Learn To Make Your Own Solar Panels And SAVE $$$
Click Here!!!
Solar Power Incentives Washington State
Bush On Global Warming: Decider Or Dissembler?
President George W. Bush once famously declared: "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best." But when it comes to environmental issues, especially global warming, Bush often sounds more like the dissembler than the decider.
Throughout his presidency, Bush's so-called leadership on global climate change has lurched from outright stonewalling in the early years, when he refused to discuss or even acknowledge the issue, to misdirection and political sleight-of-hand.
Speaking recently from the White House Rose Garden to consider new climate change strategies, the president set what he called a "realistic" national goal to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
Unfortunately, the president offers no actual plan for achieving the new goal, instead calling on Congress to find some way to make it happen. More to the point, the goal itself falls far short of what many scientists believe must be done to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming, which is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions at least 15-20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, not simply to stop emissions from increasing.
Bush believes that it is possible to protect the environment without hurting the economy, and said any new policies or legislation must strike that balance. Bush thinks advanced technology is the key to solving global warming and recommended incentives that would make it more cost-effective for businesses to adopt new clean-energy technology instead of sticking with old systems that emit more greenhouse gases. Again, he never offered a plan for how to get the job done.
Bush praises his administration for increasing the use of wind and solar power and called for continuing investments in renewable energy and carbon sequestration, but he points to nuclear energy and coal - including so-called "clean coal" - as the keys to America's "energy and economic security."
The president says his administration has provided "billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies" and "in 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development."
Bush criticizes U.S. courts for applying what he considers narrow and outdated laws to a broad issue such as global warming. Specifically, he says "the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate." He took a slap at the U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
The president believes stretching environment laws "beyond their original intent" could force the federal government to act like a local planning and zoning board and to regulate a wide range of small energy users and producers - from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings - which he says would have "crippling effects on our entire economy."
In discussing various vague strategies that might help fight global warming, the president rejects tax increases, tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations that might lead to higher costs for businesses. Instead, Bush recommends creation of an international clean technology fund "that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world" and called on all nations "to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services."
Many concerned observers are unimpressed with the president's new strategy to address the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
"Unfortunately, President Bush retains the mantle of the most anti-environmental president in history," stated Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, in a telephone interview with The Guardian. Karpinski pointed out that Bush's 2000 presidential campaign promise to cap global warming pollution from power plants was never honored. "Since that time, all we've had is empty words but no serious action."
"This basically sounds like the same quarterback calling the same play," said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, in an interview with the Washington Post. "It's just another way of Bush saying no."
President Bush believes that the strategy he has laid out shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people - and that's a resource that will never run out. He is confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.
Let's hope so, because the only amazing thing about the president's strategy for greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is its lack of any real effort to address such serious problems.
About the Author
James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.
James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.
Sustainable Development: the Role of Coal
Copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Lafleche
The debate over the future of America's energy policy is heating up, and it is liable to reach temperatures of near-combustion amidst the politics of this explosive election season. One industry that has long been a pillar of the American energy establishment is coal, and the case of coal is particularly compelling for two reasons. The first is that massive reserves in western US states such as Montana and Wyoming allow a viable pathway to improved energy independence from unstable and often unsavory oil-producing states. Montana's reserves alone stand at a staggering 120 billion recoverable tons; at 2006 levels of consumption, this would be enough to meet in totality the coal needs of mighty China for nearly half a century. The negative, of course, is that coal-fired power plants are among the most heinous emitters of greenhouse gases.
This clashing of interests has given rise to vocal confrontations in Washington and across the country regarding the role that coal will play in America's future. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other influential congressional figures such as Representative Henry Waxman have exhibited their outright opposition to the furthering of any coal interests, arguing that carbon costs are too great and that attention is better focused on renewables such as wind, geothermal and solar power. Aware of the mounting pressure, coal mining giants that reap billions in profits are seeking uses of the fuel that will belch less carbon into the atmosphere. But for Reid and others, the term "clean coal" will only ever be an oxymoron.
Montana's Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer has built a largely deserved reputation as a champion of environmental causes. However his state is split between conservationist elements and a more traditional core composed of ranchers and agriculturalists and of course the interests of "big coal" to which he is not insignificantly beholden. As he straddles this divide, he is uniquely positioned to make a push for better uses of coal. "There is no choice but to go forward with coal," he said recently. "The question is, how are we going to move forward and develop the technology that will make coal clean?"
Central to Schweitzer's proposal is the implementation of large-scale coal gasification and coal-to-liquids (CTL) projects. Like other alternative energy initiatives such as biofuels, their ultimate effectiveness and desirability remain uncertain. But given America's energy exigencies, and the fact that in the foreseeable future coal power will continue to play a large role, it seems to be worthy of our attention.
The process of coal gasification disintegrates coal into its component parts by subjecting it to very high temperatures and applying pressure using steam and oxygen. The resulting synthesis gas or "syngas" is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It is much easier to remove pollutants such as mercury and sulfur from the syngas, allowing it to burn more cleanly. In addition, once the snygas has been cleaned it is similar to natural gas, which allows it to be burned in more efficient gas turbines. The gas can be further reconstituted into a liquid fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process, and can then be used directly as a heating oil or indeed to power vehicles.
The prospect is not without unequivocal drawbacks. First of all, it would entail the continuation of coal mining, and the extraction in itself can be an abominable practice. Secondly, although it allows for a significant reduction of carbon dioxide from the levels emitted by dirty coal-fired plants, it still releases sizeable amounts. The releases are relatively easier to capture, but the prevalent idea of "sequestration"storing the carbon dioxide undergroundremains problematic. Finally, in the infantile stages, the costs of "integrated gasification combined-cycle" (IGCC) plants to generate electricity remain very high. However as with all new and untested technologies, these costs could be expected to diminish if the plants become widespread.
Because of the coal mining that it would continue to necessitate, and because it allows only for a reduction of CO2 levels and not their elimination, coal gasification cannot be considered a solution in the absolute sense. And there of course is the lingering external question of energy inputs for the gasification process. But it is when one adopts a more pragmatic view that the light of its desirability perhaps begins to shine through. Coal mining must be rigorously regulated. Early start-ups of IGCC plants will require hefty subsidies and other incentives. But if costs begin to fall, coal gasification and CTL technologies could prove vital catalysts for energy independence and cleaner fuels.
About the Author
Daniel Lafleche is the co-founder of Alternative Channel, a website dedicated to giving non-profit organizations concerned with issues of sustainable development, environmentalism, and humanitarian issues an online forum for their video content. You can learn more at http://www.alternativechannel.tv
