Showing posts with label legislative activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislative activism. Show all posts

Sunday, October 12

Did Europe Just Bid Olde King Coal Adieu?

Tough vote today by EU Parliament limits new power plants without carbon capture and storage: essentially bringing to an end the long reign of Olde King Coal.

Our carbon footprint in California is just 11 tons. That is not because we are more virtuous than the rest of America, with its 22 ton footprint. We are just blessed with legislation that has effectively outlawed coal as a significant portion of our electricity supply. So our carbon footprint is half that of the rest of America.

Now Europe is following in California's lead on coal plants. Members of the EU Parliament voted today for tough regulations which would force energy companies to fit expensive equipment to trap the emissions.

This makes coal plants more expensive than wind (twice) and solar and even geothermal power. So actually, this kills plans for a whole new generation of heavily polluting coal-fired power stations.

The new carbon dioxide emissions limit set by the European Parliament environment committee is the same as that set by California: no more than 500 grams of CO2 per kilowatt per hour.

They also voted for a €10 billion dollar fund to pay for trials of clean coal technology: carbon capture and storage or CCS, which could trap most emissions. This could enable some coal stations to be built, using the EU funds to pay for the massive expected costs.

While carbon capture addresses the climate change problems of burning coal, it does nothing about the environmental hazards caused by mining coal, and even CCS supporters admit that it would not be available at commercial scale until 2020 at the earliest.

As John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace said: "Emissions performance standards have already worked to stop new coal-fired power stations in California, and it's a welcome development that Europe is adopting a similar principle here."

For Matter Network

Read more...

Tuesday, September 30

Bailout Failure Brings Last Chance For Renewables

In Wall Street woes, a ray of hope for renewable energy

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, offered new hope this morning that House Democrats might now be more open to compromise in the wake of the defeat of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout package, which sent the stock market plummeting more than 700 points.

Economic experts warn that millions of Americans could lose their jobs if a rescue plan doesn’t pass.

Clean energy "green-collar" employment studies have shown that somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 U.S. jobs are at stake at a time when the economy is in a meltdown.

SolarCity's CEO Lyndon Rive said today “This is something that could create tens of thousands of jobs. The financial industry has collapsed, the construction industry has collapsed. The housing industry has collapsed. And solar is still growing. This will cause it to collapse … And if political leaders can’t see this, I can’t understand what they’re thinking.”

Most painfully for Democratic leaders, they hoped to count the renewable-energy tax breaks as a significant achievement of the 110th Congress, one that had passed the House in the "the first hundred hours" in January of 2007.

The four national renewable energy trade associations representing the geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind industries weighed in yesterday with a joint statement to Congress saying, "with hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in clean energy investment at risk, we urge Congressional Leaders not to leave for the election recess until a House-Senate agreement is reached on the pending tax extender package."

Leading Senate tax writer Baucus (D-Mont.) predicted that House Democrats might now be more amenable to compromise with Senate Republicans on funding, faced with the prospect of letting renewable energy tax breaks expire while the nation’s economy teeters on the brink of recession. There is no possible Senate Republican compromise, so it is entirely up to House Leader Steny Hoyer to move House Democrats in the direction of the successful Senate version passed last week with a 93-2 veto-proof majority.

“There are more dynamics in play now,” he said, speaking of how the bailout would affect negotiations on tax cuts. “Things are related.”

Indeed, by days end Tuesday the Wall Street Journal reported that on Wednesday night the new Wall Street omnibus bailout vote will include the Senate version of the renewable energy and other business tax credits extension.

Related stories:
Renewable Energy Bill Endangered As Congress Ends
House Fully Funds Renewable Energy Act, Possibly Sinking It
On 9th Attempt, Senate Passes Clean Energy Provisions

Via The Hill
Photo by Flikr user Visschman
For Matter Network Read more...

Tuesday, September 23

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.
Photobucket
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...

Wednesday, September 17

How Obama Has Voted On Clean Energy

Photobucket
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...

Saturday, August 30

Top Prius Dealer Starts Taking Deposits For PHEVs

Impatient customers in Palo Alto are putting down $500 for the first Toyota Prius Plug-in due out soon.











Felix Kramer of CalCars reports that Magnussen Toyota of Palo Alto in California, one of the top Prius dealers in the US, has begun taking $500 deposits for the plug-in Prius that Toyota announced this week it is now working on completing by 2009. The California activist group CalCars says that one Toyota dealer moving ahead of the pack will encourage others, and help speed the arrival of PHEVs into the market. They hope carmakers will get the message that their customers want plug-in cars, and accelerate their plans.

Activist grous have long publicized the development of Prius conversions that can get over a hundred mpg. No doubt we have all seen images of the ubiquitous +100 mpg Prius in this picture.

Initially, Toyota had been reluctant to join in with the other auto companies moving to electric vehicles in the last few years, despite the popularity of their RAV4 EV, created in response to the CARB zero emissions rules of the 90's. The few remaining are still going strong, now fetching as much as $70,000 on eBay.

