Devon’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ken,

  I agree with you that we must oppose Waxman-Markey.  But one of the biggest reasons for doing so, which I don't believe you list in your post, is that it is just plain bad policy.  The excessive provision of international offsets and the possible utilization of the strategic allowance reserve mean that emissions could continue to rise at BAU rates for at least the next decade.  Also, EPA and other independent analyses have shown that the Waxman-Markey RES will not lead to any new renewably energy deployment above the business as usual rate.  Hello!!!!! What the hell is the point of an RES if it doesn't actually increase renewable deployment?

   

  See an excellent analysis conducted by the Breakthrough Institute (http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waxmanmarkey_climate_bill/), much of which has been confirmed or corroborated by EPA, CBO, and others . 

  Let's hope environmentalists heed your call.  We need a real solution, not a sham bill like Waxman-Markey. 

   

   

   

   

  On 9 damned good reasons why some U.S. environmentalists should heartily oppose Waxman-Markey posted 5 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ken,

  I enjoyed reading your piece and am sympathetic to your views about the inadequacy of the Waxman-Markey legislation.  But I don't believe that your solution will get us any closer to real action on climate change. 

  I've written a response to your post at the Breakthrough Generation Blog.  You and others can read it here: http://breakthroughgen.org/2009/06/13/a-losing-strategy/

  Greens and the mainstream environmental movement missed a critical opportunity to push for a stronger bill because they continue to view global warming simply as a pollution problem rather than an energy development problem.  "Taking to the streets" will solve little until environmentalists adopt a framework that is not doomed to fail. 

  
  Devon

  On Why do U.S. environmentalists remain irrationally committed to a losing strategy? posted 5 months, 1 week ago 32 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The provision in ACES that allows for a significant portion of the RES to be met by increasing energy efficiency is seriously misguided.  Energy efficiency is something that should be encouraged, but should be promoted alongside, not in lieu of, increasing renewable energy generation.  Energy efficiency investments should be happening anyway, as they are likely to result in long-term energy cost reductions for businesses and homeowners far into the future.  But people tend to prop up energy efficiency as a major part of the solution to the global energy challenge.  The truth is that even if we start using energy more efficiently, global energy use will still double or triple over the same time period by which we need to cut global carbon emissions in half. 

  A number of independent analyses, including by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and The Breakthrough Institute, have shown that the RES provision in Waxman-Markey has been so watered down that it is unlikely to lead to any significant additional increase in renewable generation over the next 20 years.  This is a shame.  A significant and relevant RES is critical, as it guarantees the market share that renewable energy so desperately needs in this country.  A strong RES combined with the federal and state incentives that already exist for solar and wind would go a long way in scaling up the development and deployment of clean energy technologies in the U.S.--something that is vital if we are to actually follow through on the commitment to creating the clean energy economy that President Obama promised to invest in during the campaign. 

  On Renewables industry protests weak RES proposals in Congress posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses