Virescent

Speaking of relay races… last year about this time, the courts pointed out that the EPA had a duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, since they’re pollution, and hurt the environment, and allegedly the EPA is all about environmental protection or whatever.

The EPA promised to get back to the American people on that by the end of 2007, but we got nothing. Last week, a coagulation of groups and places (including Baltimore City, the state of Maryland, and Washington DC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA, seeking their proposed emissions limits, or really just any indication that the EPA is doing it’s job.

Meanwhile, some members of the House said it’d be silly to let the EPA write the laws, since they’d just get sued by anti-regulations types if they did. Instead, they think that legislators should pass some emissions laws, post-haste.

And today, rumors surfaced of a White House plan to control greenhouse gas emissions- maybe to be presented to the legislature by the end of the week (maybe take some people’s minds off that Colombia FTA, oof).

Well well.  Let’s start with the White House.  It’s not April Fool’s (I checked), and I don’t think it’s opposite day, so they might actually be serious.  Conventional wisdom has it (see resigned comments in other articles) that as long as Bush was in office, greenhouse gases would roll freely along.  Bush has proven himself to lack all sorts of foresight- has he just now caught up with the rest of the world?

Then the legislature.  After the biofuels silliness, will we really be so strapped as to ask our more posturing politicians to make coherent and helpful rules based on good science and a basic understanding of the economy?  Sends chills down my spine, that’s what.

But the bureaucrats, the ones who have the experience in drafting regulations, and the capacity to understand the research, and who had a great reputation for cleaning up America, will they even pay attention?

So, I can’t fathom that the president really has a plan (and even so it might go through the legislature), I don’t trust the legislature to get this right, and the bureaucrats are no-shows.

Regulation of greenhouse gases is the first, most basic step in tying pollution to a cost in the market.  If we assign pollution no cost, the market will never “correct itself” to stop destroying the ecosystem we know how to live in.  If we assign it the wrong cost, free marketeers will get to whine about interventionism, and the market will do insane things and freak everybody else out (see biofuels and food, rising costs of).

With these bozos vying (or not) for the chance at the prize, I don’t see a way for anyone to win.  They’re just thrashing around on the field, trying to figure out how to stand up.

We drove less last year than in 2006- it was the first time in 20 years that we drove less. Granted, we only drove .4% less, and we still drove 3 trillion miles. 3 trillion! But hey, the budget deficit is still 9 trillion dollars, so at least it’s not the biggest Crazy Staggeringly Huge Statistic That Worries Me.

So it looks like fuel prices are changing the ways America behaves, right? Slowly, but it’s happening. BusinessWeek reported a couple weeks ago that consumers are buying more efficent cars (especially the cheaper ones), SUV and big truck sales are dropping, and we’re taking more public transportation. But they ask a pretty good question- if prices for fuel go down, will we stop being efficient and go back to our old ways? That’s exactly what happened after the last energy crisis in the 70s. For those of us who do the energy efficiency thing for reasons other than cost, no. But how many of the people economizing are doing it because they have to, and are just waiting for $2.50 gas to come back so they can buy that Escalade? (Are Escalades still cool?) Or is this a national shift- will the green wave make it past the breakers of the economic crisis and drift lazily onto the sunny shores of a new consumer paradigm?

Also, if consumers are buying more efficient cars and not buying trucks and SUVs so much, why are car companies still saying they have “no idea” if consumers even want more efficient cars? And more importantly, why does BusinessWeek publish articles wherein car company executives whine about the CAFE standards and this supposed lack of consumer interest, with no attempt at investigation of consumer interests (or even perusal of their own archives)? That article has some interesting analysis of how the car companies are dealing with CAFE, actually, but man, it irks me that auto executives use that tired “nobody wants efficient cars” refrain.

One of the most popular arguments against government “intervention” in alternative energies and the green economy is that government regulations are always inefficient, they slow the natural progress of the economy, markets work best when they’re totally unfettered, etc. Stuff like that. The jatropha-in-Myanmar post a couple of days ago might even lend that argument some support.

But the capitalism-loving, -touching, and -squeezing heads of huge companies like BP, GE, and Dow Chemical disagree- they’re urging the government to come up with a coherent energy policy that favors energy efficiency, clean fuels, and even carbon taxes. They contend that the piecemeal regulations the Bush administration half-heartedly doles out are costing America jobs, and US companies the chance to compete internationally. Apparently, since European countries tend to take alternative energies like nuclear and wind seriously, their governments have created favorable investment climates around those technologies- and the clean tech money is settling abroad.

GE’s Chief Executive Jeff Immelt makes a case for government subsidies, carbon trading, and investments in clean technology from a purely business standpoint- and to the free-market crowd, he has a response. From the WSJ’s “Environmental Capitol” blog:

And government largess helps drive progress—like in GE’s aircraft engine division half a century ago. That admission riled free-market types in the audience (and on stage) who took him to task for subsidy-hunting and accused him of—gasp—betraying his capitalist credentials.

“Don’t worship false idols,” he countered. “The government has its hand in every industry. If we have to have them, I’d prefer they were productive rather than destructive.”

Defending the “free” market is quixotic in the most literary sense, as the pure market is the pure Dulcinea: entirely a product of fevered imaginations. I’ve ranted about it here before, but observe that very successful capitalists realize this, and gamely play the market (and government) by the existing rules. There’s money to be made in clean technology (even capitalists who think global warming is a fraud know this and invest accordingly), and there would be even more of it if the US government stopped noodling around.

Last month, BusinessWeek reported on how the Bush Administration’s failure to lead on clean energy policies has left it to the states to invent their own. The magazine pointed out that a sustained federal push was essential for bringing the US up to speed in a clean tech economy already dominated by foreign companies- but not to hope for that push from Mr. Bush.

Maybe next year your dreams will come true, practical capitalists.

Two articles in two very different publications popped up in my feed yesterday, but they both called a new “trend”: People are buying less stuff. The New York Times pegs this novel plan to budget for purchases as the result of the whole subprime crisis and massive credit card debts. BusinessWeek ties it to customers shopping “greener”, then to subprime fallout, then finally to how this new thriftiness could tank the economy just when the President and Congress want to urge consumer spending to get us through the recession we may or may not be in.

A subtext in each article also pointed to fewer people trying to consume conspicuously- sales of the mid-tier luxury goods are falling,  and people say they care less about the labels on their clothes. (On a side note, I found this article on why people consume things loudly in the first place pretty fascinating.)

So that’s a thing.  Are people really buying less?  Are we buying less because we’re more concerned about the effect of our consumption on the planet?  Or are we buying less because we’re more concerned about the effect of our consumption on our pockets?  Is our economy’s burp going to propel consumers down the path to more thoughtful spending on resources?  Will any of these “trends” last past the recession?

*In solemn news anchor tone* One thing is for sure: only time will tell.

This is the first time in years that I’ve been excited in a good way about politics, so let’s ride this wave.  Now, even though we’ve all got pet issues (guess what mine is!), hopefully we’re all making voting decisions based on an array of candidate stances.  The candidates’ plans and views on energy and/or the environment are highly indicative of how they’ll handle issues like national security and the economy, so they deserve a second look, no matter your pet issue.

First off, quick overviews are available at the League of Conservation Voters and at Grist (LCV advocates certain specific environmental stances, and Grist is just full of lots of hippies, so their rubrics differ some).  Grist also has a more detailed review of each candidate still in the race, and an article specifically on the differences between Clinton and Obama’s plans.  I imagine they’d have compared Republican plans directly, but none of the Republicans have specific plans- they have some interesting talking points, but no numbers or enumerated ways to reach their goals.  This is not a swipe at Republicans, it’s just the truth.

Beyond the quick reviews by hippies, though, check out the candidates at their own websites- it’s more revealing to see the way they talk about their plans/visions (I’ll use visions for Republicans- again, no plans).  As a quick rundown, Environment/Energy (labelled as such) make the top 3 or 4 issues on the lists for Obama and Clinton.  McCain lists an Environment issue toward the bottom of his issue list, Romney lists “Ending Energy Dependence” toward the middle (after “Latin American Allies” and way before “Education”), and Huckabee lists “Energy Independence” toward the middle (after “Faith and Politics”, “Marriage”, and before “National Security”).

The plan that makes me personally the happiest is, well, Clinton and Obama’s- specifically, the part where they both want to invest $150 billion dollars over 10 years in clean technology, which would build robust American infrastructure, create jobs, reduce energy dependence, inspire investment by private businesses…you know, my dreamworld.  If you feel like that’s too much, remember, we spend $500 billion a year buying oil.  Also, Bush just found $150 billion he wants to mail to us over the next couple months, so.  $150 billion over 10 years to generate real economic growth?  Ahhhhh, back in my happy place.

Romney and Huckabee both say a lot about how renewables are a good idea, and say they have plans to make it happen, but don’t get as far as saying what the plans are.  McCain features a video and a short blurb on conservation and Teddy Roosevelt, even though he’s sponsored energy bills and gets the best ratings from Grist and LCV in the Republican field.  I am aware that Ron Paul is also still a candidate, and I’m not purposefully leaving him out- but his plan is, he has no plan.  That’s hardcore libertarians for you.

But Huckabee’s issue brief also ranks on my personal happiness factor.  He sounds so excited about his plan!  A section:

The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. I’ll use the bully pulpit to inform you about the plan and ask for your support. I’ll use the bully conference table to meet with members of Congress until I have the votes. The plan will get underway during my first term, and we will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term…

We think of globalization as primarily an economic issue and the war on terror as primarily a military issue. Yet the same key unlocks the door to success in both, and that key is energy independence.

None of us would write a check to Osama bin Laden, slip it in a Hallmark card and send it off to him. But that’s what we’re doing every time we pull into a gas station. We’re paying for both sides in the war on terror - our side with our tax dollars, the terrorists’ side with our gas dollars.

Our dependence on foreign oil has forced us to support repressive regimes, to conduct our foreign policy with one hand tied behind our back. It’s time, it’s past time, to untie that hand and reach out to moderate Muslims with both hands. Oil has not just shaped our foreign policy, it has deformed it. When I make foreign policy, I want to treat Saudi Arabia the same way I treat Sweden, and that requires us to be energy independent. These folks have had us over a barrel - literally - for way too long.

Energy independence will ease the effects of globalization because the future energy demands of countries like India and China, as their middle class grows, are going to be tremendous. Even if Middle East supplies remain stable - a huge if - that increased demand will drive prices up dramatically, which will hurt our economy by making everything more expensive here. But if we are energy independent, we will be able not just to take care of our own needs and protect our economy, we will also create jobs and grow our economy by developing technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world to meet their needs.

Huck’s thought it through, and he’s dead on- it’s the best summation on any website of how the energy problem ties in with all of our other issues, and Republicans and Democrats can appreciate it (can’t you?).  But goodness, I wish he’d tell me what his plan was, and that it turned out to be a good plan, and that he didn’t espouse other positions such that I would never, ever, vote for him.  But hey, as long as he’s got the gist of it, more power (though not necessarily more delegates) to him.

Bush did his last State of The Union gig last night, which usually ends up being a very cathartic political experience for me. I invited a few people over to heckle. I don’t remember which channel we watched it on, but the camera person managed to locate all the sleeping and yawning people in the audience and show closeups of them during the blather, so it was very entertaining- all until the Democratic response, which actually made the President’s speech look good.

While the president has addressed climate issues in the last couple of SOTUs, this year he said greenhouse gases exist and that we should do something about it- big talk! His plan is to let his successor take care of it, though- he’s proposing a three-year commitment to give $2 billion to an international fund, so that other countries can develop clean technologies. This allows him a two-year getaway, plus it’s a bad idea in the first place. First off, $2 billion is a small sum and shows indicative of Bush’s real lack of concern about these issues- even the UAE beat Bush by 2 weeks and $13 billion, and Japan set up it’s own international fund this weekend with $10 billion in financing. Secondly, if we’re in such a financial crunch, why are we giving money to other countries for technologies we don’t have enough of here at home?

Invest the $2 billion in the US for clean technology, Bush, then we can sell it to the rest of the world. That will give us something valuable to export, stimulate the economy,  create good jobs, and it’s a lot better than that ridiculous plan of yours to mail me a $600 check to fix the recession.

First work day of the year, sitting quietly in the office thinking this is going to be good, we can handle 2008, let’s have a sandwich, then fwap (or ka-ching?), oil hits $100 and here we go.  Gets the ol’ juices pumping, that’s for sure!  Sure, we’ve been expecting it for months, but to be rewarded a mere half-day into 2008 trading- well.  I will take it as an omen- this year is going to deliver.

(Deliver what?  Who knows!  But it’s coming!)

The good news: clean tech companies landed venture capital investments of 4.2 billion dollars last year. The bad news: weapons manufacturers, surveillance, and private security companies got 6 billion. Venture Business Research, a company that informs investment by groups like Goldman Sachs, expects the ‘exciting’ trends in the “sneakiness and things that go bang” sector to continue, and promote it as a better investment than clean energy.

In an article for The Nation (reposted at the Huffington Post), Naomi Klein pegs the trend in investments preferring disaster response to disaster prevention. She says it best:

According to Lloyd, despite all the government incentives, the really big money is turning away from clean energy technologies and banking instead on gadgets promising to seal wealthy countries and individuals into high-tech fortresses. Key growth areas in venture capitalism are private security firms selling surveillance gear and privatized emergency response.

Do read the article, it’s fascinating and short, and it’s not full of scary economic-speak. It is full of the scary way the “free” market is going to handle the climate crisis. In my debate with the Conservative Amazon, I challenged her assertion that the “free” market will fix the climate with the simple truth is that there is no real incentive for them to do so- carbon pollution and resource waste is not only free, it can significantly boost company profits. By the way- I’m using the term “free” market since the current economic system we have is not a free market at all: it merely pretends to be while accepting some government regulation (no child or slave labor) and lots of government subsidies and tax cuts- those incentives that Klein’s quote talks about.

Klein doesn’t address the sick little twist that clean technology is a security investment- as long as America is dependent on a limited resource purchased at very high and very volatile prices from foreign countries whose populations and governments tend to hate us, we will never be secure- no matter how much we invest in “security”.

I can’t fathom any good reason that “security” is now a better investment than clean tech, since they are so fundamentally related. Of course, maybe I just shouldn’t be expecting cohesive, long-term logic from people who generate money fast for a living- there’s just a better return in things that explode, I guess. Making money from clean tech requires large initial investments and can include long waits until the technology pays off. There is no way that a system based solely on “making the most money now” can solve real problems like climate change.

Government regulations mandating a clean energy future are the only reasonable way to maintain a secure country. Ok, so the typical conservative or libertarian argument is that government (which subsidizes energy businesses) shouldn’t regulate Big Energy (to produce energy that doesn’t harm the American people)- government regulation, is, after all, Bad, and anti-”free” market. If conservative/libertarian types who rely on this “free” market are as interested in security as they claim to be, they need to suck it up and regulate the market.

Well, at least there is some money headed towards common sense and the common good. Google’s not being evil now by investing in clean technology. And when Al Gore isn’t making self-deprecating movie and TV appearances, he’s working on a clean tech venture capital company in Silicon Valley. So there’s the hope to hold on to.

PS, the debate with the CA blogger is continuing- she said she’ll reply to my arguments from two weeks ago eventually, but she’s busy right now. I’ll let you know when that goes up.

Note: This post has been edited from its original version- some of the sentences have been rearranged and a few added for clarity.

My debate with the Conservative Amazon blogger continues. The arguments are up here, and I first posted about them in my article “A Quickie”. It’s getting pretty long now, but briefly, the existence of man-made global warming, our knowledge of it, and potential solutions to it are under question. It might not last much longer, actually, since I won by a corollary to Godwin’s Law the other day when she cited an article calling environmentalists Nazis.

That word starts to look weird when it’s typed over and over, but it’s somehow not as weird as basing a global economy on a non-renewable, limited resource. To have been at those meetings! “We don’t know how much we’ve got or where it is, but instead of seriously considering other options, let’s just go ahead and rely almost solely on this as our source of energy for everybody! Mua ha ha ha ha!”

I’m sure you’ve heard the economic hand-wringing (not the Invisible Hand though, he’s been busy) over high oil prices recently. $100 oil! Oh Noes! We did or did not see this coming! It will now go up or maybe down! Curious about why the price is so far up? Blame speculators, the Middle East, weather in oil fields, weather in shipping lanes, lack of refinery production, OPEC’s stonewalling, international tensions, international distribution of production and refining capacity, increase in demand, underproduction, overproduction- blame whatever you want, chances are it’s been blamed for a change in oil prices before. An article in the NYT characterizes this new “energy crisis” as fundamentally different from the ones in the 1970s, since it’s mostly driven by an increase in demand, and not a sudden decrease in supply. It certainly is making things interesting internationally- The IHT summarizes some exciting developments stemming from oil prices: Russia, Angola, and Hugo Chavez win, and China and India lose. US dependency on imported oil is tactfully not mentioned.

If oil prices keep going up, it’s going to hit importing nations, developing nations and consumers who enjoy having heat in winter and enough gas to get to work hard. The International Energy Agency (summarized at Wired) reports that demand for energy is rising and is only going to rise further, given the economic growth of gigantor countries like China and India. This will be a wonderful test of the free market: for economic, social, political, security, environmental, and plain common sense reasons, we absolutely cannot rely on everybody’s favorite limited resource for energy anymore. Will business deliver us from oil with advancements in clean energy technology, or will we face disastrous economic setbacks for the least cushioned people and international turmOil?

Small steps signal salvation- Arab Gulf businessmen are pouring oil money into clean technology. But until companies see imminent collapse, corporations become visionaries, or some prescient governing body (oxymoron?) steps in, consumers will be forced to care about the price of oil.