Understandably enough, Toyota had felt no natural impulse to create a competitor for its own Prius hybrid that has been enjoying a virtual monopoly in the restricted US market.

But unremitting pressure from EV groups like CalCars to perfect the good has altered Toyota's plans. Last July, Toyota said that their plug-in adaptation of their Prius hybrid had advanced to the point where it was able to be driven legally on public roads in Japan. This week, Green CarCongress reports that Toyota now plans to accelerate PHEV development:

President Watanabe now plans plug-ins for fleet deployment as soon as 2009: earlier than the previous 2010 target, and plans an additional "next-generation electric vehicle" to follow. These are not mere fluffy green press releases, either. Toyota has already ramped up battery pack production capability with Panasonic EV Energy.

EV activists believe that without waiting for any new technology or infrastructure, Toyota could begin to build and sell first-generation plug-in hybrids now to early adopters and fleet customers. And as batteries improve, “good enough to get started” will become better and better. As long ago as 2005, the New York Times noted that the popular hybrids were being hacked to get 100 mpg. Classes in converting hybrids to plug in have been held by many engineering schools around the country: hands-on demonstrations that the technology is here now. This dealer's initiative marks the second time that dealers have applied pressure to Toyota to move faster. Previously, some dealers had offered aftermarket conversions which are available for the Prius for $10,000 or so that you can already buy directly from Hymotion.

Photo by the author

For Matternetwork Read more...

Wednesday, August 27

Would Ford Rather Die Than Switch?


Key executive who abandoned Ford places $70 million dollar battery order to power Think EV



Autoblog Green has news of ThinkGlobal's new $70 million dollar battery order.

Recently ThinkGlobal announced a new CEO - the key Ford executive who had been Worldwide Director of Strategic Planning.

"The appointment of Australian born Canny will help Think accelerate its growth plans and compete globally in the rapidly emerging electric vehicle market" said CEO Jan-Olaf Willums "Richard brings twenty five years of global automotive experience to Think which will help us greatly in growing the company quickly and increasing our international presence. His extensive background at Ford in both strategy and operations will be ideal to help guide Think as we grow."

Canny expressed his optimistic view on the future of electric vehicles, saying "the electrification of the automobile industry has reached a tipping point. Think is perfectly positioned to capitalize on this trend and is the leader in this rapidly growing industry sector. My view is that Think is where the future of the automotive industry will be."

It's not good news for a company when key executives jump ship to join new technology startups. Ford has had a history of dropping the ball on the EV. In the 1990's, Ford had to build at least a couple of models of zero emissions vehicles to comply with the California Mandate. They briefly made the little Ford Ranger as all electric. The few remaining ones are still escalating in resale value on eBay. A retired auto worker at a Ford Ranger plant scheduled for shutdown this year has been trying to keep it operating by once more rolling Ford Ranger EVs off the assemblyline.

Ford had initially created the Think EV to meet the California Mandate. To meet the zero emissions requirements, Ford found a little Norwegian EV company run by Jan Otto Ringdal, bought the company and produced their PIVCO electric vehicle renamed as the Think. But like GM, of Who Killed The Electric Car? fame, Ford murdered their little EV as soon as they were able to, and sold the company back. Some historical footage of that time at youtube shows some very unhappy customers having to give them up.

The little Norwegian company bought back the rights for the Think themselves, encouraged by the Norwegian government, (who says that oil-rich nations just can't think ahead!) and now that little EV just won't stay dead. Now ThinkGlobal is bringing it back to bite Ford in the US with talk of possible American production facilities. GE's Ecoimagination has invested $24 million to help. Currently ThinkGlobal is ramping up its production for deliveries in Europe this year and USA in 2009.

Per their site currently, their ThinkCity shown above will get 110 miles a charge, go to 65 mph top speed and cost about $30,000 This model can seat two and a couple of little kids in the back seat. Or lots of groceries. Or both the dogs. They also plan a 5 seater SUV that they call the ThinkOx. The name sounds as though they are making gentle fun of our SUV obsession in implying that we think we must have really heavy-duty Oxen to cart us about.

There had initially been talk of leasing the batteries with monthly payments like on a cellphone to make the vehicles themselves cheaper. It is possible that Washington will be able to pass a subsidy for EVs since Obama proposed a $6000 EV subsidy in the energy bill last year. Even though that failed to pass cloture, by one vote (McCain did not vote) there is widespread approval for this idea, and some Democrats want higher subsidies: Clinton proposed it be $10,000. This would be more like the generous subsidy Japan provided, that jumpstarted the Prius.

Think is not the only electric vehicle opportunity that has slipped through Ford's fingers.

Tanfield's Smith Electric Vehicles is using Ford to make the 'glider' or shell for their Ampere and is already using the Ford Transit as the glider for their Edison van, which is delivering groceries carbon neutrally for Tesco in the UK.
Former workers are trying to revive their electric trucks. Fords factories are ending truck production. Fleets are contacting conversion companies to re engineer Ford trucks as EVs. Now Ford's own executives are jumping ship to join EV startups. Why won't Ford make their trucks electric? Torque can even improve in an electric version. Big macho trucks can be EVs.

