like the iPhone were all due to the federal government's sustained, multi-decadal investments in innovation.

Obama also embraced a key element of the "Post-Partisan Power" proposal issued by scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Breakthrough Institute, which is to stop subsidizing the production of old technologies and start using competitive deployment and military procurement to purchase new ones.

"We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time...instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's"

In a fact sheet sent out after the speech titled "President Obama's Plan to Win the Future by Investing in Clean Energy Research and Development," the White House detailed new clean energy investments expected in the President's FY 2012 budget proposal, which are expected to grow modestly to $8 billion.

They include:

• "More than doubling" the current $300 million budget for the Department of Energy's ARPA-E.
• Doubling the number of the Department of Energy's Energy Innovation Hubs, from three to six.
• Doubling the investment in applied R&D, including efficiency, vehicle technology R&D for advanced batteries, and building technology R&D.

Obama's plan includes investment in more than R&D, and embraces the tripartite clean energy competitiveness framework--R&D, manufacturing, and markets--that Breakthrough Institute and ITIF first advanced in "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant."

Read more!

A Lesson from the History of Clean Energy Research

By Tucker Willsie | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

The focus on innovation in Obama's State of the Union marks a new high point for clean energy R&D advocacy. In the coming months, politicians and policy makers will likely align around proposals to encourage everything from basic research to putting solar panels on our roofs and hybrids in our garages. It is easy, in such an environment, to forget the barren stretch of time between the oil crisis induced renewable energy craze of the 1970s and the present day. During this time, funding dried up, programs were cut, and renewable energy research and deployment was forced to go abroad or wither in an apathetic United States.

Politicians, policymakers and enthusiasts talk about ways that new programs will help America race past its competitors as it did in the space race, but there is not enough attention on how the old programs died and what was the full impact of their disappearance. There are important lessons to learn, the biggest of which is that inconsistency in policy can be crippling to research. While proponents of clean and renewable technologies should welcome the renewed interest and funding, it is important that they learn from the past and focus on creating a support system that is not only robust but also provides some assurances of long-term commitments.

Most of the renewable energy technologies today owe their existence to research done in the United States over the last century. Many of the key technologies in modern windmills, including the variable speed drives and special composites used to make the blades, were developed here. Domestic research in semiconductors and other materials in American universities and national and private labs led to the birth of photovoltaics. This research was driven by a select group of dedicated programs. Prof. William Paul's group at Harvard, Prof. Hellmut Fritzsche's group at U. Chicago, and Prof. Richard Bube's group at Stanford were all examples of such labs that contributed important discoveries to photovoltaic technology. Given the resources to target renewable energy research, they were able to attract the brightest minds and give these scientists the experience in the field required to make them true experts.

But scientists need paychecks, and when programs in photovoltaics lost their funding, the individuals in these labs were forced to respecialize. Not only did their work get put on hold, but they were not able to attract and train the next generation of scientists to continue their legacy. As Paul, Fritzsche and Bube near retirement, some of their combined expertise in the field of photovoltaics will undoubtedly be lost.

Research teams of this caliber take time to create. Throwing a billion dollars at renewable energy research tomorrow will generate a mob of scientists willing to delve into the topic, but it might take years before they gain the level of collective expertise established in some of these labs. Continuity is essential to maintain a core of scientists that are true experts in the field and can lead new research initiatives. Even low but consistent levels of funding allow such cores to survive. An excess of funding might be wasteful if it goes to groups not capable of such high level work.

As America debates renewable energy policy, it should remember that research cannot thrive in a fickle funding environment driven by the mood swings of congress. In the last decade, America began to understand the massive research initiative it will require to maintain international competitiveness, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and restabilize the environment. The original America COMPETES Act, passed under President Bush in 2007, was a strong first step toward creating a well-trained group of American scientists to lead this initiative. However, momentum has only just begun to build and if funding is cut then much of the progress made over the last few years will be wasted.

Thankfully, the America COMPETES Re-authorization act was passed in the final days of the lame duck congress and finally signed into law. However, the appropriations committees of the next Congress will determine the actual amount of funding to be allotted for research initiatives. COMPETES was already reduced from $84 to $43 billion in order to pass the Senate, and the final amount appropriated could be much lower. This is particularly true with a new wave of Senators and Congressmen coming to Washington to cut spending. If America wants to see the volume and caliber of research that brought us these technologies in the first place (and propelled us past the Soviet Union during the Sputnik crisis), we must allow these research groups to form and collective expertise in these fields to build. While our support for research yields exciting discoveries today, we are also preparing the ground for the greater discoveries of tomorrow. We must take care not to falter in our commitment to these groups as we did before or we will forego the greatest rewards of their work.

__

Tucker Willsie is a Contributor in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and his work will be regularly featured on the website. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.

Read more!

EPA Vetoes Massive Mountaintop Removal Coal Mine

By JW Randolph, originally posted at Appalachian Voices

EPA announced Thursday that they will be vetoing the largest mountaintop removal permit in WV history.

Appalachian Voices is thrilled to hear that EPA will be vetoing this permit in order to protect human health and aquatic ecosystems in central Appalachia. EPA's own science has shown that mountaintop removal has permanent negative impacts on Appalachia, and we hope they will continue to stand strong in stopping mine permits that will have a negative impact on the well-being of the central Appalachian land and people.

EPA's Peter Silva hit the nail on the head:

The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend. Coal and coal mining are part of our nation’s energy future, and EPA has worked with companies to design mining operations that adequately protect our nation’s water. We have responsibility under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on clean water.

The bottom line is that we don't need to poison our streams and our communities in order to mine coal in the central Appalachian region. Three cheers to EPA for doing what is right, even though they faced tremendous political pressure to let this harmful and toxic mine just slide by.

