So as to start by saying nice things, I think this new ad from the We campaign is a vast improvement over the sitting-on-a-couch, lending-credibility-to-scumbags ads they ran earlier this year:
That said, I got an email from the campaign on Friday that about made my head explode. Here's a bit:
Last week, the U.S. Congress left Washington without addressing the energy crisis. They didn't deal with gas prices. They didn't move on solutions to climate change. What's worse, their inability to renew the clean energy tax credits means that government incentive programs to support the solar and wind industries will expire at the end of this year. Jobs will be lost as a result of their inaction.
You'll note that this explicitly reinforces two current right-wing narratives. First, that Congress should skip its vacation and stay in session to "deal with" gas prices. And second, that "Congress" -- as opposed to, say, Republicans -- is responsible for failing to pass the renewable tax credits. Did We not notice that Democrats tried to pass the tax credits about a dozen f*cking times?
I was going to write a long rant about this -- about Gore's millions being put in service behind such strategic dumbassery -- but I see that Matt Stoller already has. What he said.
Doesn't anybody know how to play this game?
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 4:38 am
11 Aug 2008
Or how about setting up some think tanks and media outlets, as the conservative movement did? Or is raising money for ads much easier than raising money for grassroots organizing? Color me confused.
Also, their using the same ad agency that does the Geico commercials. Frankly, I think Boone Picken's commercials are better -- they're more educational, while the We ones are "feel good". Maybe switch agencies?
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:43 am
11 Aug 2008
Is it that they believe these stupid polls where people lie and say they don't want "negativity" or "partisanship" in campaigning, advertising, etc., even though time after time it's proven that this is what works?
(Not to mention the quaint little matter of the truth - that the Republicans are mercenary obstructionists and demagogues, that they and only they are responsible for Congress' failure to renew the credits or enact national mitigation.)
Or is it just a fundamentally craven temperament? Gore ran as a coward, Kerry ran as a coward, Obama has also shown such signs...
What really makes my head explode is the Dems' squeamishness about facing up to the truth of class warfare - that for close to 30 years now the Right has been waging ruthless class war from above, and yet all they've had to do to make the Dems flee the field with nary a shot is accuse them of waging class war. This actually makes the Dems tremble.
WHY??????
Until the Dems recognize that the Reps have betrayed America and turned viciously against America, that this is now a zero-sum civil war in everything but the physical shooting, and counterattack accordingly (or until an intrepid new organization comes along which IS willing to fight back), the looting and vandalism and rot will only continue.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:01 am
11 Aug 2008
First, the Democrats could have attached the tax credits to "must pass" legislation. Or they could have repealed the filibuster rule in the Senate as the Republicans threatened to do when they were in power if the Democrats opposed judicial nominations.
So, while the Democrats made tepid moves in the right direction, they refused to do what was necessary in order to continue the tax credits. They need to be called on this and held accountable, just as they should be for continuing to fund the illegal and immoral war in Iraq.
Permalink
rpauli Posted 10:27 am
11 Aug 2008
From http://manpollo.org
Just like the tipping point to runaway climate disruption.
Light Switch: Push and push and you don't quite know when it will flip over, you can only tell by trying it.
And with Climate disruption: we do not know the tipping point. When we do know, then it is too late, and we cannot flip it back.
Richard Pauli
Seattle, WA
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:52 am
11 Aug 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 11:25 am
11 Aug 2008
Gore (and Big Enviros) also don't demand feed in tariffs of 65 - 80 cents/watt for every man, woman and child who installs point of use renewables!! why not? can't anyone look outside the US to see what is working like crazy? germany with no sun has 2 GW of rooftop PV going up this year alone! the CONSERVATIVES IN BAVARIA are the ones who pushed for their Feed In Tariff rules, once they realized that energy independence meant money in their pocket. the more they generate and the more they conserve, the more they get paid. simple marketplace incentivization - and a TOTAL win for ratepayers, taxpayers, republicans, democrats, intact ecosystems and the planet.
but threatening us with global immolation and/or recruiting complete bottom feeders from past republican leadership is complete crap for both the right AND the left. that motivates me more to want to strangle these people than to put solar on my roof...
SHOW US THE MONEY, and we will do the rest. stop with the vague manifest destiny programs that will result in massive losses of species and property to prop up Big Energy monopolies, raise our rates and basically ruin everything.
once we have solar and wind on every possible property, and we have people THRILLED to be conserving and generating excess renewable power, having lots more discretionary income and an enthusiasm for renewables, then we can assess and see what makes sense for a next step. venture capital will flow where people are spending, and voila! we have a fantastic new economy based around conserving energy and generating maximum renewables at point of use. storage, smart grid, plug-in hybrids and other products will follow the money. which we will have, not Sempra and Edison.
if we are serious about climate change, we will engage people in meaningful, financially rewarding ways, which appeal across the political spectrum. if we are not serious enough to do that, then obviously climate change is not urgent enough to justify killing off our deserts.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:32 pm
11 Aug 2008
Especially since all of that land could easily be previously disturbed irrigated farmland.
