This is a guest post by Ted Glick, the policy director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network/U.S. Climate Emergency Council. He can be reached at usajointheworld@igc.org. He is author of "Past Future Hope" columns.
-----
On August 4, the Barack Obama presidential campaign released a comprehensive program for reform of the U.S. energy system. In the words of Obama supporter, climate blogger, and author Joe Romm, it was "easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party." The critical question, however, is this: Is it an energy plan that will actually do the job of giving U.S. leadership to the world in a way which gives us a decent chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change?
There are without question a number of positive aspects to the Obama plan, specifically the call for 1 million plug-in hybrid cars by 2015, his commitment to energy efficiency, investing in an upgrade of the national utility grid, weatherizing one million homes annually, a 100 percent auction of carbon credits under a cap-and-trade program, and a goal of 5 million new green jobs. These seem to me to be the best of his proposals.
But there are a number of disturbing positions taken by Obama in this plan, either because they are wrong positions or because they are very weak.
- Nowhere in this document does Obama identify our fossil fuel addiction as a problem. Even George Bush has talked about that addiction. Instead, Obama frames his energy program as primarily a response to "our dependence on oil," especially oil from "the Middle East and Venezuela." It is disturbing that there is not a single statement about the need to shift from the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas to clean energy sources.
- Along these lines, one of the seven sections of Obama's program, "Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy," advocates active support for drilling for oil and natural gas in the U.S. "on 68 million acres of land, over 40 million offshore, which [oil companies] are not drilling on." It says, "Obama will require oil companies to diligently develop these leases or turn them over so that another company can develop them." He supports going after oil and natural gas in shale in several western and southern states. He supports pumping carbon dioxide into oil wells "to produce more oil from existing fields." How is all of this in any way part of a plan to address global warming and move to a new energy economy?
- Obama says that an increase of fuel economy standards by 4 percent a year is good. That's questionable. The energy bill passed by Congress in December last year mandated that cars and light trucks get 35 mpg by 2020, which is just about what 4 percent a year will get us to. China and Europe are already at or slightly above that figure as of 2008.
- Obama calls for a plan to produce "at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030," as well as building the infrastructure for it. There is widespread concern about the effect of biofuels on food prices, agriculture and the economy, and there are serious questions about the extent of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions from many biofuels. If we prioritized a rapid shift of our electricity sources from fossil fuels to renewables, as Al Gore has called for, mass production of electric cars would be an all-around winner for consumers, the auto industry and its workers, and the environment. A whole-hog commitment to making biofuels a major element of a program to address the climate crisis seems premature, at least.
- He says he will require a 1 percent a year reduction in the carbon content of fuel. This is certainly not a bad thing, but given the urgency of the crisis, it sure seems to be a case of much too little, much too slow.
- He calls for a 15 percent reduction of electricity demand from DOE projected levels -- not a 15 percent actual reduction of electricity demand but instead 15 percent less than projected by 2020. This is by no means anywhere close to what is both possible and needed.
- Along the same lines Obama projects getting 10 percent of electricity from renewables by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. Yet Al Gore has called for 100 percent of our electricity to come from renewables by 2018 as a way of really matching the urgency of the crisis with an appropriate response. Gore is on target here, not Obama.
- Obama says that we need to "maximize the speed with which we advance" carbon capture and sequestration technologies so that we can "develop and deploy clean coal technology." He would "instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration." If these plans are enacted, Obama will do more for the coal industry than Bush has done by attempting to speedily advance carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). He projects doing this even though most objective analysts of CCS doubt that it will be commercially viable for at least a decade, not to mention other problems with it. Within a decade we must, absolutely must, be on a very fast track to a renewables-based, energy efficient economy, if not yet at Gore's goal of 100 percent electricity from renewables.
- Nowhere in the entire eight-page, single-spaced document does Obama have anything critical to say about coal. This is the case despite calls by Al Gore, James Hansen, Lester Brown, most environmental groups, almost all climate groups, the League of Women Voters and others for a moratorium on the building of new coal plants. It is of note, however, that in Obama's climate plan, not this energy plan, he does talk about "including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities" to help "move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology." This is an indication that he could be persuaded to support a coal moratorium on plants that don't have CCS capability.
- When it comes to nuclear power, Obama takes essentially a middle-of-the-road position. It could be a positive thing that Obama is not making any specific commitments to the building of a certain number of nuke plants, as is McCain, and he does raise in the document most of the problems with nukes. It remains to be seen what he will do if elected.
