Clear blue waters were streaked with rivers of crude oil, a thick brown stew of petroleum toxics streaming unchecked toward the open sea.
A thinner but still poisonous sheen coated the surface with a curd-like film as far as the eye could see.
"Off to the right," my helicopter pilot, Ted Grove said, tilting slightly to open my view to dark red plumes of oil, stretching for miles from the site where the BP oil rig sank April 22 after an explosion two days before.
Since then, more than 4 million gallons of crude oil have gushed into the fertile Gulf, threatening marine life and bearing down on the rich coastal waters, beaches and wetlands some 40 miles to the north.
As we circled the site, I felt I was looking down on some seaborne disaster area, as, indeed, I was.
There were some three dozen ships working within an area of perhaps 20 square miles or so.
I counted eight skimmers trolling the waters corralling the thick crude near the center of the site.
Close by, huge fountains of water fluid gushed from a pair of ships -- spraying dispersant directly at the spill site, according to the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center.
A ship with an enormous industrial-style crane was on site -- apparently in connection with the "top hat" BP was hoping to deploy to try to stem the flow of oil.
And there were tenders working the underwater robotic vehicles prowling the deep water below in search of a solution to the raging spill.
We can only hope -- and pray -- for their success.
What took my breath away, though, was the extent of the calamity unfolding in the Gulf.
The skimmers are a help, and the dispersant will chemically break apart down the oil into smaller globs. Some of the crude will evaporate in the warm Gulf air. [ed note: The dispersant doesn't chemically degrade the oil itself.]
The oil, though, is there, and the pollution with it -- in the ocean, in the air, and headed, inevitably, toward the shallow coastal waters and fertile wetlands and shore.
We can struggle to contain it -- as many were clearly doing on Wednesday and have done for weeks. But we can't put it back in the well.
That's why we need to find out what caused this terrible accident, what we must do to prevent anything like this from ever happening again and what we can do to hold BP accountable for the terrible cost this disaster has already begun to exact from the region.
I was reminded of those costs as we flew back toward shore. I saw hundreds of miles of coastal wetlands and waterways, essential habitat for shrimp, oysters, fish and birds.
I recalled the voices of oystermen, fishermen, shrimpers and others I visited with Tuesday on the bayou below, the Gulf Coast community activists I'd met with in Biloxi, Miss., and the environmental justice experts I'd listened to in nearby New Orleans.
As this oil creeps over the ocean it is suffocating not only habitat and wildlife but also the livelihood and way of life for thousands of Gulf Coast residents.
The people of this region are a resilient lot. This, though, has them scared.
They are untrusting of BP. They are worried about their health. They are frightened for their future and their families.
We need to do better in this country.
We need to begin the long process of reducing our reliance on oil and increasing our use of renewable and sustainable fuels.
As I was flying over the Gulf of Mexico, the despair of Gulf people mirrored in the terrifying glaze of oil moving menacingly over the sea, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were unveiling legislation that can help.
It isn't perfect legislation. There is much to improve. As I flew over those wounded waters today, though, I felt hopeful that this legislation can begin that process. Now, let's move it forward.
]]>While this may sound like some dense, bureaucratic tussle, it has real implications for America’s best tools for keeping our air clean and safe. So let me put it in more familiar terms.
Would you fly in an airplane that had no back up system? Imagine that the hydraulics in your plane suddenly failed and the captain couldn’t get the landing gear down. Wouldn’t you want the plane to have a back up system so you could return to the ground safely?
That is what the existing Clean Air Act as administered by the EPA and the states offers in the case of federal legislation to regulate global warming pollution: back up.
I support enacting a federal cap to cut carbon emissions. I think a well-designed cap will be effective. But what if unanticipated problems arise and the federal cap doesn’t work as expected to meet the reduction targets? That is when the key provisions of the existing Clean Air Act should be there as our back up system. The EPA and the states should be there with extra tools to get the job done.
This dual-pronged approach is nothing new. The Clean Air Act has never relied on one system alone to reach its pollution limits. The Acid Rain program, for instance, includes an overall cap on sulfur emissions, but it also includes New Source Review, so that when a company puts new money into an old plant to refurbish it, then it has to invest in modern pollution control technology at the same time.
Industry already has 20 years of experience working with a cap and complementary programs at the same time. This approach-- of focusing on one main cap, but working with a safety net below--has indisputably made our nation’s air cleaner and safer. The acid rain program, for instance, has dramatically reduced soot and smog by levels that will reduce premature deaths by between 20,000 and 50,000 per year in 2010.
