Category Archives: politics

Hoping to Change Their Lives for the Better

Little Land, a film

Since the start of the crisis in Greece, a growing number of young unemployed Athenians are moving to the countryside, hoping to change their lives for the better.

LITTLE LAND – trailer from Anemon on Vimeo.

The film follows 35-year-old Thodoris, as he settles on the remote island of Ikaria. There, he discovers a society with a unique culture of autonomy and cooperation, and a people who live not only better, but longer than everyone else, making the island one of the world’s few ‘blue zones’ where inhabitants enjoy extraordinary longevity.
 
Director Nikos Dayandas goes in search of the Ikarian secret, discovering how the islanders’ radically different lives are increasingly relevant to us in times of economic and social upheaval.

Share Sustainably

Jeff Wolfe Talks With Mark Johnson on S.30 & Senator Campbell

Mark Johnson Interviews Jeff Wolfe on WDEV Radio

Jeff Wolfe Head-shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part one in a two part interview

 

Part two in a two part interview

Click on the article to read the entire piece

From The Burlington Free Press

Screen shot 2013-03-26 at 2.00.00 PM

 

 

From VTDigger

Senator Campbell delays vote on S.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wolfe Campbell 03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wolfe Campbell 02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wolfe Campbell 01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share Sustainably

An open letter to Senator John Campbell re: VT S.30 anti-wind bill

Vermont State Senator John Campbell has come out “For” S.30, a bill which would sharply set back Vermont’s renewable energy industry, and therefore our economy and our environment. This is a letter I sent to him urging him to rethink his position.

An open letter

To Senator John Campbell, Senator for Windsor County

Vermont Senate President Pro Tem

RE: S.30Dear Senator John Campbell,I was astonished to hear that you personally support S.30. This bill would be a horrible set back to Vermont’s business and environmental communities, and even without passage into law will send a strong signal to the renewable energy industry that Vermont is CLOSED for business.

I have fought hard to create a renewable energy industry in Vermont and the US. You know my work at groSolar, you are likely less familiar with my work as a national leader in the industry. I have created jobs in a couple dozen states, and have worked to make renewable, sustainable energy affordable for Vermonters and all Americans, while striving to protect our state economy and our global environment.

Most recently I was instrumental in having groSolar not leave Vermont, and in having NRG Energy start to create jobs in Vermont through a first-in-the-nation pilot I convinced them to start in here. (Not NRG Systems, different, Fortune 500 company, largest owner of solar in the US.)

These companies, and many others, can chose where to do business. There are other states that are working hard for these jobs, and that is where they will likely go if this bill passes even the Vermont Senate. Your stance that this simply provides “local control” over clean energy projects is a pure smoke screen. If you were truly worried about that then pipelines and transmission lines (associated with traditional dirty energy sources) would not be excluded from the bill. (Not that their inclusion would make the bill acceptable.)

And do not accuse me and my industry of trashing Vermont for the sake of jobs. Renewable energy is a necessity to maintain our environment, to combat the scourge to Vermont (and the world) that global climate disruption will be. You either believe that, or you do not. If you believe that, then as a real Vermonter you would want a good portion of that energy created in Vermont to provide a more resilient infrastructure, keep our costs under control, and not foist our needs on others. If you say you believe it, but believe all that energy should come from somewhere else because it’s too hard to live near (untrue) then who should live near it? Someone else? (Lots of people live near solar and wind projects, and like it.)

This anti renewable energy effort is well documented as being funded by the Koch brothers and their allies. I’m truly surprised and stunned that you are falling for their lies, deceit, fake science, and name-calling. As the “leader” of the Vermont Senate, I expect more from you.

John, I’ve supported you for a lot of races. But if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is. I’m not a single issue voter, but this one bill, because it sets back action on climate change, affects almost every issue I care about. Middle class prosperity, human health, environmental health, recreation, are all negatively affected by this bill.

Please change your mind, please join me in vigorously opposing this bill.

Sincerely,

Jeff

Jeff Wolfe Consulting

Founder, Chairman, groSolar

Share Sustainably

Give Peace a Chance

Don’t Let Agenda-Setting Media Divert Your Path

Children Playing in Fire Hydrant Spray

Featured Blog Post by Cindy Hill

I lived through many a Long Hot Summer of Crime that did not exist.

Growing up on a Long Island dominated by New York City news, I always thought that people went nuts with murder and mayhem all summer. In my freshman journalism class at SUNY Stony Brook, I had an eye-opening moment when I learned that crime rates in New York actually go DOWN, not up, in July and August. With schools and legislatures out, with no college sports or legislative actions to report, the papers and broadcast media had little to cover, so they dedicated those pages to covering every little crime that would have otherwise gone totally unnoticed in October. With those terrifying headlines – “City Cowers in Fear as Man Steals Wallet” – we all easily bought the journalistic bait-and-switch.

That pattern of agenda-setting media defining what the public perceives of as problems is at play today on a much larger order of magnitude. According to today’s news reports, violent crime is our nation’s biggest problem, and more restrictive gun laws is the answer of moral imperative.

In reality, violent crime rates across the country are down – way down. As eloquently explained by Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker in his many writings and TED talks on the subject, the odds of dying at the hands of another person’s violence today are lower than they have ever been at any time in all of human history. So why the reportage focus on violence?

A perception of violence and the fear that follows benefits many entities, from centralized governments to home alarm system companies. When people are afraid, they are quite willing to surrender just about anything to assuage their fears.  We’ll sign over gas rights to our land out of fear of terrorists from oil-rich countries. We’ll sign over water rights and encourage the government to approve any changes Monsanto wants to protect the security of our food supply under threat from some unspecified red Chinese menace. It almost doesn’t matter what they make us afraid OF – as long as we are afraid of SOMETHING, we are pliable and amenable to strong central governmental and corporate control. They know best. They’ll take care of us. They’ll protect us.

I can think of a thousand subjects that I’d like to see on the front page of newspapers today; subjects that are not occupying that front page because reports of violence are taking up the space on paper, on the screen, and in our consciousness. The subjects I am thinking of are the issues of peace, not violence.

Energy, food, climate, culture and health (physical and mental)are the agenda of peace; they are the dialogue of a people who are not afraid to discuss sculpting a vision of the world in the future, rather than reacting to distorted interpretations of yesterday’s events. Developing a less carbon-dependent lifestyle, reducing America’s horrible infant and maternal mortality rates, reducing our equally horrible and rapidly rising suicide rates, and devising a new economic model that provides meaningful financial prosperity to as many people as possible are all on my short list of wishful headlines.

And yet I have watched activist friends fall like dominoes to the distracting, agenda-setting call to set all other issues aside and talk about violence until we are all too scared to move. Gone are their anti-fracking memes on Facebook and up are the candle-lit lists of names and victims. The student activities boards at the colleges where I teach are now plastered with calls for meetings and discussion groups about guns – supplanting the meetings about campus rape or economic justice. Everyone’s time and attention is limited – if you pick up this issue, you’ll drop another. And that is what agenda-setting interests count on.

Yes, awful things happen in the world. The sooner and stronger we can build our peaceful vision, the more we will understand and be able to respond meaningfully as a society to tragic events when they do happen. But surrendering to the agenda-setting media shell game – Hey environmental activists, Hey social change organizers, look over here, awful things are happening! — shoves us two steps back. Or more. All I am saying is, give the substantive agenda of building a peaceful future a chance, and don’t allow those who prosper on fear to set the agenda.

 

Cindy Hill is an attorney and law and policy writer who teaches communications courses at Champlain College and CCV.

Share Sustainably

Keystone XL will have ‘no impact on climate change’, TransCanada boss says

Firm planning oil pipeline from western Canada to Texas targets climate change protesters’ arguments on emissions

This story comes from the Associated Press. You can read it and much more at theguardian.

The company that wants to build a controversial oil pipeline from western Canada to Texas said on Tuesday said that shutting down the oil sands at its source would have no measurable effect on global warming.