Congress can make these protections permanent, while adding stability and clarity to the process by passing popular bipartisan legislation such as the Clean Water Protection Act (House) and Appalachia Restoration Act (Senate). Recently, 50 members of Congress sent a letter to EPA thanking them for doing the right thing by taking steps to end mountaintop removal. Congressman Rahall (D-WV) also said that legislation to end the practice had more than 400 votes in the House, but that he was the only person blocking the bill. Its time that Representatives like Congressman Rahall and Senator Manchin start protecting their constituents and stop wasting their time and political capital defending a destructive, toxic, and unnecessary practice like mountaintop removal. Its time that our elected officials start thinking less about appeasing the coal lobby and more about protecting Appalachian citizens who live in communities where coal is mined.

In one of his last public statements, Senator Robert C. Byrd said:

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states. Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.

Ken Ward has more at Coal Tattoo and Jeff Biggers has a beautiful piece at HuffPo called EPA Vetoes Largest Mountaintop Removal Permit: New Era of Civility in the Coalfields? .

Congratulations to every single person who helped make this possible.

Read more!

Energy in China: Innovation, Competition, and Meeting Soaring Demand

Live Webinar Jan. 31, 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT

According to a 2010 International Energy Agency report, Chinese energy consumption has doubled over the past decade, and will soar 75 percent by 2035, accounting for more than a third of total global consumption growth. To date, the largest portion of this demand has been met by burning coal, raising serious concerns about CO2 emissions and the battle against climate change, but China has also begun to aggressively invest in alternative energy.

In light of this, The Energy Collective's latest webinar seeks to explore how China may rise to the challenge of meeting its rising energy demand while fighting climate change, and how those efforts will impact energy markets and technology in the rest of the world.



The webinar will explore:

• Innovation: Will China will be able to move down the innovation learning curve and successfully design new technologies, or continue to manufacture Western-designed technologies? Is there evidence this is happening?


• Competition: Will China's policies and investments in alternative energy put on-par competition out of reach for the U.S., or is there hope the U.S. and EU will keep pace?


• Coal and Energy Demand: What role will coal inevitably continue to play to meet steep energy demand increase projections for China? Can Carbon Capture & Sequestration help limit increases in coal-generated emissions?

Featuring:

Gardiner Hill is the Senior Advisor on CCS Technology, Regulations and Policy for BP Alternative Energy. He is responsible for developing strategies and advising on all matters related to carbon capture and storage across the portfolio of the BP group of companies. Hill has been involved heavily in the research and development of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and in 2000, Hill joined BP’s central Group Technology function and project managed the CO2 Capture Project, the first international joint industry scheme of its kind. Hill sits on the board of a range of associations and special projects including; Chairman for the Carbon Capture and Storage Industry Association, Chairman for the CO2 Carbon Capture Project, and Vice Chairman of the Zero Emissions Power Technology Platform in Europe.

Marc Gunther is a veteran journalist, speaker, writer and consultant whose focus is business and sustainability. Marc is a contributing editor at FORTUNE magazine, a senior writer at Greenbiz.com, a lead blogger at The Energy Collective. He's also a husband and father, a lover of the outdoors and a marathon runner. Marc is the author or co-author of four books, including Faith and Fortune: How Compassionate Capitalism is Transforming American Business. He's a graduate of Yale who lives in Bethesda, MD.

Jesse Jenkins is Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute, and is one of the country's leading energy and climate policy analysts and advocates. Jesse has written for publications including the San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, Yale Environment 360, Grist.org, and HuffingtonPost.com, and his published works on energy policy have been cited by many more. He is founder and chief editor of WattHead - Energy News and Commentary and a featured wr iter at the Energy Collective.

Register today and spread the word on Twitter and Facebook using http://bit.ly/EnergyChina

Read more!

A New Energy Economics and Security Consensus

By Daniel Goldfarb

Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

A confluence of recent events, both tragic and inspiring, have once again reminded us that America's national security is inextricably linked to its energy posture. As a result, a new consensus is emerging within government and the private sector: the U.S. military can make the nation and its soldiers safer while simultaneously aiding in an economic transformation to a less carbon intensive economy.

The emerging consensus was highlighted in this week's announcement of the military authorization's "Buy American Provision," which provides a glimmer of hope for U.S. competitiveness yet also sends shivers down the spines of those worried about a trade war with China. The importance of this development can only begin to be understood as the realization within Congress, and hopefully the general public, that clean energy stands at the nexus of economic recovery and the nation's security.

The horrifying shooting of Rep. Gabriel Giffords, a champion of renewable energy, prompted a thoughtful article by Politico's Darren Samuelsohn about Rep. Gifford's now notorious questioning of General Patreus. During a congressional hearing last June, Rep. Giffords posed a question about how the military was moving to adress the increasingly obvious link between troop safety, national security, and military energy practices:

“In places like Kandahar, where we have a large presence, we have been plugged into a very unsustainable and incapable grid system,” Giffords said. “We know that a major part of the upcoming Kandahar offensive will include some serious repairs and upgrades to the energy system, which will include small-scale solar and hydropower systems and also some solar-powered street lights. I’m just curious, General, whether or not there’s plans to utilize any of these same technologies at our bases around Afghanistan, and wouldn’t that greatly reduce our need for fuel?”

Gifford's rather straightforward question drew the ire of conservative pundits around the nation. Soon she had become a target of Glenn Beck, the Red State blog, and a number of other sources which moved to question her patriotism. Yet those attacking Rep. Gifford's poignent question failed to pick up on an emerging consensus amongst think tanks, legislators, but most importantly the DoD itself: the military must move to change its energy sources and usage.

Read more!