The two-pronged approach gets results. And that is why we should also maintain state authority to regulate emissions as well. It offers a similar safety valve.
For example, it is absolutely imperative to keep California’s authority over vehicle emissions. When the federal government has turned its back on innovation, California administrations of both parties have lead the nation with ambitious new standards, and other states have eagerly followed. Likewise, all states must maintain their freedom to curb emissions through a variety of efficiency standards, performance standards, and limits on factory-type sources.
This is the authority that turns states into laboratories of innovation. When the federal government goes dark, the lights stay on in states across the nation, and this is what pushes America forward.
Innovation coupled with strong safety nets make for a powerful combination--in carbon caps and in airplanes.
]]>
"These impacts will influence how and where we live and work as well as our cultures, health and environment," the report states. "It is therefore imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing climate."
Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.
The group is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
It is made up of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies, departments and offices, including the Department of Commerce, the National Intelligence Council, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Pentagon. That's diverse - and it's definitive.
President Obama convened the task force in October, directing it to look into whether climate change was affecting the United States and, if so, what might be done about it.
On Tuesday, the group issued preliminary findings. As to the question of whether climate change is impacting our country, the report is emphatic.
"The Task Force has found that climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment," the report states. "Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires and sea level rise.
"Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others," the report continues. "Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions."
Strong stuff.
When reports like this come out of a White House task force, each word is parsed, discussed and vetted by all participants. It's a consensus document, meaning it reflects the view of the group as a whole. That makes writing the report a challenge, but it ensures authenticity and weight.
Those are two things notably lacking from the raft of climate change deniers who have been having a field day of late trying to rally an assault on science with a handful of stolen e-mails and a couple of minor errors in a 2,800-page report by the International Panel on Climate Change.
These same critics will likely try to paint the task force report in partisan terms. In fact, it relies on sound science developed over two decades through four administrations – two of them Republican, and two Democratic.
The White House task force tells us the truth. Our climate is changing, and it's affecting our country in fundamental ways.
One reason is that U.S. smokestacks and tailpipes will dump roughly 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere this year alone. That's nearly one-fifth of the world total of this heat-trapping pollution.
We can do better.
The clean energy and climate legislation being drafted in the Senate can put us on the path to curbing carbon pollution. It can put Americans back to work building the next generation of energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces. And it can make our country more secure by cutting our dependence on foreign oil in half. It needs and deserves our support.
I look forward to October, when the task force issues its final report.
A few things, though, are already clear. Climate change is happening, right here, right now. It threatens our future, our children, our way of life. It's time we face the facts and deal with what's happening right before our eyes – before it’s too late.
]]>It can be challenging to express the value of preserving the environment to a broader American public. Yet no one is more effective at this than Bobby.
Bobby has worked with NRDC for years, and I have seen time and again how he can captivate a roomful of people and inspire them to action. This is partly due to his famous oratory skills, but it is also a result of his passion, which becomes contagious.
Bobby is devoted to protecting our nation's commons--our lakes, rivers, wildlands, even our air--from corporate greed and dangerous pollutants. He is especially committed to ending the egregious practice of mountaintop removal mining for coal.
When Bobby describes his work in the field or taps into his extensive knowledge of energy-company practices, he vividly illustrates the hazards of our addiction to dangerous energy. When people ask him about nuclear power, for instance, he says, "I am all for nuclear energy if we can make it economical and safe. Right now it is neither. It is still the most catastrophically expensive method every devised for boiling a pot of water."
But Bobby doesn't just reveal the absurdities of our current energy policy. He points the way to a brighter future. He outlines the cleaner, more sustainable solutions that can power our economy without endangering our children's health or our natural legacy.
What are these clean energy technologies? Bobby will discuss them in his talk, and I will also describe them briefly myself.
Last week, I released my first book, Clean Energy Common Sense. A pocket-sized, 99-page, quick read, it is a concise overview of the dangers of climate change and the solutions that will end this crisis, jumpstart our economy, and strengthen our national security.
I will talk a little bit about the book tomorrow night, because Bobby and I both share a deeply held belief: Now, while our leaders are gathering in Washington, China, and Copenhagen to figure out how to confront global warming, Americans can do three things to create a more sustainable future--get involved, learn more, and take action.
You can start by coming to tomorrow night's event at Town Hall (123 W. 43rd Street). If you are interested in attending, you can found out more and RSVP at here or on Facebook.
]]>Why is an organization better known for its policy papers than its culinary expertise wading into foodie territory?
For two critical and timely reasons. First, food production takes an enormous toll on the environment--from spilling pesticides into our drinking water to releasing fossil fuels into the atmosphere. NRDC's Growing Green Awards recognize that sustainable food is potent way to solve multiple ecological challenges at once.
And second, we want to honor the people who have fed America's growing interest in better farming and eating. From the White House garden to the school cafeteria, more and more people want healthier options for their families.
I myself have recently embraced new habits. Two of my daughters are serious sustainable agriculture enthusiasts, and last year, they inspired me to plant a garden in our yard in the Bronx. Now, in addition to the deliveries from our community sustainable agriculture program, we have homegrown kale, chard, lettuce, carrots, and, unlike President Obama, beets.
We also eliminated beef from the family diet. Between the environmental devastation from factory farms and the large carbon footprint that comes from the beef industry, my family decided this was the right commitment for us to make.
Just five years ago, these choices would have seemed unusual outside of a few progressive centers. But today, they are becoming mainstream. Farmers markets, organic food sections in supermarkets, and locally sourced menus are commonplace now. (Click here to see which local foods are available in your area right now.)
The Growing Green Awards celebrate the people who helped unleash this transformation. These are the people who roll up their sleeves and give us the models for how farming and food preparation can best nurture us and the planet.
Here are the winners of this year's Growing Green Awards:
]]>
Last week, the Obama administration took action to help reverse this trend. At international UN negotiations in Nairobi, American representatives threw their support behind an agreement to reduce global mercury pollution.
This in turn prompted China and India to back the treaty, and as a result, more than 140 countries signed on to begin negotiating a legally binding effort that will restrict the international mercury trade, control emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants and other sources, and phase out the use of mercury in products and industry.
This was a bold reversal of U.S. policy. For six year, the Bush administration blocked international efforts to cut mercury. But President Obama was an early leader in the fight to curb mercury pollution. Several years ago, he read a newspaper article about this dangerous neurotoxin, and like parents everywhere, he was concerned about exposing his children to unsafe chemicals.
As a senator, Obama decided to sponsor a bill to ban U.S. exports of mercury. It garnered bipartisan support and was signed into law last year by then President George W. Bush. Yet because mercury is traded on a global market and its pollution can travel thousands of miles, the new U.S. law was only a first step
The commitment America helped secure in Nairobi is the critical follow up. It will substantially reduce mercury contamination in fish, prevent mercury poisoning in our water, and shield our children from this dangerous chemical. It is truly a momentous human health victory in our battle to make mercury poisoning a thing of the past.
]]>
Such a proposal might have fallen on receptive ears during the Bush years, but President Obama supports rigorous measures to curb global warming--measures built on clean energy, not exemptions for filthy fossil fuels.
This is a president who, six days after the inauguration, invited me and other members of the environmental community to the White House to witness a key announcement about global warming emissions from cars. During the eight long years of the Bush administration, I was invited to the White House exactly once. But just days into the Obama administration, an invitation came and, significantly, it was for an event about cleaning up the transportation sector--which is where tar sands oil goes.
But as Obama leads America into the future, the tar sands industry is keeping Canada firmly rooted in the past. Producing one barrel of tar sands oil generates three times the greenhouse gas emissions as a barrel of conventional oil, while accessing the tar sands requires strip mining and drilling in Alberta's Boreal forest, an enormous carbon reservoir and one of the last large intact ecosystems on earth.
Local indigenous and environmental groups have decried the damage to the forest, the destruction of songbird habitat, and the contamination of local water quality in part from toxic tar sands waste. Recently, Bishop Luc Bouchard sent a pastoral letter to the region's 55,000 Catholics challenging the "moral legitimacy of oil sands production."
Rather than weaning itself off of this dirty fuel production, Canada is rapidly expanding its tar sands fields and expecting to go from the current rate of 1.34 million barrels per day to 4.5 million by 2020. Oil companies are investing in this technology, rather than cleaner alternatives.
And it appears the Canadian government would like to clear the path for them. The day after Obama was elected, Prime Minister Harper told reporters that he wants to create a bilateral climate pact between the United States and Canada. I am all in favor of climate agreements, but the rest of the world is focusing on multilateral efforts right now--a viable post-Kyoto regime. It hardly seems like the time for side agreements between two players.