The largest is probably this behemoth of a hybrid diesel-electric dumptruck.
And it's not as if Ford is uninterested in sustainabilty. They are always announcing their new biodegradable banana peel seatcovers or whatever, but as an auto company, they have larger responsibilities than other firms since carbon emissions are a big part of an industry that has been reliant apon being fossilfueled.


GM, on the other hand is betting the farm on their Chevy Volt, an extended range EV: an ER-EV. If they can make it, they will need to amortise their huge investment in this by offering this truly game-changing technology in their other models. The ER-EV is more advanced than a hybrid converted to a plug-in hybrid. Its the next step after the hybrid. This is why AFSTrinity's hybrid conversion of the GM Saturn seems a bit redundant: AFS would have been smarter to pick a Ford, since Ford won't make an EV. Just as Toyota changed everything with the Prius, GM could change everything with the Volt ER-EV.

Ford is doing the world a huge disservice by hanging Ford tough on this refusal. Detroit does not have to be a has-been.

For Matternetwork Read more...

Monday, August 25

XCEL Dumps Dirty Power For Wind & Solar

Some good news today for those of us who breathe. The 4th largest power company in the US is replacing two coal plants with 1000 megawatts of wind and solar power.

In a move exemplified by its recent coal plant smokestack demolition shown in Minnesota, XCEL has decided to retire two dirty coal power plants in Colorado, for its first utility scale solar concentrating powerplant and 850 megawatts of wind power.

XCEL is the 4th biggest electricity company in the US, and 60% of that has been coal fired electricity.

The power swap will be in Colorado, where the Democratic National Convention is being held this week. Colorado is an interestingly Brown/Green energy state where the possibility of scraping up the state for oil shale vies with new green energy sources. The Danish wind giant Vestas - which is in the incredibly fortunate position of having a $10 Billion dollar backlog of wind turbine orders is bringing a new wind turbine building plant to the state.

Interestingly, XCEL is not a member of USCAP the forward thinking climate change prevention group, as is PG&E and other greener utilities and corporations. In fact, when Colorado passed their first Renewable Portfolio Standard of 10% by 2015, XCEL dragged their heels. But it discovered in the process of complying that it wasn't that difficult: they hit their target in 2007. Now they support the current 20% by 2020 target.

The Washington Post attributes XCELs decision in part to the production tax credits wind farms have had:
Once Xcel executives began to come to terms with the new rules, they discovered that federal tax credits made wind power affordable
Any new plant is going to be much more expensive to build than keeping an old one you already have on the books chugging along. So the PTC makes it affordable to build new green power plants.

However, as they do every few years, these production tax credits expire at the end of this year. Unfortunately, thanks in large part to swingvoter John McCain 'vetoing' cloture votes each time the Democrats have attempted to extend PTCs, this year they could fail to be renewed.

With the Democrats in Colorado at their convention this week getting some media time, this would be a good time for them to publicize the good that the PTC has done. While Clinton had offered the ideal plan with a permanent PTC, Obama offers a 5 year extension of the PTC in his plan. Obama is by far the greenest presidential contender. McCain has no plan posted and the voting record to back it up.


From SolveClimate
Photo by flikr user Bree R

For MatterNetwork Read more...

Tuesday, August 19

You (Yes, You!) Lobby Washington For Gas-Guzzlers

PhotobucketIf you pay your dues to AAA, that is.

Part of that money has gone to pay high priced lobbyists to work against your best interests, and advocate for lower gas mileage...

Here's how AAA has been lobbying against your clean green future, according toHarpers:

"A frequent target of the group's Washington office has been federal environmental laws. In 1999, AAA opposed new rules that required cleaner-burning exhaust systems for cars, trucks, and SUVs, and two years prior assailed an EPA proposal requiring states to reduce levels of smog and soot.

In 1990, AAA even fought the strengthening of the Clean Air Act - a measure supported by three fourths of Americans - on the grounds that it would limit the "personal mobility" of motorists."

But you could stop this lobbying that you do for a filthy world. You could instead get your roadside assistance from a green startup that is competing against AAA, and they will spend your dues on all the goodies of AAA like roadside assistance and none of the baddies like opposing the Clean Air Act.

And in fairness to AAA, let's look at this lobbying in a historical perspective.

The American Automobile Association was originally created in 1901 by 1,000 auto enthusiasts demanding a response to the lack of highways suitable for for the marvellous new driving machines of the day.

Now we see some changes are needed to design a sustainable world, but back then, this was progressive thinking. And AAA does do valuable work in providing research and much data related to driving and the automobile.

Furthermore, State AA's can certainly be greener as the California State AA showed in partnering with CalCars in the Greenlight Initiative last year.

For Matter Network

Read more...