Skip to main content

The Fork in the Road


January 22, 2014 -  Business leaders are catching on, even in the United States.  Yesterday, a report authored, in part, by over 100  academics, energy experts, government officials, and business leaders called upon the President to address climate change by taking measures that do not require congressional approval.

Spear-headed by the Center for the New Energy Economy (CNEE) at Colorado State University, the report grew out of a meeting convened last March, attended by the President and 14 corporate and private sector leaders.  They spoke for hundreds of like-minded individuals who want to reshape the country’s energy policy.

The resulting 207-page report contains around 200 recommendations regarding the use of executive authority to enact the climate change action plan the President announced last June.  Former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter released the report, briefing cabinet officials and senior policy staff whose focus is energy and climate policy.

The report recommends that officials concentrate on five main areas: doubling energy efficiency, financing renewable energy, producing natural gas more responsibly, developing alternative fuels and vehicles, and helping utilities adapt to the country’s changed energy landscape.  It highlights measures that every federal agency can take to mitigate global warming and its effects.

Unfortunately, the White House still has a goal of only a 17 percent reduction in carbon emissions below 2005 levels by 2020, a shockingly stupid target, considering how much lower than that emissions need to be.  This easily achievable goal is mere window dressing, the only unserious aspect of the report.

Specific recommendations made in the report include working with electric utilities and regulators to update regulations that serve as a barrier to clean energy technology, and reforming the tax code in order to make it fairer for private investors who wish to provide capital for clean energy development.

One of the reports most interesting suggestions calls for a federal process to account for the full costs of various energy choices, including health impacts.  By establishing these costs, the administration would be better able to select a ”best of the above” energy strategy, as opposed to its current “all of the above” approach.



With thanks to Reuters news service.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wildfires

March 20, 2017 - Happy Spring, everybody. Today's post will be brief: the ten-year average for number of wildfires during January through mid-March is 8,687 fires that burned 216,894 acres per year in the United States. This year there have been 10,829 fires during that period, burning 2,062,012 acres. You read that right.

Monsanto and the EPA

April 2, 2017 - The following was sent to me by Credo by email today. Please read and take action: Stunning new documents unsealed by a federal judge suggest that Monsanto worked directly with  federal regulators to hide the health risks of and manipulate the science behind its best-selling herbicide, RoundUp. The documents reveal that Monsanto pressured Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials to not publicly release information on the cancer risks of glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, ghost- wrote research for the EPA and worked with a senior official at the agency to quash a federal review of the chemical. These documents suggest an unprecedented level of collusion between the EPA and Monsanto  to cover up evidence that RoundUp is a likely carcinogen. The Office of Inspector General of the  EPA, an independent office tasked with investigating fraud and abuse in the agency, must immediately launch an investigation to hold Monsanto and all EPA employees involved accounta…