Yet ever since the tar sands boom hit Alberta, Canada has been backpedaling on its existing climate agreements. Now it wants to weaken them even further with this bilateral proposal. Government officials have strongly implied the plan would "protect" tar sands greenhouse gas emissions from regulation.
A climate agreement that doesn't include tar sands, the fastest growing source of Canadian greenhouse gas pollution? That's like passing a law to regulate lead poisoning, but leaving out gasoline. Or posting a highway speed limit that exempts truck drivers.
No matter how hard Prime Minister Harper tries to portray tar sands operations as modern and eco-friendly, the truth couldn't be farther from it. Dealing with tar sands pollution is a challenge, and this includes their greenhouse gas emissions, which are much harder and more expensive to capture than from other sources (see my colleague George Peridas' blog about the limitations of using carbon capture and sequestration technology with tar sands).
I hope President Obama will tell the Prime Minister Harper that protections for tar sands do not belong on a global warming agenda, and that existing tars sands operations should be cleaned up.
But we also have work to do on our side of the border. I just came back from the World Economic Forum in Davos where climate change was a major topic, but so was energy supply. Representatives from the oil industry justified tars sands by saying, "We have to keep up with demand, so we have to increase supply."
As much as 75 percent of Canadian tar sands oil comes to the United States. We need to do our share to slash that demand. We should call on American workers to make dramatically more fuel efficient cars, expand our public transit systems, and design and build smart growth communities that reduce our need to drive.
President Obama has made it clear that investing in clean energy can solve three urgent problems at once. It can lift America out of the economic crisis, create millions of new jobs, and tackle global warming. Just look at Obama's economic stimulus plan: energy efficiency, public transit, and green infrastructure are at its core.
That is the path to a clean energy future. Dirty tar sands production is a dangerous detour to the past.
]]>
This is a critical moment. It is the first international environmental meeting during the Obama administration at which a major decision must be made. It is an opportunity for the new administration to demonstrate to the world that the United States is committed to joining international efforts to protect people's health and the environment, rather than block them at every turn.
And it is a chance for President Obama to build on his already impressive efforts to restrict mercury. A few years ago, then-Senator Obama read an expose in his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, about high levels of mercury in canned tuna, and he became committed to protecting people from this hazard. His staff approached the environmental community and proposed working together to address the problem.
Although his interest was spurred by a local news story -- like parents everywhere, Senator Obama was concerned about exposing his children to unsafe chemicals (click here for a wallet guide to mercury in fish) -- he recognized an important part of the problem: mercury is a global pollutant that does not observe national borders. Mercury released from U.S. power plants may travel to Europe, while mercury escaping from outdated chemical factories in India can easily turn up in fish caught by anglers in the Great Lakes or sold at a Manhattan grocery store. It is a global problem that needs a global solution.
Senator Obama reached across party lines, and with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski sponsored an impressive bill to ban U.S. exports of mercury. Ultimately, the bill garnered strong support from both the environmental community and the mining and chemical industries, and on October 15, 2008, it was signed into law.
Now President Obama can take the U.S. commitment one step further by endorsing an international agreement on mercury. The agreement could restrict the international trade of commodity mercury, phase out mercury from products such as thermometers and dental amalgams, reduce the use of mercury in industrial processes, and limit emissions from major sources such as coal-burning power plants.
Fortunately, many of these goals are readily achievable. For almost every product and industrial process using mercury, there is a cost-effective, readily available, and often energy-efficient alternative. For instance, since the 1800s, people have made chlorine and caustic soda using mercury as a catalyst. But in the 1970s, a much cleaner process was developed that uses no mercury. The international agreement can provide a strong incentive for industries to shift from the 19th century technology to the newer, cleaner process.
But this negotiation is not just about mercury. For the past eight years, the United States has abdicated its international leadership. Here is one of the first opportunities to show the world that the United States is no longer an obstructionist, but a constructive leader once again.
]]>The New York Times quoted a specialist as saying: "Your household garbage is managed much more consistently" than this toxic coal ash.
While your municipal government does a good job of handling your trash, the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect Americans from hazardous waste. Coal ash fits the bill.
Coal ash is what's left over after the combustion process that produces electricity. It contains high levels of arsenic and other heavy metals such as cadmium and chromium. Among the greatest concerns is arsenic, which causes bladder, kidney, liver, lung, prostate, and skin cancer. Studies have shown that arsenic in the levels found in drinking water contaminated by coal ash raise cancer risks several hundred times.
I am a cancer survivor, and while my specific cancer is not on that list, I am outraged that our government's negligence is contributing to other people's cancer diagnosis and the fear and devastating treatment that goes with it.