- It is a distinct problem that the only goal for emissions reductions is an 80 percent by 2050 goal, 42 years from now. There is no 2020 goal anywhere in Obama's document. (In his climate plan, not this energy plan, there a goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, an extremely weak objective.) It is easy for politicians -- or anyone else -- to say what they want to see over 40 years down the road. Al Gore was right when, in calling for 100 percent renewables-based electricity by 2018, he spoke of how a 10-year plan is about the limit of what people, and decision-makers, can practically grab onto. More fundamentally, the key to any hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change is what we do in the coming years, not decades. We need a serious push now to jump start a clean energy revolution!
- There is no mention of the Kyoto Protocol, and one has to question why Obama projects a continuation of the Major Economies Meetings -- meetings of the top 16 carbon polluting countries in the world. The MEM initiative was set up by the Bush administration for the explicit purpose of undercutting the negotiations by Kyoto Protocol signers (almost the entire world, except for the U.S.), for a stronger accord post 2012.
Obama supporter Joe Romm, quoted at the beginning of this article, has said about Obama's plan: "This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One."
I align myself with 1Sky, Al Gore, James Hansen, Lester Brown, Ross Gelbspan, Bill McKibben, and others when it comes to what I think is necessary if we're to avoid catastrophic climate change, and because of that I don't agree at all with Romm's conclusion.
Let me be clear: There is no question that Obama's energy plan is better than McCain's and a very big improvement over Bush. But I am convinced by my close reading of his energy plan that it is essential that efforts like the 1Sky campaign need to keep ramping up the pressure for a truly science-based program to deal with the climate crisis. We have an extremely short time-frame in which to do so. Obama (and McCain) needs to be pushed now and pushed if he is elected to revise a number of elements of his program.
And to answer the question in this article's title, it's impossible to believe in this particular "change" program in total. When it comes to the revolutionary change in energy policy that we urgently need, it is up to the U.S. citizenry at the grassroots to make it so. We must step forward and be the leaders our threatened ecosystem and all its life forms are waiting for.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Comments
View as Flat
stopgreenpath Posted 10:11 am
20 Aug 2008
he needs to just appoint Dennis Kucinich as head of the DOE, so ole DK can decentralize and clean up our crappy electricity system, create wealth, opportunity and employment for many millions of people, instead of environmental destruction and grotesque enrichment for a few Big Energy Monopolists and their mercenary partners in government (sorry Pelosi, but you bought into the wrong plan with Pickens).
we, as individuals, need to be heard in this conversation, but Big Enviros keep shouting us down and cheering for total ecosystem death with giant centralized "renewable"(ha!) power plants and massive, GHG-intensive transmission projects, as though that's the "Green Way." it's a lousy way, both for climate change, for habitat preservation AND for humans who are sick of being held hostage to Big Energy monopolies.
LET US PARTICIPATE AS MORE THAN CONSUMERS!! WE WANT RENEWABLE GENERATION AND SMART METER SYSTEMS ON OUR HOMES AND BUSINESSES, AND WE WANT TO BE PAID FAIRLY FOR THE POWER WE PRODUCE!! WE WANT INVESTMENT IN EFFICIENCY AND STORAGE!
i shouted. do you think he heard?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:51 am
20 Aug 2008
I dunno though whether it's that important what the politicians say about energy during elections. They have to trim their sails for the whims of the electorate.
Once Obama or McCain gets into office, then the real game begins.
The logic of the situation will force any President to do certain things. Oil prices will go up. There will be pressure to enter resource wars. Pressure to open up new areas for drilling. Pressure for nuclear and coal.
Politicians in other countries are under similar pressures.
In the end, it's not about individual politicians. It's about building long-term movements and organizations which offer a different approach.
We have to change the political landscape.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
bigTom Posted 11:53 am
20 Aug 2008
(1) Domestic drilling for oil/gas: This is mainly political necessity. But also with oil north of $100/barrel it makes economic sense. And natural gas is crucial to our midterm energy future. Especially if we attempt a large renewables buildout that isn't accompanied by largescale energy storage (which is not a solved problem), the use of natural gas powered peaking plants to cover any periods when wind & solar are deficient will be needed.