As for bickering about the footprint of transmision lines. Frankly thats just petty. Since in effect you're arguing about TOURISM, not ecology.
And if you think Aesthetics are more important than saving the world from catastrophe, frankly you don't have your priorities straight.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 3:12 pm
11 Aug 2008
first of all, NONE of the BLM applications I have seen out of the first 125 are for "farmland," so although in your YouTube world, they COULD be, out here in the real world, they aren't. the VAST majority of pending Big Solar and Big Wind applications at the BLM are on PRISTINE INTACT ECOSYSTEM. which means a perfect, functioning ALIVE habitat with billions of living creatures. don't believe the "renderings" you see on industry propaganda, since they have already dynamited, bulldozed and killed everything in sight before they snap the photos. I've been. In person. I know.
Oh, and since you obviously have not been attending the BLM hearings, you probably don't know that Big Solar is pushing EXTREMELY hard to be allowed into National Parks, National Forests, ACECs and DWMA's (look it up). they wanted NO restrictions whatsoever on their land grabs, and wanted to fast-track all the EIS/EIR processes since they are the "good guys," who, not coincidentally, are also Big Energy companies, so they have friends in high places.
secondly, these plants would permanently destroy the millions of acres of ecosystem they would be on and everything around them, plus bring roads and non-native (extremely flammable and toxic) grasses, and CSP plants, most of which are also gas fired (oops!) use billions of gallons of desert groundwater each year for rinsing and/or cooling. sorry if i equate permanent destruction with "killing." what would you prefer, "improving?" or some other creepy manifest destiny language of dominance? it's killing, no matter what you call it.
no doubt you read the utility journals, so you are aware that small scale modular PV is actually FAR, FAR more efficient and uses less than 10% of the surface area as CSP for the same amount of power. right? you know that? you know that it's ideal to site at or near point of use, decongesting the grid and eliminating the need for new transmission. you know about the scorching, blinding light shooting 350 feet into the air for the CSP "towers," which will zap every bird, bug and bat into oblivion for miles around? i mean, who needs a global warming catastrophe with "solutions" like these killing everything directly? and you are still in support? really?
thirdly, go ahead and research what, exactly the WWECs under 368 will do, how wide they will be, and how destructive they will be. hint - transmission corridors through federal lands. the fact that you refer to them as having a "footprint" and only "aesthetic" impacts shows your deep ignorance of what's really happening. it's one thing to armchair pontificate based on limited research about the glories of extremely wasteful, harmful projects. it's entirely another to actually be out there seeing what's happening, who's masterminding it, what's being totally shoved aside and what's at stake, for ratepayers, taxpayers, open spaces AND GHGs.
you often have good citations and articles you link to, so i don't doubt you can research all of this (why you haven't is another issue), but to dismiss my concerns and insult me without knowing what you are talking about is not a particularly endearing strategy. i'm fighting for your wilderness, too, even if you don't enjoy it, understand it or respect it.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
jas Posted 7:21 pm
11 Aug 2008
None of the power coming off these windmills is for us, by the way: it will be sold on to Spain and other neighboring countries, while we're still getting our power from nuke plants.
So many locals, enviros as well as pretty much everyone else, are fighting these things, or trying to anyway. Our local ecosystems are delicate enough w/o stripping the hillsides bare, digging out roads, flattening hilltops, putting up towers, etc etc, not to mention what will happen to birds and bats when they ram into these jumbo-jet size mills.
Point in the pointless forest is, the destruction of protected and/or fragile lands for "clean" power generation is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One of the activists against the eoliens here is a Danish woman, and she has provided much info about the Danish approach to wind power--both their mistakes and their successes--information that should be assimilated into any new wind power planning effort.
On the other hand, EDF is providing individuals with subsidies to set up personal windmills in their gardens etc., to generate household power. These are compact and efficient, and might be an interesting option in the future.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:07 pm
11 Aug 2008
Remind me,
Where does the electricity come from at night?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:22 am
12 Aug 2008
I usually agree with your posts, but you're way off base on this one. I won't argue with you about aesthetics, because people who don't recognize or understate aesthetic harms to natural areas have different sensibilities than those of us who do, so we have no basis for that discussion. I will say this: it's not just about aesthetics, it's an insult to nature and the natural world, and those aesthetic harms bring other harms with them, as SGP noted.
The point you seem to be making is that it's OK to continue with overconsumption of electricity, so the rest of the Earth will just have to deal with whatever way humans decide to get electricity considering those behaviors. This is where SGP, Jas, and I part ways with you. Overconsumption is one of the root causes of all environmental harms, and if you don't fix that, you won't fix those harms.
So, the answer to your question is: from whatever storage people have in their homes and whatever wind power is available. That's a perfect level at which to cap electric use.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 am
12 Aug 2008
In war time people need to sacrifice.
McCain and Bush are threatening a war with Russia now, and in two other land wars at the same time. You are right Wolverine, ration it now!
If your batteries and solar/wind won't get you over the peak. Live with it.
This would be good to see. So many hours of power available for each customer. It switches off for a few peak hours per day.
Why not institute gas rationing? A modest 10% cut would stabilize fuel roces by lowering demand.
If the GOP wants another war, why can't we get gas and electricity rationing? How many modern wars equals WW2 level of warfare?
Do we need a draft? To renew our exhausted military? how many tours of duty can soldiers serve? I think the national guard troops are up to three tours now?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:59 am
12 Aug 2008
I'm very concerned with what's going on in Georgia. I don't want to get into the details here, but the threat of nuclear weapons being used is, or at least was, quite real, as Russia actually trotted out a couple of them on mid range missiles. And this is almost all about energy.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:10 am
12 Aug 2008
jas, do you have any info on household wind? That could be a very important part of the equation. A friend of mine was looking into microturbines for his apartment building in NYC, and couldn't find any, or else they had too much vibration. Since you're mentioning the Danes, are you saying that the wind should come from offshore? As for aesthetics, I can't remember the nuke that's sitting right in the middle of some beautiful landscape in southern France, but will it really be that bad? And do you have more info on what other parts of the landscape they have to tear up to get the wind on there? And if you have links to French web pages, my sister can translate for me. Thanks.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:11 am
12 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
edarnold41 Posted 4:41 am
12 Aug 2008
TANSTAAFL
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Permalink
jas Posted 2:36 am
13 Aug 2008
For more info on the debate here, check out ventdecolere.org, or collectif.4.octobre.free.fr, or this article:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/vent-de-fronde-contre-l-eolien_542685.html
I also clarified with my friend who told me about the EDF deal, and it's not them, it's some association who is helping people install personal eoliens, tho the EDF will help you hook them into their grid, AND you can write them off your taxes (along with any other sort of energy-saving expense: we just wrote off two double-glazed doors this year).
I found several sorts of personal windmills at http://www.wede-energy.com/produits-co
You have to base them in metal sleeves or, better, cement, and they come in sizes that vary from 1.5 metres to 6 metres (!). One mountain village around here is lobbying to get their own eolien for village power, and I find this idea quite interesting too.
The nuke plant you're thinking of is at Montelimar (I think) in the Massif Central, the one with the strange painting of a little boy on one of the towers... urk.
I forgot to mention, David, that I too found the We campaign's last email off-putting and dumped it summarily into the trash... thinking, what's this about...? Appears they're joining the media in their disinformation campaign against Obama?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:22 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:29 am
13 Aug 2008
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1961d390-71cb-4 ...
Gore is terrible but so have been the other Dems. Time to turn things around.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 3:46 am
13 Aug 2008
hardly a "footprint" or "aesthetic" issue. it is a dynamiting, trenching, crushing, herbiciding, fire-causing, total destruction of millions of acres of wilderness issue. new roads, staging areas, substations, non-native grasses, illegal OHV use, dumping, - total destruction for desert habitats, and the harm is enormous.
i enjoyed the fact that the BLM, who is incredibly conflicted, since almost everyone who works there below the level of "political appointee" is a huge environmentalist, provided the transmission information on their webpage about the need for a cumulative impact report on the massive destruction to be caused by the centralized solar projects being sited in our fragile SW deserts (it's a pdf on the bottom):
http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/transmission/index.cfm
check out the photos alone, including p 16 of the pdf with the tower behind the 2-story house. ok, i cop to "aesthetics" on that one, but come on!
there is tons more info out there on the harm the transmission corridors will do, from providing raven perches to kill off desert tortoises to EMFs, and beyond.
the point being, that if we did more at point of use, we could do without them, so why wouldn't we???
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:16 am
13 Aug 2008
i am the first one to advocate conservation, storage and smart grid R & D, but as long as we are taking a "first" step, lets have it be one that does not kill off our intact ecosystems. in the 10 years it takes to get POU everywhere (assuming we can ever get the policies in place), there will be lots of options for load balancing, conservation and storage - it's hardly a static area of research and innovation, and would amp way up if policies were directed towards it. MIT promised a simple, low-energy hydrogen storage solution within 10 years that would use 1 gallon of water for a home overnight, and a few common, harmless chemicals at room temp. thousands of others are working on other options.
as wolverine noted, microwind can also produce at night, sometimes more effectively than during the day.
so, let's do what we can do now, and continue researching non-fatal ways to complete the picture as we go along... there is no turning back once the millions of acres are dead and gone, even if we suddenly realize we screwed up...
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:20 am
13 Aug 2008
There's some kind of corridor in Texas that was supposed to be for rail, and they tacked on a huge highway and pipelines, which I assume will be an ecosystem disaster. It seems to be par for the course for pipelines to get wedged into other plans. We know oil sucks -- that's what the wind/solar is supposed to replace! So you can't blame the wind/solar for the pipelines. But I think that you're pointing out the problems with CSP are very much needed -- although Gar Lipow has pointed out that by spending about 10% more, they can eliminate most of the water problem -- not that they'll do the right thing, I realize.
As for localizing production, I think that that's a great idea. But we need a way to model how that will work. For instance, we could massively subsidize the building of silicon purification plants, which would bring the cost of photovoltaics way down, which would get rid of the "PV is too expensive" mantra. So we need some good work on that (I've tried to argue that geothermal heat pumps would lead to shutting down coal plants, for instance). Thanks again for the info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:25 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 6:38 am
13 Aug 2008
the remote power will be traveling in these corridors, period, except for those seeking ADDITIONAL corridors, and they will be fully built out as described. it would be disingenuous to try to separate out the harm that "just the towers" do, just like it is disingenuous to permit each project separately, as though this massive land grab for Big Solar, Big Wind, Big Mining, Big Drilling and Big Military were not all happening in the same proximity. the whole point of the corridor process is so that they can pre-site the whole buildout, which will not be that rustic, single pole on the first photo, but rather 9 towers double the size of the one in the second.
to save me the enormous finger cramps that will come from summarizing the 100-page pdf, which is a fairly easy read, can you just skim through it for all the boring, blasting, road-building, herbicides, fires, erosion, damaged wetlands, earthquakes, species deaths, habitat destruction, and disastrous outcomes listed? this is one of several resources, but covers most of the harm from "transmission lines only," to the extent those are going to be built... even they, alone (which they will not be) are not innocuous and we have better solutions.
i won't defend mcmansions, and i will object to BUILDING NEW ONES, which is the discussion we are having - what should we build or not build NOW. i agree that point of use geothermal is vastly underused as is passive solar, and i have suggested that FITs are a useful performance based interim solution that will motivate property owners to install oversized systems wherever feasible, from any renewable technology, not just silicon-based ones... i welcome any other ideas which will fairly support saving our open spaces while reducing GHG emissions, of course.
as for CSP, air-cooled CSP, while more expensive, is also 15-25% less efficient in hot areas like the Mojave... combined with transmission losses, it's a dead end, in my opinion. check out the article linked to, here:
http://www.dpcinc.org/blog/2008/07/30/think-globally-gene ...
if you want to see the amazing comparisons with smaller, modular PV to CSP. yes, it's about small-scale utility plants (it's a utility journal, after all), but the numbers work for point of use, too. LOTS of resources in the footnotes, too.
thanks for your time!
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 7:06 am
13 Aug 2008
"Air Quality. The Air Quality analysis identifies two significant and unmitigable impacts that would
result from construction and operation of the Proposed Project:
1. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would occur as a result of project-related construction
activities and operation, maintenance, and inspection activities. These emissions would be partially offset by the small indirect net decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants during line operation. Over the life of the Proposed Project, high GHG emissions during the years of construction would be followed by much lower GHG emissions during the years of activity necessary to support transmission line operation. As power plant operation shifts to accommodate the new transmission line and renewable resources replace conventional power plants, indirect GHG reductions are forecasted to occur. But because total construction GHG emissions exceed the GHG reductions achieved due to avoided power plant emissions over 40 years of transmission line operation, the Proposed Project would cause an overall net increase in GHG emissions and a significant climate change impact.
Also, electrical equipment associated with the new transmission system would result in the potential
escape of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a potent GHG, and because the proposed transmission system equipment would cause a net increase in SF6 emissions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
2.* Construction emissions would create emissions of ozone precursors, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, resulting from generation of dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants.
Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce construction and operation emissions, including measures to suppress dust at all work or staging areas and on public roads, use low-emission construction equipment, obtain emissions offsets, offset construction- and operation-phase greenhouse gas emissions with carbon credits, and avoid sulfur hexafluoride emissions. However, the impacts would remain significant."
the whole draft EIR is a good read, and shows the enormous harm that "just" a powerline will cause (another spoiler alert - they decided in favor of local, point of use power generation so far):
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/sunrise/toc ...
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:40 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:45 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 10:07 am
13 Aug 2008
sorry to dump so much info out there. i understand that rants alone don't convince people, and you wanted "official" backup, you got it...
we gotta keep pushing or the window for opportunity to do the right thing will close and we will be in a much worse situation than we are now, with fewer options.
thanks for engaging.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:29 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
Tricia G Posted 10:42 am
23 Aug 2008
Permalink