Back in 2000, the EPA committed to developing national regulations for storing coal ash. But the coal and utility industries pushed back, complaining it would cost too much to take care of their own waste--the byproduct of making a profit. Since then, the agency has failed even to propose regulations, never mind enact them.
Meanwhile, communities around the nation remain vulnerable not just to explosive disasters like the one in Tennessee, but also to the slow poisoning of drinking water. In 2007, the EPA's own scientists identified 67 coal and oil ash dump sites that had contaminated groundwater and wells (see the map here.) Still the agency has done nothing to protect us.
It's time to change that. The EPA should designate coal ash as a hazard and establish strict pollution controls for all coal ash dumps. In the meantime, the TVA should provide free medical testing for all the families who request it in the region near the disaster. No one should become ill because of the TVA's or the EPA's failures.
]]>Maybe you don’t view the behavior of honeybees as a matter of public interest. But how about the successful pollination of some of our most common food crops, such as apples, onions, cherries, even the vanilla that goes into your favorite ice cream? Personally, I view $15 billion worth of American food that bees pollinate each year as a public matter. Unfortunately, the government agency tasked with keeping our crops and environment safe failed to make its relevant information public.
A couple of weeks ago, NRDC had to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to hand over records about clothianidin, a pesticide suspected of playing a role in Colony Collapse Disorder—the name given to the rapid decline of almost 30 percent of the honeybee populations that pollinate our food.
No one knows exactly what is causing Colony Collapse Disorder, but France and Germany suspended the use of the pesticide because of concerns that it may be linked to the bees’ demise. Both nations are conducting further studies, and scientists and farmers around the world are eager for any pertinent information they can find.
That’s where the EPA comes in. Back in 2003, the agency gave conditional approval for using clothianidin in the United States, but it required the manufacturer to submit studies on how the pesticide might impact bees.
Did the studies ever get completed and filed? What did the studies reveal? How did EPA evaluate the information in deciding to leave the pesticide on the market, and what else did the agency consider? The EPA wouldn’t tell us, so we filed a Freedom of Information Act request. When the agency stonewalled further, we sued them. The EPA wasn’t happy, and it posted a letter to me on the agency’s website.
We would prefer not to have to resort to FOIA requests and lawsuits in order to review documents that should be available to the public in the first place. It is costly and time consuming. But in this case, the EPA expressly asked us to file a FOIA request after it declined to hand over the records informally.
According to FOIA rules, an agency has 20 days to furnish the request, but the deadline passed and NRDC still hadn’t received relevant information.
The EPA claims it responded to our requests with two letters. The first one we received said that the agency had received our request. The second one (posted August 18, the day we filed our lawsuit, and not received until August 20) said that the agency still had not made a final determination on our requests.
This kind of bureaucratic reaction doesn’t count as a meaningful response to our call for scientific studies. And it certainly doesn’t meet the agency’s legal obligation to provide a final ruling on our FOIA request within 20 days.
In the agency’s letter to me, it claims the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program “sets the bar” for transparency and public participation. NRDC begs to differ. The program has repeatedly refused to disclose information in response to FOIA requests until months or even years after the deadline. Several times, federal judges have rebuked the Office of Pesticide Programs in cases NRDC was forced to litigate regarding the EPA’s lack of transparency.
There has even been significant press coverage of the agency’s repeated private negotiations with the pesticide industry on key regulatory decisions—to the exclusion of public health and environmental groups.
The most important issue here is that there is still no complete public record of the agency decision that NRDC is concerned about here: the EPA’s approval of a new pesticide dispute expressing significant concerns about harm it may cause to bees.
The agency has posted some information on its website since our lawsuit, but we will push until all relevant material is shared. We believe that a decision about a pesticide which might impact what the USDA says is one-third of the diet of the average American should be made openly. The public has a right to know.
]]>Despite my many years of working to protect the environment and public health, I still have trouble understanding the alphabet soup of toxicology--knowing my perfluorooctanic acid (in nonstick cookware and stain resistant fabric) from my polybrinuibated diphenylethers (in flame retardant bedding and furniture).
Still, most of us are familiar with a short list of common, really nasty pollutants: lead, mercury, PCBs, even the old standard, DDT. Now there is a new family of toxins worthy of being awarded this household-name recognition: endocrine disruptors.
Why, among all the pollutants to choose from, should endocrine disruptors become a part of our daily lexicon? For three main reasons.