(2) Carbon Capture and Sequestration: I still think it is essential to try and develop this. Burial in oil bearing formations, as an enhanced oil recovery method, is the most economical method, but shouldn't be the only avenue explored. Even if the US is able/willing to forgo coal ( a big question mark here), I doubt the major developing economies, will. Developing and exporting CCS is an important climate insurance policy.
(3) Nuclear: I'd sure like to see a major effort to use Thorium instead of Uranium, as most of the most objectional problems with fission (long lived radioactive waste, and proliferation issues) are supposed to be non issues with Thorium. A robust non intermittent baseload would make the job of integrating variable renewable power onto the grid a lot easier.
Another theme I'd like to see, but don't expect to see, is to define our obsession with liquid fuels as a serious problem. It is this obsession, which is driving the ethanol/biodiesel programs. It would seem that we could better utilize excess (waste streams) of biomaterial for biogas, and/or thermal-electric generation. Although perhaps burial, as a CO2 sink would be better still.
Permalink
Jonk Posted 2:23 pm
20 Aug 2008
Triage is applied in an emergency to allow the most globally beneficial use of inadequate resources. There will be severe climate disruptions, which will be left untreated because they will be recognized as able to recover autonomously. Selected climatically-induced emergencies where tax-payers' money can reduce suffering will be funded. Last, and most sadly, there may be even situations where unlimited funds cannot reverse impacts and the limited funds are deemed better deployed on other projects. Act now for Climate
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:27 pm
20 Aug 2008
You are ignoring two realities with this statement:
a. Economic. Neither Obama nor God himself can risk major negative economic impact while striving towards developing new energy sources. You want revolutionary change, but that is not going to happen. It's going to be evolutionary - it has to be.
c. You certainly do NOT want to push Obama to now put radical plans on the table. Do you want him to lose the election? Because as soon as you start talking like the members of Grist do, you will lose the mainstream that one HAS TO HAVE to win any election. You can't be fringe and win. Fortunately, Obama understands what people here don't.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
LGT Posted 3:42 pm
20 Aug 2008
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/protect-economy-from ...
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:53 pm
20 Aug 2008
Not if he wants to get elected. There is NO mandate for a radical makeover. People expect the government to orchestrate a transition - not so thoroughly intervene in their lives and ambitions that it becomes totally disruptive. There is no reason to believe that ANY government can do what is suggested in the below link without totally trashing the society it tries to do it with.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:31 pm
20 Aug 2008
You seem to be quite smug about Obama's supposed negativity to conventional coal plants. But this is totally inadequate.
We need a moratorium on coal.
First, we need a moratorium on the construction of new coal plants. All new coal plants should be made equipped with CCS technology. As this will make them prohibitively expensive, no one will be building new coal plants.
Equally importantly, we need deadlines in the shutting down of existing coal plants. 50% of American power comes from coal currently. This should be reduced to 0 within not more than 10 years.
The plants which have already broken even (whose profits till date are equal to capital costs) should be shut down RIGHT NOW.
Compensation should be provided for other coal plants to cover up for their capital costs, and shut down.
All the coal plants which operate beyond 2 years should be obliged to fit with CCS technology.
These incentives are sufficient to produce large-scale investments in all the green technologies that you can think of. The market will do the rest.
Liquid fuels (ethanol) more gasolene drilling, blah blah blah are just minor footnotes. They don't matter too much to the global warming debate. High fuel prices and booming renewable energy sector will automatically make them obsolete.
The only thing which will not be done automatically is the moratorium on coal. So we need to work the maximum possible for it.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:35 pm
20 Aug 2008
Talking about a moratorium on coal will sell to the American public. This is not a fringe opinion. And unlike gas prices, personal vehicles etc, coal is not something that anybody is personally attached to.
The only reason Obama/McCain is not talking about this is because they got too much money from the coal lobbying industry.
Some of the Obama Vice-president choices have openly lobbied for the coal industry themselves.
This is the real problem.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:16 pm
20 Aug 2008
b. You can't shut down plants RIGHT NOW. You have to replace the power they are generating with something else.
I agree that new new plants should be required to have sequestion and in order to get an operating license, and I agree that coal should move to the background as a fuel for producing electricity. but again, this is something that should be phased.
Lastly, in your other post you spoke of incentives. Shutting down coal is not an incentive. Tax shelters and the like are incentives. Things are changing, there is a slow but sure wave of change that is palpable - if the Green movement doesn't engineer something so radical that the voting public comes to the conclusion that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Again, I am highly suspicious of ulterior motives in the movement.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:26 pm
20 Aug 2008
Compromise: With the industries that have many members of congress in their pockets.
Let them build a few experimental plants, nuclear, cellulosic ethanol, "clean" coal CCS, coal to liquid, tree to fuel, all the boondoggle dangerous nonsense that can never work. It is necessary to let them prove they won't work to get them out of the way of real initiatives.
Participation: As in past national emergencies, like world wars and natural disasters, get everyone to join in on clear goals, like reducing oil demand 5% per year.
Tax carbon, so everyone helps pays for fixing our GHG intensive energy economy, offset by equal income tax breaks for working families. So the carbon tax is revenue neutral, not a tax hike.
Sacrifice: Give everyone ways to paricipate in meeting these goals. Ways to conserve oil and energy and ways to invest in generating GHG free energy. Subsidies for home solar and wind systems and energy saving systems like ground source heating/cooling.
Subsidy: Subsidies for farm based solar, wind, and biogas/organic fertilizer systems and grid power backup systems that use biogas.
Subsidies for home solar and wind systems and energy saving systems like ground source heating/cooling. And plugin hybrids charged on home solar panels.
Withdraw subsidies from big oil, coal, nuclear, agribizz fuel farming, and gas guzzler auto manufacturing. They don't need the huge subsidies they are getting, which amount to 10s of billions per year. Divert these billions to direct subsidies to homeowners, small business, and farms.
Order millions of plugin hybrid hypercars, ground source heating/cooling systems, solar systems, and so forth for government use in order to spur mass production efficiency and cost reduction.
I think Obama can organize an effort like that. But he is going to have to get the message. Will industry lobbyists have his ear, or will environmentalists like Lovins and Lester Brown be able to penetrate the wall of noise?
It's going to be tough to get the needed reform with national healthcare and ending these oil wars competing for his attention.
We need to point out that this renewable energy/conservation re-evolution can eliminate oil war at it's root, namely oil addiction itself, and revive the economy so we can actually afford national healthcare.
Remember what happened to the clinton effort to get national healthcare in 92-93? It was killed by democrats in congress in the pocket of the healthcare industry. We are in danger of that happening again, across the board, on healthcare, energy, and oil war. Winning this election is just the beginning of the reform battle.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:43 pm
20 Aug 2008
Coal mining is one of the mast hazardous job you can ever find in the world. There are only a few people who are employed in this, and they can be easily provided green collar jobs.
If you shut down coal plants, there will be a huge incentive for the market to invest in alternative energy. The electricity demand in the USA is understood well and there is a lot of capital available for constructing plants if there is a promise of a share in the market.
If you announce a gradual phasing out of coal, you will automatically see a rapid rise in the construction of solar power, wind power and nuclear power stations. People with the money will invest because they know that the American public needs to have energy, and they know that they can make profits out of this demand.
Again, I am highly suspicious of ulterior motives in the movement.
Come on, chill. I don't know how old you are, but we don't have to talk with the language of 1960s. Humanity had its battles for liberty, and they are won. Nobody needs to fight those battles anymore, just like nobody needs to reinvent the wheel. Especially with the internet, we are moving into a more liberal society and nobody is going to force you do things you don't want to do.
What we need are coordinated efforts to solve the ills of the planet, and not archaic-speak of accusing each other for non-existent things.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:28 pm
20 Aug 2008
They're also working to end oil subsidies. And by the way, if you remember a post by Mike Tidwell here about a year ago, he's the director of the organization.
As far as what Obama should do, right now it's all marketing as far as I am concerned, and right now the Republican "drill, drill, drill" has to be countered with something very simple and clear, it seems to me -- the problem being that nobody wants to think about a fundamental restructuring of the transportation system -- I don't think people care very much about the electricity system at this point, and remember, the two are quite separate (they shouldn't be, the transportation system should be electric, but anyway).
So about the best Obama can do is emphasize plug-ins, and talk about helping Detroit convert to plug-ins. It would be nice if they talked more about transit, but I guess they figure they already have the city vote so why bother (you can thank the electoral college for that). Although in some swing states it would probably help to get out the city vote -- well, anyway, as many have predicted peak oil is swamping concerns about global warming at this point, unfortunately, because it's immediately hitting people and this country is totally and completely addicted to suburbia and cars. So Obama has to deal with that reality right now.
The question is what to do after the election, because that's when grassroots pressure might make a difference.
Permalink