Save and Conserve

Today, Obama delivered a speech attacking McCain on energy. Not only did he lay out a very detailed & comprehensive plan (read the speech here), but he tied McCain to 30 years of political ineffectiveness that has led to our complete & utter addiction to oil.

I think Obama can really make hay on this subject. Not only does he have the superior policy plans & ideas on how to move the country forward, but he can hurt McCain badly with remarks like these:

What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that - while far from perfect - represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he's really promoting is more offshore drilling - a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

Senator McCain would not take the steps or achieve the goals that I outlined today. His plan invests very little in renewable sources of energy and he's opposed helping the auto industry re-tool. Like George Bush and Dick Cheney before him, he sees more drilling as the answer to all of our energy problems, and like them, he's found a receptive audience in the very same oil companies that have blocked our progress for so long. In fact, he raised more than one million dollars from big oil just last month, most of which came after he announced his plan for offshore drilling in a room full of cheering oil executives. His initial reaction to the bipartisan energy compromise was to reject it because it took away tax breaks for oil companies. And even though he doesn't want to spend much on renewable energy, he's actually proposed giving $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America - including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil.

This is a corporation that just recorded the largest profit in the history of the United States. . This is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That's more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that's costing you more than $4-a-gallon. And Senator McCain not only wants them to keep every dime of that money, he wants to give them more.

That has to hurt if you are staffing or supporting the McCain campaign. I predict this message we heard today from Obama will resonate with American voters. The timing just feels right for a bold new vision to sweep old stuff (like McCain) away. I predict Obama will become a broken record on this for the rest of the campaign. This is winning material.

Now, if he would only start thinking & talking about passenger rail. That would be icing on the cake.

Image provided by Flickr user radiospike photography under Creative Commons license

Posted by tom c. at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've been following the Presidential primary season very closely ... mainly because I'm a dork & a wannabe wonk, but also because I think it's a crucial election for the country. Obviously, we have an incredible number of problems in the US ... I happen to think energy is the biggest of the lot (which is really saying something when you think about it).

On the Democratic side, it's difficult to know where Clinton, Obama & Edwards stand on energy because, well, it's difficult to know where they stand on anything. Our media coverage is not conducive to issues-based news reporting & the debates aren't satisfactory either. How about picking a topic and letting the candidates truly debate that topic (by asking & answering each other's questions) for 30 minutes. Why do we need moderators? Did Lincoln & Douglas use moderators? And those were known as great debates: informative, entertaining, enlightening & helpful in deciding who has better positions on issues that matter. They were substantive, meaty; they were real, something that is sorely missing in today's operating environment.

Anyway, over at Grist, there is a page that helps us get at least some sense of the positions of the various candidates with respect to energy. There are a few different topics: Cap&Trade, Renewable Energy, Biofuels, Coal, etc. & then a blurb summarizing the candidate's position on each topic.

They also cover the Republican side, but since I don't like their candidates, I'll take a pass.

In a nutshell, there is not much difference between the 3 leading Dem candidates on energy (from this high-level perspective). The single biggest difference appears to be on nuclear energy. Edwards is against it, Obama supports it & Clinton is "agnostic" ... which really means she is against it for the time being.

So, if you were wondering where the Dems stand on energy ... they stand together with the exception of nuclear, which Obama thinks is a good idea & the other 2 want to stay away from. Personally, I think Obama wins; nuclear in tandem with plug-in hybrid vehicles would go a long way towards reducing our use of liquid hydrocarbons for transportation. I don't know if that's Obama's vision for nuclear energy, but I hope that's how he sees the situation.

Posted by tom c. at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The US Department of Energy has released a preview from an upcoming report on global renewable energy growth.

Renewable energy use is growing much faster than 10% per year throughout the world, according to a new report from the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). Excluding large hydropower, the global electric generating capacity of renewable energy facilities reached 237 gigawatts (GW) this year, up 15% from last year. That's about 5.5% of the electric generating capacity throughout the world. At 93 GW, wind power provided about 40% of that renewable generating capacity; wind power capacity increased by 25% over 2006. Grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems reached 7.8 GW in capacity, a 56% increase, while the global production of photovoltaic systems reached 3.8 GW per year, a 52% increase over 2006.

Among non-electric renewable energy sources, solar hot water capacity increased by 17% to 121 thermal GW. Global ethanol production increased 16% to 11.6 billion gallons, while biodiesel production increased by a third to more than 2 billion gallons. The REN21 report estimates that global investment in renewable energy will exceed $100 billion in 2007, including $15-$20 billion invested in large hydropower facilities, at least $66 billion invested in other renewable energy facilities, $10-$12 billion invested in manufacturing plants for photovoltaic devices and biofuels, and $16 billion invested in public and private research and development.

That renewable energy mutual fund is looking ever more attractive. You know how Wall St. loves a good growth story ...

Posted by tom c. at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)