The latest stimulus proposal, announced this week by Barack Obama, will put $50 billion into the hopper for improvements to “the nation’s roads, railways and runways,” as the Associated Press story alliteratively noted.

And certainly, those improvements are needed. Europeans and east Asians laugh openly at our rail system. Our roads and bridges need shoring up. And plane travel in general has become a chore.

But before we go off improving more roads (which seemed to be where the bulk of the first round of stimulus went), shouldn’t we be looking at energy? How about a program to deep-energy retrofit many existing buildings, become a world leader in nonpolluting renewable energy, and reinvent public transit in ways that encourage its use. A massive program to cut fossil fuel and nuclear dependence by, say, 75 percent would have these extra advantages:

  • Immediate economic stimulus, in the form of dollars saved on energy costs that become available for other uses
  • Tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of new jobs: in production, installation, weatherization, analysis, and more
  • Reduced dependence on foreign energy sources, thus freeing up foreign policy decisions to be made on other criteria than protecting our oil interests
  • Ability to curtail unsafe deepwater oil drilling until the bugs are worked out
  • New life for existing residential, commercial, government, and industrial buildings
  • Drastic reductions in prices for solar, wind, geothermal, and small-scale hydro, as larger markets enable economies of scale
  • Reduced air and water pollution
  • Reduced carbon footprint and maybe even the potential to reverse catastrophic climate change
  • Far less energy wasted in transmission losses, because more of it will be generated at the point of use and won’t need to be transported
  • Conversion of energy from a constantly rising ongoing cost to a fixed one-time cost amortized over many years
  • Elimination of any possible argument in favor of extremely dangerous and/or highly polluting power sources such as nuclear or tar sands
  • And those are only a few among many.

    The really good news? Such a plan could be put into place with surprisingly little capital outlay, because creative financing structures already exist that can let private investment step to the plate. I’ll talk more about this in my next post (after Rosh Hashana is over).

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    On June 1, I wrote an op-ed expressing the hope that President Obama would use the Gulf spill disaster as a platform to launch a major push toward sustainability (you didn’t read it here because I submitted it first to the New York Times and then to Newsweek, neither of which published it). Last night’s Oval Office speech was definitely a step in the right direction.

    Here’s my article on the speech I’d hoped to hear, followed by the relevant portion of what he actually said:

    MY ARTICLE:
    The Energy Speech Obama Needs to Make—But Won’t

    If ever there was a “teachable moment” around energy, the devastation spewing out of BP’s Deepwater Horizon into the Gulf of Mexico is it. The disaster provides an opportunity to move away from unproven technologies whose failure can be catastrophic.

    President Obama hinted at this with his recent speech on the Gulf:

    More than anything else, this economic and environmental tragedy— and it’s a tragedy—underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. Doing so will not only reduce threats to our environment, it will create a new, homegrown, American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs.

    We’ve talked about doing this for decades, and we’ve made significant strides over the last year when it comes to investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would finally jumpstart a permanent transition to a clean energy economy, and there is currently a plan in the Senate—a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans—that would achieve the same goal.

    If nothing else, this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it’s time to move forward on this legislation. It’s time to accelerate the competition with countries like China, who have already realized the future lies in renewable energy. And it’s time to seize that future ourselves. So I call on Democrats and Republicans in Congress, working with my administration, to answer this challenge once and for all.

    This is good, as far as it goes. But unfortunately, cautious soul that he is, President Obama seems incapable of taking this conversation to the much deeper level we need. Here’s the speech I’ve been hoping to hear for over a month:

    “Fellow Americans—and fellow citizens of the world. My heart is heavy as I look out over the Gulf of Mexico and watch the cancer of toxic oil slowly wash up on the beaches of our Gulf States. We have had a tragedy…a catastrophe.

    “Only too recently, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked their own devastation on the shores of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama.

    “And now, just as those communities in the Gulf region were slowly returning to normalcy, their world is once again turned upside down.

    “But unlike the disaster of 2005, this calamity was not a force of nature. This catastrophe was caused by human arrogance and the human actions. Untested technologies that were never guaranteed to work at depths of a mile or more…and unproven recovery plans in the event something went wrong…combined to wreak havoc.

    “This kind of human hubris, to build first and figure out how to deal with it later, has marred progress far too often. Remember the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic? The nearly catastrophic nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry, and Enrico Fermi—and Chernobyl? The series of coal mining disasters that have robbed families of their loved ones and breadwinners? And yes, the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

    “This crisis blackens our sky and our water. But even as the spilled oil brings literal darkness, there’s one bright spot: the certainty that we must find a different way to power our great factories and offices, our snug homes, and our amazing transportation system. We have the technical knowledge to implement a rapid transition toward safe, renewable, nonpolluting technologies. But until now, we haven’t had the will.

