Wednesday, 24 Jan 2007

Today we have the high privilege and distinct honor of blurbing the State of the Union address. It was largely a muted, desultory affair, reflecting the fact that President Bush is trapped in a foreign quagmire, his Republican congressional bootlickers are abandoning him, and the public loathes him more than any president since Nixon. However! There were a few greenish moments. For the first time in a SOTU address, Bush said the dreaded words: "global climate change." Guess that means it's real. His splashy energy plan is to reduce U.S. gasoline use 20 percent in 10 years. Assuming this goal, unlike other SOTU goals, translates into action, it would mean modest increases in fuel efficiency standards and a massive increase in corn ethanol subsidies (shocking, we know). Sharp-eared listeners also noted that the Renewable Fuel Standard established in 2005 is now the Alternative Fuel Standard, to allow for coal-to-liquid fuels -- which ain't renewable in the least. Read all about it in Gristmill.

Thermal Under Where?

Report encourages investment in safe, clean geothermal energy

If the U.S. is going to insist on looking for energy underground, there's a better option than drilling for oil, researchers say: generating steamy geothermal electricity by circulating water down into hot rocks below the earth's surface and back up into power plants. An MIT study commissioned by the U.S. Energy Department says geothermal energy can be accessed affordably, sustainably, and large-scale-ably with an investment of as little as $800 million over 15 years. (Cost comparison: That's about the price of one "clean-coal" plant.) Current U.S. geothermal production is comparable to its solar and wind generation combined -- which we all know ain't much -- but the study estimates that with proper investment, hot rocks could meet some 10 percent of U.S. electricity needs by mid-century. "This is a big resource that is perhaps undervalued by people who are thinking of options for the country," says study leader Jefferson Tester. Maybe 'cause it's not as fun to say as "nucular."


In recent weeks, advice maven Umbra Fisk has written about burning trash in your backyard and what to burn in your woodstove. So do her rules apply to ... burning yard waste too? And if you break those rules, will you land in the clink? A reader overrun with honeysuckle wants to know what he should do, and Umbra clarifies her answer. Stay tuned for next week's installment, Yarding Your Burn Waste!

Davos and Goliath

This year, World Economic Forum can't avoid climate change

Every year, some 2,000 business and political leaders descend on snowy Davos, Switzerland, for an unrivaled meeting of minds and money. As the five-day World Economic Forum kicks off today, attendees will tackle an issue of great concern: how to get Bono's autograph. Also, some of them will address climate change. In a survey, twice as many participants as last year say environmental protection should be a priority for world leaders, and 17 climate-related sessions are planned. "By putting climate change at the top of the [agenda, the WEF] has focused on the key challenge of our time," says Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. "The moment to act is now." With honchos from 70 of the world's 100 biggest companies and leaders like Tony Blair and Angela Merkel roaming the hallways, wethinks big things are bound to happen. Right? If you're feeling left out, you can hang with WEF founder Klaus Schwab in the virtual world of Second Life. Just don't forget your skis.

The LNG Kiss Goodnight

Controversial natural-gas terminal in Long Beach, Calif., gets the boot

Friends, we are gathered here today to wo0t the death of a planned liquefied-natural-gas terminal in Long Beach, Calif. Citing a city attorney's conclusion that the environmental review of the project "is and in all likelihood will remain legally inadequate," Long Beach officials yesterday unanimously voted to pull the plug. The death of the project, sited in the busiest port in the nation, comes after years of controversy; concerns largely centered around safety in the event of a terrorist attack or earthquake. "This project would have put over 140,000 people who live and work within three miles of that LNG terminal at risk," said Harvey Morris, an attorney for the California Public Utilities Commission. An executive with Mitsubishi-ConocoPhillips, the partnership backing the project, said of the decision, "We're very surprised. ... We assumed things were going through a normal environmental review process." Uh, yes, they were -- and sometimes it actually works.