These are some of the things we know about endocrine disruptors. But frankly, we need to learn a lot more. We need more comprehensive scientific studies to examine the interplay between this family of toxins and human health.
Hopefully, regulation will follow more data. Right now there is no law regulating endocrine disruptors. No standard for exposure has been set; no rule has been passed to require manufacturers to list them on their ingredient labels.
NRDC is fighting to change that. We are trying to get companies to join with us in the call for much needed science and regulation. Because if endocrine disruptors are going to join the list of well-known pollutants, they should get the benefit that goes along with that status: binding regulation. Lead, mercury, PCBs, arsenic, all of those have been regulated. The laws are not perfect for those toxins, but at least we have started to reduce our exposure to them. NRDC wants to do the same with endocrine disruptors.
In the meantime, educate yourself, find out what products contain endocrine disruptors, and demand your stores offer you safer products.
]]>
Over the past year, one after another coal-fired power plant has been blocked by the environmental community across the country, and many more are still disputed. And just this last week, the Wall Street Journal announced that three of our largest financial institutions adopted new lending principles that take into account the growing risks of investing in conventional coal plants. See the New York Times Sunday editorial.
Why does this matter? Because Wall Street is sending a potent signal to the energy sector that it views dirty coal plants as shaky financial prospects and that the smart money is heading toward cleaner, more sustainable energy options.
Governor Dave Freundenthal of Wyoming--the biggest coal producing state in the nation--said of the announcement: “It’s probably, frankly, a signal more powerful than one from the federal government.”
You see, when an electric utility builds a new power plant, it has to attract capital from investment banks to cover the enormous costs of construction. It takes a good 20 to 30 years to recoup that money.
America will certainly enact new carbon regulations well before the banks will get their money back. Because coal plants have the highest carbon pollution per unit, they will take the biggest financial hit when limits are set. Banks that invested in coal plants will have to wait even longer to get a return on their investment. Or worse, they will be left with bad debt when the plants have to spend lots of money to buy pollution allowances.
On top of that, the market for conventional coal power will likely shrink. Already, California utilities are prohibited by law from making long-term investments in power generation that has high greenhouse gas emissions. In other words: dirty coal.
All of this adds up to a lot of uncertainty, and the financial community hates uncertainty. That’s why three of the biggest lenders-- Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley--decided to attach new terms to the hundreds of millions of dollars they typically loan to utilities. These heavy hitters will now focus on energy-efficiency and renewable energy before backing coal plants.
We have seen before the power of the financial community to impact energy decisions. As my NRDC colleague Ralph Cavanaugh--a man who has tracked the utility sector for more than 30 years--has said, “There are 150 plants in on the books today, many of them still looking for investors. Back in the 1980s, more than 100 nuclear plants were cancelled because the financial community lost confidence in them. My prediction is the same will happen with conventional coal.”
Looks like Ralph’s prediction is coming true.
]]>
There is no difference of course, but that is not always clear in an election cycle. Yesterday's New York Times had an article that divvied up some of the hot-button campaign issues: restricting immigration for the Republicans, avoiding war in Iran for the Democrats. The environment got tallied on the Democratic side--the fourth issue on the list.
But the truth is many (if not most) Republicans also care about the realities hidden behind the word “environment” --clean air, safe drinking water, parks to enjoy with their children. You don’t need to be a card carrying member of a certain party to be concerned about the pollutants that trigger your child’s asthma attacks.
The biggest overlap between Democrats and Republicans is their shared concern about the economy and jobs. Well, the 21st century is presenting us with an unprecedented opportunity to restore the environment and create new jobs at the same time: the green tech boom.
Tom Friedman of the New York Times has been very eloquent about this topic. He recently spoke at NRDC’s Board Retreat in Santa Fe, and he brought a refreshing sense of optimism and possibility. He believes that reducing global warming pollution will unleash massive business opportunities and generate thousands of jobs. Whether it is training people from the inner city to build solar panels or hiring software analysts to do energy audits--work that Friedman reminds us is being outsourced to India now--America has the chance to jumpstart large-scale economic growth.
Entrepreneurs interested in the environment get this--groups like the Apollo Alliance, Powershift, and NRDC’s sister organization, E2. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gets this. He calls green tech California’s next gold rush. And the venture capitalists who supported his global warming law get this too.
The question is do our representatives in Washington get it. Do the presidential candidates--from both parties--get it? Do they realize that good jobs--and clean air--don’t follow party lines? If our leaders don't understand this, we need to remind them.
]]>