Here's a re-cap of some of this week's highlights and some of the most memorable words that we heard and read:
For Earth Day, President Obama highlighted the economic opportunities around clean energy and global warming solutions.
President Obama said: "The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy."
In Roll Call, Representative Sherrod Brown wrote a column, including the line: "Inaction is not an option" (See NRDC's Climate Director, Dan Lashof's blog on it. )
He went on to say: "If we care about the world in which we live and the generations that will follow us, then we must no longer dismiss the lethal risks global warming poses to our planet. We must craft an aggressive strategy to combat global warming, and we must do it now."
Business leaders, part of the group Environmental Entrepreneurs (www.E2.org) came to Washington to push the case for clean energy as an economic engine.
The CEO of SynGest and E2 member Jack Oswald was quoted in the Washington Post , saying, "What's going to give us the ability to expand as rapidly as possible is carbon legislation."
On the flip side, Politico ran a story that examined the opposition's approach to global warming, calling it 'schizophrenic.'
The title says it all: "GOP grapples with climate confusion."
And here's another key line: "Outside the Capitol, business groups - a key Republican constituency - are fractured in their opposition to climate change legislation."
Finally, Senator John Warner (VA- retired) testified to Congress about the importance of climate change from a national security perspective.
As he put it: "Global climate change has the potential, if left unchecked, of adding missions to the already heavy burdens of our military and other elements of our nation's overall national security."
So, what are we to think about all of these words? To me, it says that, after a long delay, Washington is moving again on clean energy and global warming. More and more business leaders, economists, and even politicians are recognizing that the right environmental decisions are the right economic ones.
To close it out, here are NRDC's President Frances Beinecke words from Earth Day: "With a president who shares our environmental priorities, a Congress poised to take action, and business leaders increasingly aware of the opportunity presented by a clean energy economy -- we have the tools to repower America."
(Thanks to Eric Young who contributed to this entry.)
]]>Most Americans south of, say, Minnesota probably haven't heard of tar sands. But the United States imports more than a million barrels per day of tar sands oil. In fact, Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the U.S. (Take that Venezuela!) Oil from tar sands is pulled from land, from an area the size of Florida, mostly in the Boreal forest in Alberta, leaving a barren stretch of destroyed earth in its wake. George Woodwell, Director Emeritus of the Woods Hole Research Center, described the aftermath of tar sands as looking like a moon crater. Not a pleasant image for what should be one of nature's great sanctuaries.
As Obama prepares for his trip, environmental groups have called on him to reject tar sands with its devastating impact to land, public health and the climate. This clearly runs counter to the president's clean energy vision for America's future.
But, again, this is where things get tricky. In his first weeks in office, President Obama has already delivered more clean energy and environmental solutions than most environmentalists could have dreamed of. He's asked EPA to reconsider the California wavier; he's called for the Department of Energy to increase efficiency standards; and he's helped pack in more renewable, clean energy solution in the stimulus package.
And, so far, Mr. Obama has shown he's on the right side of the tar sands issue. Just yesterday, on the CBC, President Obama called out tar sands for having a "big carbon footprint" and he re-asserted the need for America and Canada "to obtain the energy that we need to grow our economies in a way that is not rapidly accelerating climate change."
In his typically nuanced manner, Mr. Obama has made it clear that he is not going to follow the same see-no-evil, hear-no-evil path that Bush took.
On the flip side, the president is walking a fine line because there is tremendous pressure from the oil industry, especially in Canada, to keep the tap open on this dirty fuel source. And the Canadian government has been a laggard on clean energy, especially when it comes to tar sands - allowing for its expansion and even hinting at granting exemption under greenhouse gas limits.
So we'll have to see how President Obama plays this issue over the next couple of days. My hope is that Obama will stick with the clean energy future vision and veer away from any signals that tar sands is acceptable fuel source.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama visited a solar panel installation at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science at the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This tells you something about his priorities and, hopefully, about the path he will take on tar sands and other dirty fuels.
]]>In December, I got the thrill of joining Robert Redford and several environmental groups for a press event to announce that we were taking legal action to put a stop to land leases in Utah. While this was an exciting event, I didn't really know what the outcome would be. Well, today, we found out.
We are grateful to Mr. Redford, the original "Sundance Kid," who has lent his voice and support to this issue. He said in a written statement:
"American citizens once again have a say in the fate of their public lands, which in this case happen to be some of the last pristine places on earth."
These vulnerable areas are near some of America's most beautiful Western landscapes: Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon. Most people can picture the clay red arches and picturesque vistas that are part of the fabric of the West and are ingrained in our culture.
Sharon Buccino, the lead attorney for NRDC's legal action, declared:
"This bold action by Secretary Salazar reaffirms the priceless value of America's wilderness and signals a new day for Washington."
I couldn't agree more.
]]>Today is also the day that a 26-year ban on offshore drilling will come to an end. Because Congress did not act to extend the moratorium, oil companies will now have the opportunity to expand their exploration for more oil. By co-opting American's real desire for "energy independence," Big Oil was able to turn the tide and open up new areas for their oil rigs despite the general consensus that this will do nothing to lower gas prices or help us find new clean energy sources.
With these thoughts in mind, here is my shortlist of New Year's resolutions:
1. To use my skills to pressure Congress and the next president to re-assert the moratorium on oil drilling and reject other dirty fuels, like oil shale, tar sands, and liquid coal.
2. To encourage our political leaders and others to take a serious look at how we can reinvigorate our economy through investing in clean energy sources (that is wind and solar, not so-called "clean coal"), creating green jobs, and finding lasting solutions to end our real dependence on oil.
3. On a personal note, my modest goals are to turn off more lights, consume less, and ride my bike more. (Check out NRDC's Green Living Guide)
October 9 is Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, so maybe then I'll turn my thoughts to things we need to repent for. With the way things have gone recently, I have a feeling it may be a long list.
]]>
Speaking of the government and things you may not have known existed, I was surprised when I recently learned that that members of the House of Representatives can get a lease for a car that's paid for by U.S. taxpayers -- yes, you and me. I found a 2007 report by Taxpayers for Common Sense on what Representatives drive, and there are at least the 130 that participate in this program. To be fair, it's a wide range, but some are real gas guzzlers.
I did a quick check at the gas mileage-using the government's own Fuel Economy website (great site if you are looking for a new car) and found the following. The average city MPG, for the 117 vehicles that had enough information to determine a specific MPG, was slightly more than 17 MPG, while the average highway MPG was just over 24 MPG. There were some outliers on both sides, including a fair number of SUVs and luxury cars. Representatives Miller (CA), Fortuno (PR), and Ross (AR) drive Ford Expeditions; and Rep. Rush (IL) drives a Lincoln Navigator - all of which have a measly 12 MPG city. Rep. Conyers (MI) has a Lincoln Signature LM that, according to the EPA, gets only 10 MPG city. On the upside, there were two Priuses (45 MPG city) on the list from Rep. Becerra (CA) and Watt (NC).
On a related note, the DC city government has really taken a step forward in trying to get people to avoid using cars, when it introduced SmartBike DC. This is a bike-sharing program where people pay a yearly fee to use bikes in three hour increments. There are 10 locations with approximately 50 bikes spread between them. Hopefully, this will catch on and so we can reduce our oil demand and keep our air clean.
And, in case you were wondering, I took the Metro to work this morning, but I'm gearing up to start riding a bike soon.
]]>