    “Following World War II, Europe was a shambles. Buildings had been bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and populations were displaced. Into the void came a beacon of hope: The Marshall Plan—a partnership with Europe to rebuild the devastated continent, even our recent enemies.

    “Today, we must once more rise to the challenge. We must turn away from highly centralized, highly dangerous energy collection and generation systems—vulnerable to accidents, terrorists, and to being held hostage by the institutions that control those energy resources.

    “Just as we rebuilt Europe, we can create a Marshall-Plan-style push toward true sustainability based on solar, wind, small-scale (non-disruptive) hydro, geothermal, conservation, and other technologies that generate power where it is needed, using methods that don’t pollute, that reduce our carbon footprint, and that can succeed or fail without risking catastrophic systemic and ecological collapse.

    “John F. Kennedy brought us to the moon in less than ten years. In the next ten years, we will surpass even that fantastic achievement. Government prime-the-pump investments will create economies of scale and slash prices. Grants, tax incentives and pubic-private partnerships like rent-to-own solar systems and deep-energy retrofits will vastly, rapidly reduce our dependence on polluting, carbon-emitting fossil fuels—by 66 to 90 percent—remove the threat of catastrophic nuclear accidents that could dwarf the spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off Alaska. And we will do this while creating tens of thousands of new jobs, and without sacrificing the American way of life. In fact, we will bring the poor out of poverty, at home and around the world.

    “For the good of America, for the good of the world, and for the good of each and every one of us, our children, our grandchildren, and the generations yet to be born…I ask you to join with me on charting, once and for all, a sustainable future. Thank you.”

    What the President Actually Said Last Night
    The president’s remarks were a significant move forward from the mild and infirm rhetoric of two weeks earlier (you can see a video of the whole 17-minute speech here). This is the section of the June 15 speech relating to alternative energy, and I’ve bolded the parts that most echo my draft speech:

    So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

    For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

    The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

    We cannot consign our children to this future.

    The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

    This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

    Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
    When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

    Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy -– because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

    So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party -– as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development -– and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

    This is more than I actually expected from Obama. Is it enough? Of course not. Is it a huge step in the right direction? You betcha.

    And now it’s up to us, the American people, to make sure he keeps his word on this, and to give him the political support he will need to push these measures through a divided Congress and not be whittled away to practically nothing the way health reform was. And to do so in ways that close the door to technologies we don’t want to see developed. Getting us off fossil fuels doesn’t mean using dirty wood-fired biomass plants, and it doesn’t mean nuclear—a technology potentially far more catastrophic than deep-water offshore oil drilling. It means solar, wind, small-scale (on-intrusive) hydro, geothermal, and of course, conservation.

    Let’s get it done!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I got a call tonight from a survey company asking me questions about my views on various candidates for Massachusetts Governor, and then about various energy alternatives, and then the obvious real purpose: questions about my views on the large-scale wood-burning biomass projects proposed around the state (including three locations fairly close to me: Russell, Greenfield, and even densely populated Springfield), and a proposed bill to count only solar, wind and hydro as Green projects, excluding nukes and biofuels.

    I think this gets an “award” for the most biased survey I’ve ever taken. First, the questioner determined that I was strongly opposed to the biomass plants—which are very bad on carbon footprint, not only from the burning of wood but also the massive deforestation and the huge amount of truck traffic they will generate. Wood is, indeed, a renewable resource. But it sure isn’t a clean one!

    Then he asked questions like

  • Would it change your vote if you knew that although the Sierra Club and [I think] the Massachusetts Medical Society support the bill, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and AFL-CIO oppose this bill? [Very clever of them to throw in the environmental groups on the other side; my suspicions were not yet aroused. Later, I Googled and could find no such endorsement from UCS, although their research is cited by another group, here]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that wood-biofuel plants are carbon neutral? [absolutely NOT true!]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that Massachusetts has more forested land now than it did 100 years ago?
  • After these three biased questions that were clearly tilted toward counting me as an opponent of the bill, I stopped the guy and said I thought this was a survey, and not a blatant attempt to feed misinformation to me in an attempt to change my opinion. He said, “hey, I’m just reading the questions!” I said I understood that, but I didn’t appreciate being manipulated like this, and I ended the interview. My caller ID told me he had a 609 area code (New Jersey), incidentally.

    I am totally sure this so-called survey will be used to trumpet the citizens of Massachusetts’ supposed stance in favor of biofuels and against the proposed law. While the law’s definitions could be sharpened, I actually feel that eliminating nuclear power and large-scale wood-burning biomass plants from being counted in the progress toward a Green economy is a GOOD thing. And I’ll be directing my friends who are active in the anti-biofuel campaigns to this blog, so they can see exactly what their opponents are up to—sleazy and easily discredited “surveys” like this.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail