Homo Sapiens Redesign: Homo Sustainabilius

I just knew Mother Nature would figure something out! The 6 Billion of us is such a tight squeeze on this planet, with our unsustainable ways!

Ecologists say that eventually climate change will shrink all species. They don't say, but, well, won't that include our own species?

It turns out the degradation of environments around the world due to climate change is limiting food availability, and as a result, smaller animals are doing better now than larger ones that need more resources.

Warmer temperatures limits species size.

Bergmann's rule says that species size decreases as warmth increases. That's because smaller species can radiate heat better to adapt to warm temperatures. The tropics host smaller species. Larger animals have a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio, allowing them to retain more heat and fare better in a cold climate, smaller ones in warm climates.

As a result, "As the world gets warmer, species will shrink."says Wendy Foden, the World Conservation Union biologist studying the effects of climate change on species.

Another population biologist Andy Purvis says that dying early will also reduce size. He says that all species will gradually evolve into smaller versions because as a result of climate change, they'll be coping with sudden changes in their environment and hence dying prematurely, leading to smaller offspring over time

So this will make sustainability more attainable for our species, won't it?

Imagine if we had been only 1 foot tall from the get-go. We'd have much less impact on the planet's resources. We would have set sail for America - where we now tear through five planets-worth of resources- in a boat about the size of one large log.

But of course, this adjustment is going to be in the very, very, very long run.

If only Gaia had had the foresight to make this adjustment to the size of Homo Sapiens a few million years earlier, we might not need five whole planets now to live the unsustainable way that we live now.

Artwork by Slinkachu

For the NRDC OnEarth

Read more...

On Ninth Attempt Democrats Pass Clean Energy Provisions

Only one third of the 2007 Energy Bill made it through the split Senate last December. Tonight, a good part of the remainder flopped across the finish line.

After multiple attempts, last night the Senate succeeded in passing the Baucus-Grassley Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 on the ninth attempt for most of its renewable energy provisions. The difficulty of passing these provisions stems from the fact that too few Senate Republicans support clean energy or believe that climate change is a concern. A glance through these 50 times that McCain voted against clean energy other than nuclear power shows that for the most part the Republicans voted 50 times against clean energy too: for coal and oil, against solar and wind, waves and geothermal.

Although the Senate currently has a 51/49 Democratic "majority", it is still almost impossible to pass any legislation that the Republicans don't support because before the Senate can vote, first they must vote to vote: 60 must agree to have that vote-to-vote: the cloture vote. As a result, contrary to what most people believe, the Democrats don't need a mere 51 votes to pass legislation, they actually need 60 to hurdle the initial cloture-vote.

This 60 cloture-vote problem leads to a great deal of frustration. Voters become disgusted with the apparent ineffectiveness of "the congress" while not understanding the reason, and become apathetic and cynical. But it would be better if we just faced the reason for the difficulty, realizing that only by our succeeding in voting in a 60-40 majority Senate (either way), will the Senate be able to achieve whatever we sent them there for.

But this Baucus amendment was different. It had come within a hairs breadth of passage last December with a 59 cloture-vote. It had bipartisan support. You need 66 votes to prevent a White House veto, and typically, the Bush White House has also not supported Democratic energy bills. But this time around the Baucus/Grassley bill has not only easily hurdled its cloture of 60, but Baucus-Grassley has passed tonight with a decidedly veto-proof 93-2.

The extension for production tax credits for wind and solar had failed repeatedly: the Republicans fillibustered the cloture-vote eight times to prevent it.The funding mechanism had also failed previously because the Senate Republicans did not support reducing oil company subsidies.

Nevertheless, this bill funds renewable provisions by freezing a tax break for oil and gas companies at the current rate and tightening the rules on the taxes that oil and gas companies pay on income earned overseas, creating the $17 billion in funding needed. It was also partly offset with new limits on hedge-fund managers' ability to defer taxes on compensation they hold overseas.

Republicans gave up on preventing taxes on fossil fuels, but gained supports for tar-sands and oil shale development: refiners would be able to write off investments faster. Democrats also made concessions that weakened the clean energy aspects. But it passed. Until we have 60 Democrats in the Senate, we will not pass the meaningful renewable energy legislation our country needs to prevent climate change. But for now, this is what we got:

• An extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind for one year, and the PTC for solar, biomass, and wave and ocean tide projects for two years. Less than Democrats wanted (ten years was the original bill) but at least enough to save the much feared expiration at the end of this year. It includes an extension of the research and development tax credit totaling some $19 billion over 10 years that will help in inventing new energy sources such as such as algae development.
  
  
• Buyers of plug-in electric cars and plug-in hybrids will get a tax break of up to $7,500, depending on battery capacity of the vehicle: with a Volt or similar EV at the higher end. (Again, less than the original bill which encouraged the development of commercial delivery van PHEVs and EVs with a subsidy of up to $15,000.)
  
  
• Businesses would get a 30 percent tax credit for investing in solar, wind, geothermal and ocean energy equipment for eight more years. (And this includes home-based businesses)
  
  
• Homeowners could claim a tax credit of up to 10 percent of the cost of all qualified energy efficiency improvements, such as insulation, replacement windows, water heaters and heating and cooling equipment (which essentially reinstates identical LIHEAP legislation that Bush and the Republicans have repeatedly opposed) There are also incentives to use smart meters for more efficient home energy use.
  
  
• Under the Senate bill, solar tax credits will be extended for eight years, for both commercial and residential consumers. It includes a complete elimination of the $2000 cap for residential systems, allowing residential credits to rise to the 30% credit that commercial buildings get, and includes an allowance for utilities to make use of the commercial credit.
  
  
• Residential energy-efficient property credit would be extended through 2016, and the definition of the systems that qualify for that credit would be expanded to include wind investment and also home geothermal heat pumps, which would get 30% off, with a cap of
  $6,667.

Given this long and frustrating journey to pass clean energy legislation of any sort, I can perfectly understand Senator Reid's sentiments tonight as he says -- and probably through clenched teeth! -- as he hands it back to the House, where it had begun as Rangel's HR6049:

"If they try to mess with our package, it will come back here, it will die, and we... will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."

Indeed, the House with its abundance of Democrats should not assume anything else can pass the Senate with that 60 cloture-vote hurdle. As Senator Reid says--"Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed."

Related stories:
McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
Obama's Clean Energy Voting Record

For Matternetwork Read more...

The Other Sub-Prime Investment - Tar Sands

With 3 times the CO2 of gasoline how can tar sands pan out in the carbon constrained world of tomorrow?

Products derived from tar sands, which have three times the carbon emissions of traditional gasoline, are a risky investment, because new low carbon fuel standards will increasingly close off sections of the American market.

Requirements that alternative fuels must be at least 20% lower in carbon emissions than oil have already been implemented in California, where Democrats predominate in the legislature.

Clean fuel standards are supported by Obama and Senate Democrats who could gain a fillibuster-proof 60 vote majority in November. Given the Democrats' votes to implement the 20% low carbon fuels rule, a majority in 2009 would likely put an end to tar sands oil.

McCain stopped this bill from becoming law by his "veto" of the 2007 energy bill cloture-vote in December, killing the clean fuels requirement and many other clean energy requirements, but it will come up for a vote again, and in the meantime, voters are becoming more aware of the dangers of scraping the bottom of this barrel while climate catastrophe looms.

The Guardian quotes Mark Hoskin, senior partner at investment advisors Holden & Partners as saying, “There is a good chance that tar sands could be to the oil industry what sub-prime lending was to the banking sector.

The recent banking crisis has shown how the financial markets can totally misjudge both the risks and values inherent in company balance sheets. Oil companies depend on oil reserves for their market values. "

DesmogBlog lists the sub prime aspects of this ghoulish bet against the environment:

Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year.
At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in ends up in tailing ponds so toxic that propane cannons are used to keep ducks from landing.
Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes.
The toxic tailing ponds are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The ponds span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil.

So, why would you invest in a fuel that is likely not going to even be legal within a decade? I guess you would be counting on a McCain/Palin victory.

Related stories:

McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
Obama's Clean Energy Voting Record
Queensland Premier Follows In Rudd's Carbon Footsteps

Via Mathew McDermott

For Matternetwork Read more...

Who Will Pay The Costs Of Climate Change?

Coastal regions worldwide facing rising sea-levels are beginning to practice triage

It's easy to think that sea-level rise is some remote and distant threat only faced by far away people who live in places like the Tuvalu Islands in the South Pacific which is having to evacuate to New Zealand as tidal floods increasingly cover their crops in seawater.

But right in the Bay Area, the Sacramento Delta has just joined those low-lying coastal regions that are the early victims of sea level rise. It's a typical suburban American area with some great salmon fishing and home to one of the stars of the UC system, CalDavis, renowned for its environmental study programs.

A CalDavis Public Policy Institute of California study has found that it will become increasingly beyond the ability of California taxpayers to keep shoring up levies to save parts of it next time it floods, and that these areas should just be abandoned.

While conceding that this is a very difficult and controversial conclusion for property owners who have been helped previously, study spokesman Professor Jay Lund says "I don't see any way they are not going to be losers, so the state policy should be that we all quit losing." Land owners would lose their property under the plan.

When a delta levee collapsed in 2004, the State and the Federal government spent a combined $75 million to repair land worth only $22 million. Richard Howitt, a UC Davis economist who helped put together the study felt that this was an irresponsible use of taxpayer money:

"We wanted to put a lot of work into what really amounts to a triage list - and say which islands, if they collapse, we say, "Sorry about that" but you don't repair them or pump them. You adjust to a new ecology." The participants making this tough collective decision were from diverse disciplines: civil engineering, climate science, economics, hydrology and biology. They established the boundary between the areas that should be saved and the places that would be left to go under.

Triage decisions like this one are already being practiced by other coastal low-lying coastal regions facing rising sea levels and costly climate change defenses. Seaside resorts on the coast of the UK are made an almost identical cost/benefit analysis. The whole town moved.

The financial issue is coming to the fore. Who will pay? Who should pay relocation costs? The Brazilian town of Atafono has been swallowed by the ocean. In Alaska, Kivalina is filing a lawsuit against oil companies for redress. The Sundurbans were already a lost cause in 2003, but little financial assistance has been forthcoming.

Ten percent of the world's population (600 million people) live in coastal areas that are less than 33 feet above sea level. These people are being being bandoned by their insurers, even when they live in the nice upscale coastal suburbs in America, from Florida and the Louisiana Gulf, and up to New York.

Furthermore, these direct climate change costs are in addition to the heavy costs we already collectively bear, as nation, of the damage caused by natural disasters like hurricanes and floods.

Disasters have increased four-fold in the last two decades, as worldwide temperature averages have increased.

Artwork by Dutch Artist Jaap Vliegenthart

From MIT Tech Review

For Matternetwork Read more...

Uh-Oh: Heat Waves Reduce Carbon Uptake

Turns out carbon sinks don't work so well in hotter weather, and woops: isn't that just what's in our planetary forecast?

In research published in Nature on Wednesday, scientists have found that plants and soil can take up to two years to recover from heat-waves, greatly reducing their carbon uptake.

The scientists carved out miniature eco systems in chambers about 8 feet by four feet with their plant communities and soil intact,in such a way that light, darkness, temperature and rainfall could be carefully controlled and levels of CO2 monitored.

They based the experiment on data from 150 years of weather history at the site, to duplicate heat-wave years, when temperatures had been between 2 and 7 degrees hotter, but without drought.

Over the next four years, two of the four plots were exposed to a sudden rise in temperature during the second year of the experiment, a hike of almost 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The other two were the control group, and programmed to reproduce the weather conditions of the original site based on data recorded over the previous seven years.

Arnone's team found that during this anomalously warm year and the year that followed, the two plots in the simulated heatwave conditions sucked up two-thirds less carbon than the ones that had been exposed to normal temperatures.

This is bad news for us, coming on the heels of related study published last year, one finding that carbon is no longer being stored by soil and the other, finding that the ocean's carbon sink is in decline.

This study reverses earlier findings published in 1999, that warming stimulates carbon storage at the ecosystem level, that were the basis for international carbon offset projects.

As a result, these findings throw in a new factor for calculating the value of natural sinks, which play a critical role in offsetting carbon emissions.

This is critical information, as this kind of calculation is used in deciding whether to fund forestry projects for use as carbon offsets rather than new clean energy projects such as wind farms. It is good news for wind farm funding, and that's great, but still, it is more scary news for our species overall.

Photo by TexasFinn
Via Terra Daily

For Matternetwork Read more...

How Obama Has Voted On Clean Energy

There is a real choice this year between these two presidential candidates on clean energy. This year, as we are now at 7 years to tipping point on climate change, the color of your president matters for the first time. There is only one candidate who is green.

As the companion piece to McCain's 50 votes against clean energy, by comparison, I list below how Obama voted on the same bills. I will begin Obama's vote list at McCain vote number (27) when Obama first began in the Senate in 2005.

Obama was not present for the last three clean energy votes, so I contacted his Senate office to find out how he would have voted, and was told by his energy staffer that he would have voted yes on all three, which is consistent with his record, as these were repeat attempts to pass legislation that he had previously voted yes on multiple times.

I counted these three absences as yes, and had counted McCain's thirteen absences the same way, as no, because McCain's staff had told the Forbes reporter that McCain would have voted no on these bills. As he had done previously, the staffer said he would have supported the Republican fillibuster again.

Beginning in 2005, with his first vote (27) when he started in the Senate, till vote (50), Obama had 24 opportunities to vote for clean energy. He chose clean energy 23 times out of 24. On the Boxer/Inhofe scale, by contrast with McCain, who scored at the Inhofe end of the Inhofe scale: Obama is almost completely allied with Boxer on clean energy: only one single vote apart.

Summary:
Obama voted with Boxer except on McCain-Lieberman - vote (33)
Obama voted against Inhofe except on the all-of-the-above energy bill (34)
Inhofe crossed over to vote with Boxer and Obama to prevent wind NIMBYism (35)

1-(27) '05 (D) Increase clean energy R&D funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 53-46

2-(28) '05 (R) Appoint Stephen L. Johnson to head of EPA
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 61-37

3-(29) '05 (D) Clean energy incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 47-53

4-(30) '05 (D) Try again to establish a RPS
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 52-48

5-(31) '05 (D) Tax oil company windfall profits rebates to consumer
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 35-64

6-(32) '05 (D) Tax oil companies windfall profits to fund clean energy
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 41-65

7-(33) '05 (R) Cap and trade funded nuclear subsidies McCain-Lieberman
Boxer No
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 38-60

8-(34) '05 (R) Let wind NIMBYs prevent wind development
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 32-63

9-(35) '05 (R-D) Energy funding: both fossil and clean energy
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe Yes
McCain No
passed 85-12

10-(36) '05 (D) Tax oil to fund energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 48-50
11-(37) '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 57-36

12-(38) '07 (D) Increase science and new technology funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present

13-(39) '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 62-32

14-(40) '07 (D) Tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 65-27

15-(41) '07 (D) To expand liquid natural gas development
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 37-56

16-(42) '07 (R) Inhofe's coal-to-liquids fuel
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Not present
failed 43-52

17-(43) '07 (D) Ensure that "renewable fuels" are green
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 58-34

18-(44) '07 (D) Include RPS in final energy bill
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 56-39

19-(45) '07 (D) Cloture to vote on bioenergy funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 55-42 (cloture needs 60)

20-(46) '07 (D) Cloture to vote on 2007 Energy Bill included PTC
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 53-42 (cloture needs 60)

21-(47) '07 (D) Cloture Full 2007 Energy Bill still including production tax credits
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed by one vote* 59-41 (cloture needs 60)

22-(48) '07 (D) 2/3 stripped down 2007 Energy Bill: only CAFE
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 86-8

23-(49) '07 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 52-44 (need 60)

24-(50) '08 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 53-43 (need 60)

Obama was not the first choice of half of the Democratic voters. Compared with Hillary, his support for nuclear power, shown by his vote for McCain-Lieberman (35) was troublesome for many Democrats. Before he voted with most of the Democrats against Inhofe's bill to fund coal to liquids fuels (42) he let Inhofe think that he would support it.

As a result a roar of disapproval went up in the environmental activist community, and Obama (along with eight others) disappointed Inhofe with a change of heart, as CNS newsman, now Inhofe staffer Marc Morano bitterly noted on the Environment Committee website at the time.

Senator Bingaman then inserted an amendment (43) that only low carbon synthetic fuels (such as genetically engineered algae biodiesel) could qualify for subsidy, which Obama supported. While this has made for good strong policy, many Clinton supporters felt that a truly green president should have been already aware of this problem, even though Obama ultimately voted no to coal-to-liquids fuel.

However, based on Obama's consistently very green voting record, he is apparently far from the wolf in sheep's clothing that Hillary-voters feared: there is virtually no discrepancy between Obama's frequently voiced concern with climate change, and his record of votes to deal with it.

Photos: Hillary campaigning for Obama this month
By dailykos blogger Al Rodgers

Related stories:
McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
Obama Plans Zero Energy Buildings Nationwide By 2030

For Matternetwork Read more...

McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy

Senator McCain projects an image at odds with the reality of his votes on clean energy, as the 50 votes listed here show.


At the democratic convention last month, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer said Republican presidential nominee John McCain's congressional actions towards clean energy and environmental protection were inconsistent with his campaign promises of environmental stewardship . "John McCain voted 25 times against renewable and alternative energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind energy."

After the speech, most news coverage relied on this AP FactCheck article disputing the general concept, while not refuting the vote number. But closer scrutiny of his voting reveals that he voted against sustainable legislation or said he would have done so, more than 50 times, as indicated by his votes listed below.

As a long time clean-energy legislation activist, I am familiar with most clean-energy votes in the Senate, and am familiar with McCain's votes going back to the Clinton administration. McCain's votes have been very consistently against solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, biotech and any other clean energy, and against any government support, other than for nuclear power.

In this unscripted chat caught on youtube: McCain explains that "clean energy like solar and wind are ineffective against climate change". McCain has many times expressed his sincere belief that only nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gases. Given those beliefs, his votes do make sense.

McCain does believe climate change is real. He wants to invest $4 trillion in nuclear power and supports cap-and-trade only if it has enough nuclear funding. No other Senator supports spending this much for one energy source. The Republican ticket has a record of being friendlier towards continuing oil and coal subsidies and is opposed to a cap-and-trade system, as it means taking money from oil and coal to fund it. The Democrats support clean energy subsidies and funding them by taxing carbon sources, such as oil and coal, to reduce carbon emissions.

McCain-Lieberman 2005, vote number 33, a significant piece of legislation that would have established the first caps on greenhouse gas emissions, failed in part because of the strong support for nuclear. Inhofe supports nuclear power, but even he voted against this much funding.

This is also why McCain-Lieberman never made it to the Senate floor for a vote in '07, despite the publicity. Boxer-Sanders, Kerry-Snowe and Warner-Lieberman, other climate change bills that didn't make it to a vote, also lost McCain's support because he felt they didn't have enough nuclear power subsidies in them. Environment Committee Chair Boxer increased nuclear funding considerably to get McCains vote on Warner-Lieberman, but she did not increase it enough for him, and Warner-Lieberman never made it to the floor for a vote.

In this list of votes, as a reference point, I include the votes of Senators Boxer and Inhofe for each example. Boxer is the most environmentally "correct" in the Senate and Inhofe's stance that "global warming is a giant hoax" holds up the other end of the voting continuum.

I noted party sponsorship of bills (D) or (R) to assess his bipartisanship. Two of the most common misconceptions about McCain's stance on clean energy are that he supports clean energy, and that he crosses the aisle. While it is indeed accurate that McCain does believe climate change is real, thus allying him with the Democrats, his voting record shows that he does not support clean energy to solve it, but relies on nuclear power alone. Surprisingly, he actually crosses the aisle less than even Inhofe.

Summary

McCain voted with Boxer 0 out of 50 times.
McCain voted with Inhofe 42 out of 44 times unless Inhofe voted with Boxer - votes 33, 34.
McCain voted with Republicans unless they voted with Democrats - votes 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 35.

1. '93 (D) Exempt clean energy from new Clinton/Gore BTU tax
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - every Republican voted No
McCain No
passed 55-43

2. '93 (D) Clinton/Gore BTU tax
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - only two Republicans voted Yes
McCain No
passed 57-41

3. '94 (D) Make R&D tax credit permanent
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - only 2 Republicans voted Yes
McCain No
passed 57-41

4. '94 (D) Clinton/Gore funding for advanced clean tech research
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - only 2 Republicans voted Yes
McCain No
passed 59-40

5. '94 (D) Weaken EPA if it costs polluters
Boxer No
Inhofe not yet in congress - only 3 Republicans voted no
McCain Yes
passed 90-8

6. '94 (R) Let coal states fail Clean Water Act
Boxer No
Inhofe not yet in congress - most Republicans voted Yes
McCain Yes
failed 28-67

7. '95 (R) Disregard ("table") requirement for nuclear waste cleanup
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 57-40

8. '96 (D) Improve environmental standards for subsidy eligibility
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 57-39

9. '96 (D) EPA cleanup of toxic sites
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 81-19 (most Republicans crossed the aisle: not McCain)

10. '96 (D) Fund home energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 77-23 (many Republicans joined Democrats: not McCain)

11. '96 (R) Gut nuclear waste disposal laws
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 63-37

12. '96 (D) Discard McCain amendment to gut passenger rail
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 82-17 (most Republicans voted against McCain)

13. '97 (R) Stop funding cellulosic ethanol R&D
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 30-69

14. '98 (R) Cellulosic ethanol subsidy
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 71-26 (most Republicans voted against McCain)

15. '99 (R) Stop subsidising biogas development
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 23-77 (most Republicans voted against him)

16. '00 (R) Overide Clinton veto of unregulated nuclear disposal
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 64-35 need 66 to overide veto

17. '01 (D) Tax credits for clean energy R&D
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 46-54

18. '01 (R) Drill off Florida coast
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 67-33

19. '02 (R) Drop incentive for combined-cycle heat and power
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 37-60

20. '02 (D) Require utilities buy 20% clean energy : 20% RPS
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 29-70

21. '02 (R) Reduce 20% RPS requirement
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 40-58

22. '02 (R) Waive 20% RPS if utilities complain
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 37-58

23. '02 (D) Weaken appliance efficiency requirement
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 52-47

24. '03 (D) Make Coal Companies clean up toxic sludge
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 43-56

25. '03 (D) Restore funding for (levies) Army Corps of Engineers
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 51-48

26. '03 (D) Increase fuel efficiency requirement
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 32-65

27. '05 (D) Increase clean energy R&D funding
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 53-46

28. '05 (R) Appoint Stephen L. Johnson to head EPA
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 61-37

29. '05 (D) Clean energy incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 47-53

30. '05 (D) Require utilities buy some clean energy: RPS
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 52-48

31. '05 (D) Tax oil company windfall profits rebates to consumer
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 35-64

32. '05 (D) Tax oil companies windfall profits to fund clean energy
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 41-65

33. '05 (R) Cap and trade to fund nuclear McCain-Lieberman
Boxer No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 38-60

34. '05 (R) Let wind NIMBYs prevent wind development
Boxer No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 32-63

35. '05 (R-D) Energy funding for both fossil and clean energy
Boxer Yes
Inhofe Yes
McCain No
passed 85-12 (McCain in tiny minority)

36. '05 (D) Tax oil to fund energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 48-50

37. '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 57-36

38. '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 62-32

39. '07 (D) Tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 65-27

40. '07 (D) To expand liquid natural gas development
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 37-56

41. '07 (R) Inhofe Coal-to-liquids fuel subsidy
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Not present
failed 43-52

42. '07 (D) Ensure that only clean fuels be subsidized
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 58-34

43. '07 (D) Include RPS in final energy bill
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 56-39

44. '07 (D) Cloture to vote on bioenergy funding
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 55-42 (cloture needs 60)

45. '07 (D) Cloture to vote on 2007 Energy Bill included PTC
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 53-42 (cloture needs 60)

46. '07 (D) Cloture 2007 Energy Bill including PTC - solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present failed by one vote* 59-41 (cloture needs 60)

47. '07 (D) Dismembered 2007 Energy Bill: just CAFE
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 86-8

48. '08 (D) Cloture vote on extending PTC - solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 51-43 (cloture needs 60)

49. '07 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC - solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 52-44

50. '08 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC - solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 53-43

I count the recent campaign-related absences as No since McCain told reporters that he would not have broken earlier Republican filibusters on these same clean energy votes, and his previous vote history indeed reflects that.

I have not included all 8 times the Democrats attempted to pass the production tax credit for solar and wind since taking a slim 51-49 majority, because in desperation Democrats also tacked the PTC onto multipurpose bills, muddying our view of his possible motivations for votes.
However, even without these included, it appears that Governor Schweitzer's was an understatement.

For Matternetwork

Read more...

Hot New Green Collar Job: Auditor!

Must be able to compute costs and benefits of intangible commodities (and detect fraudulent ones)






Foolish eco-guilt-ridden carbon-offset purchasers pay $34,000 to a landfill company to flare methane! That is the smirking message of a Washington Post story citing a perfect case of preventable offset fraud.

In this case, not only did the landfill operator admit that the funding was redundant,

"But that project was put in long before the offsets were sold and for a different reason: to keep dangerous gases from accumulating in a capped landfill. So if the offset market dried up completely? Nothing would change.

The money "is gravy to us right now," said Alan Cummins, executive director of the regional authority that runs the landfill. Even without it, he said, "we would always continue to flare.""

How frustrating, when there are plenty of worthwhile projects in need of financing to make zero emissions electricity from methane digesters, that cost up to $2 million dollars.

Maddening, right? But in Europe ---where they have been doing this for longer because of Kyoto --- carbon offsets routinely are audited by third party accounting firms, both to check the emissions data, and to see if they would have been done anyway, regardless of incentives.

There has been a concerted push in the media to deride buying carbon offsets. Yet, consider this: it is a business model we already use: this is just "altruistic" business financing. We send money to P.B.S., yet nobody derides us as fools for sending money to support public broadcasting. We understand voluntarily supporting something for the Common Good.

Most offset companies do give you the choice of what to support with your funding, and if you are smart enough to care, you are probably smart enough to make good use of your funds.

For example, offset buyers have now funded more than 17,000 megawatt-hours, or 9% of total capacity of one wind farm, just through Terrapass. That means that of their 45 turbines, 4 of them turn just because TerraPass members sent money to turn them.

There is a danger to this kind of reporting: it encourages a simplistic view that all offsets are foolish and redundant frauds perpetrated on gullible treehuggers. This reduces the financing that good projects could receive. But we should not discredit this "altruistic" business model. We should just ensure that projects are professionally certified to be fraud-free.

Accountants are already capable of adding and subtracting intangible goods and services. They just need to apply it to new territory: the Common Good.

Related stories:
The Hottest New Green Collar Jobs

For Matter Network Read more...

Solar Icemaker Leaves Zero Carbon Footprint

It's hard to imagine using solar power to cool, rather than to heat something, but thats what this improbable sounding solar ice-cube maker sets out to do.

A team of engineering students from San Jose State University has solved this apparently contradictory idea in a design for an ice-maker that leaves no carbon footprint at all. A must-have for the many places where electricity has been a luxury item, beyond the reach of local pocketbooks. If it could be commercialized - perhaps with some attention paid to aesthetic issues! - it would be great to have solar refrigeration. Simple tech can achieve low carbon goals.

Unlike the usual ice-making machines that supply the compressor with electricity, this solar-powered ice-maker uses refrigerant liquid that just evaporates when exposed to the sun, and the whole thing works without any moving parts. All of the systems are sealed, so barring a leak, they would never need replenishing.

The process uses refrigerant liquid that turns to vapor as the sun heats up during the day. The vapor travels through pipes that come into contact with an absorbent material, cooling when the sun goes down. But once the absorbent material heats up to 104°F in the heat of the sun, the refrigerant suddenly becomes liquid again, and that drops the temperature below freezing because of pressure differences. By simply putting water next to the evaporator this process turns the water into ice.

Via San Jose State University

For Matternetwork Read more...

Garden Of Eden To Get Rain Again

The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden story could almost be interpreted as an account of catastrophic climate change. Both the Sumerian Epic Of Gilgamesh and genesis stories of the Bible suggest a lush land of plenty, that was much more capable of nurturing civilization during the late Stone Age, than the arid land it became by about 4000 years ago, with drought afflicting Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Even the Sahara was lush and green during the late Stone Age. Starting around 7000 years ago, when rains returned after a 1000 years of drought, bones and artefacts suggest that a large population was able to herd cattle and hunt fish and wildlife. Their burials indicate they had spiritual beliefs and cared for their dead.

Apparently Climate Change will bring rain back once more to the Euphrates-Tigris watershed. This is land encompassing parts of Turkey, Syria, northern Iraq, and north-eastern Iran and the strategically important headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

In a detailed study, to be published in the Journal of Hydrometeorology, Evans uses regional climate modeling, which can run counter to global climate change averages.

He found that while storm activity over the eastern Mediterranean would decline, moisture-bearing winds would be channeled inland more often and diverted by the Zagros Mountains, bringing an increase of over 50% in annual rainfall to the Euphrates-Tigris watershed.

This would mark a return to the original climate setting in which we began to settle down and farm in the cradle of civilization.

The Fall by Lucas Cranach the Elder: 1533

For MatterNetwork

Read more...

Obama On Coal To Gas Synfuel - WRONG!

Since Republicans don't believe in Science, global warming doesn't faze them. They love Synfuels. But Obama?

Its bad enough, where gas is taking us:

NASA Says US Temperatures To Rise 10 Degrees By 2080

This maps per decade temperature rise:
1 degree Centigrade = nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit EVERY DECADE!


For instance my state, California = + .04 C therefor it will be 9 degrees hotter by 2100

A President could reverse this! NOT take us twice as fast to Armagedden.

What will a few degrees do to us?

Mark Lynas:

Six Degrees: our future on a hotter planet

The planet has been here before. Geologists have discovered that at the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago, the world warmed rapidly by six degrees. It was the worst crisis ever endured by life on earth, "the closest this planet has come to losing its wonderful living biosphere entirely and ending up a dead and desolate rock in space". The earth was racked by "hypercanes" - hurricanes so strong they even left their mark on the ocean floor. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere plunged to 15 per cent - low enough to leave any fast-moving animal gasping for breath.

Think your kids will survive a toasty planet?

The only survivors were a few shelled creatures in the oceans, and a pig-like creature that had the land to itself for millions of years. (Whoever thought geological findings could give you nightmares?)

At a hearing recently Barbara Boxer repeatedly berated -the Bushappointed crony- Ann Klee from the EPA for "assigning a zero value to CO2!" March 6 Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on CAFE standards. You can listen to the hearing here Her discussion about carbon dioxide is at 1:25:40. 1:26:15 "Why on earth would you have assigned a zero benefit for reduction of carbon dioxide? I don't understand it."

Boxer has finally shamed the EPA into humoring her with this graphing of relative CO2 outputs for us -silly treehuggers- Democrats who care about scientific warnings. The Republicans don't think CO2 matters.

This is the real reason that Bush administrations EPA has been assigning a zero value to the evaluating the cost of emitting CO2. If you line up the pros and cons of making synfuel, and simply leave out the minor disadvantage of adding more greenhouse gases, then it might not seem so dumb. It meets the only requirement Republicans seem to have, that it gets us off foreign oil.

Republicans care about their kids safety, just like we do, yet they drive SUVs. They want their kids to be safe from other SUVs so they buy bigger heavier SUVs, ensuring that other drivers will have to do the same. They don't accept climate science so they just don't believe that their kids will have to deal with this dangerous climate as a result of their driving choice.

So I don't blame them as much for wanting Synfuels. They have been propogandised into ignorance. But Obama is a member of our evidence-based community. He should know better.

I do think he can be persuaded to know what's the right thing to do, because of two changes he has made:

1. He recently changed his support for the nuke friendly Lieberman/MCain climate change bill to the real deal: the Boxer Bill, that will reduce CO2 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, in a steady consistent 1% per year.

2. He supports The CLEAR ACT to subsidise electric vehicles which is still under consideration, not a bill yet...so thank him for this!

It is wrong for Obama (who has little kids) to be as dumb as a Republican in support of Synfuels. Please, all you Obama supporters: please contact him and beg him to change his support to one befitting a thinking being who wants our species to survive.

Six Degrees will make some readers want to sink into survivalism, but Lynas wisely warns: "Getting depressed about the situation now is like sitting inert in your living room and watching the kitchen catch fire, and then getting more and more miserable as the fire spreads throughout the house - rather than grabbing an extinguisher and dousing the flames."

Calling the congress switchboard is the easiest way to put you through to any of them. Tell them that Coal to Liquid Synfuels makes CO2 worse! (202) 224 3121

Dinosaurs survived a long time on this planet. At this point in history, certain legislation in this country will actually make or break our own species chances of survival. It really is worth a call.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE JUNE !13TH
Obama switches his vote to side with us human beings against extinction and abandons Senator Inohofe's coal to lquids bill:

THANK YOU OBAMA! I like a candidate who listens to reason!

Heres the squeals of horror from Inohofe at the traitors!

VOTE AGAINST COAL-TO-LIQUIDS EXPOSES SENATOR’S TRUE POSITION
June 13, 2007


WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today blasted Senators who have previously claimed their support for coal-to-liquids, who today voted against an amendment that sought to improve the permitting process for the construction of coal-to-liquids facilities.

Those Senators include:

A big dailykos thankyou to our prodigal sons and daughter!

Obama (D-IL); Baucus (D-MT); Tester (D-MT); Landrieu (D-LA); Salazar (D-CO); Conrad (D-ND); Dorgan (D-ND); Byrd (D-WV); Rockefeller (D-WV).

KUDOS TO EVERYONE WHO VOTED RIGHT!
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Crossposted from dailykos May 2007 Read more...