Tar Sands, Keystone XL

Syncrude Canada Ltd’s tar sand production facility in Alberta (Photograph: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)

“You could shut down oil sands production tomorrow and it would have absolutely no measurable impact on climate change,” he said.

Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and oil pipelines, said opponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have grossly inflated the likely impact of the oil it would carry on emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Canada produces just 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Pourbaix said at a forum sponsored by a manufacturing group that supports the pipeline. Oil sands concentrated in Alberta, where the 1,700-mile pipeline would start, make up 5% of Canada’s total, Pourbaix said.

“Simple math tells us, therefore, that the oil sands represent only one-tenth of 1% of global greenhouse emissions,” he said. “Even if production from the oil sands were to double, the (greenhouse gas) contribution from the oil sands would be immaterial to global” greenhouse gas production.

Pourbaix’s comments came two days after a rally on Sunday by pipeline opponents drew an estimated 35,000 people to Washington. Organisers, including the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, billed the event as the largest climate rally in US history. Thousands of people marched past the White House to urge president Barack Obama to reject the $7bn pipeline and take other steps to fight climate change.

Opponents say the pipeline would carry “dirty oil” derived from tar sands that requires significantly more energy to produce and refine than conventional crude oil and which emits up to 20% more greenhouse gases than other sources.

At Tuesday’s forum, organised by the National Association of Manufacturers, Pourbaix challenged the climate argument head-on. He and other TransCanada executives have previously emphasised the pipeline’s safety, the jobs it will create and the fact the oil comes from a US neighbour and ally.

“Our opponents are trying to make this debate about GHGs,” he said, referring to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that are emitted as oil is produced and refined. “So let’s look at Canada’s contribution to global GHGs.”

Pourbaix called Canada a leader on climate change and noted that Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The province also has imposed a carbon tax, an action the Obama administration has said it will not propose.

Oil carried by Keystone will displace heavy crude from Venezuela, Nigeria and other countries that also contribute to global warming, Pourbaix said.

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, said Pourbaix’s comments appeared to be based on “some rather rosy assumptions” about oil sands production. First, the calculation does not take into account the energy cost of refining and transporting the oil from tar sands, nor does it account for a huge reserve that could make the Alberta tar sands a key contributor to global warming in the future, he said.

Mann, who opposes the pipeline, said US approval of Keystone XL would encourage increased development of the heavily-polluting tar sands. Canadian officials have called development of the tar sands a national priority.

By endorsing the pipeline, “we may be insuring that a much larger amount (of the oil reserves) will be economically viable,” Mann said.

Obama calls climate change a serious threat and has urged Congress to combat it. In his state of the union address last week, Obama said he will use executive authority to cut greenhouse gas pollution if Congress fails to act.

Obama has twice thwarted the Keystone XL pipeline because of concerns about its route through sensitive land in Nebraska, but has not indicated how he will decide on the pipeline since Nebraska’s governor approved a new route last month. The state department has authority over the project because it crosses an international border, but both sides on the issue expect Obama to make the final decision.

via Keystone XL will have ‘no impact on climate change’, TransCanada boss says | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Share Sustainably

Solar Hot Water Program Kicked Off by Energy Co-op of Vermont

Innovative Co-op Solar Program Back And Better For 2013

Energy Co-op logoShelburne, VTSenator Bernie Sanders, Andrew Perchlik from the Department of Public Service and CEDF, David Blittersdorf, CEO of AllEarth Renewables and Board Member of the Energy Co-op of Vermont, Tom Berry from Sen. Leahy’s office, Jon Copans from Congressman Welch’s office, and local officials joined members of the Energy Co-op of Vermont and Sunward Systems to officially launch the 2013 Co-op Solar program. The announcement came Monday during a press conference and kick off event held at the Sunward Systems headquarters in Shelburne, VT.

“What is particularly exciting about this program is that people can move in this direction without spending any more money on their fuel bills than they currently are, because they’re going to pay off their loan from the credit union by reduced fuel costs. That is exactly the right direction to go”, said Senator Sanders in his opening remarks. “What we’re going to be doing here is cutting back on fossil fuels, we’re going to be creating jobs, we’re going to be making Vermont a leader in the movement towards sustainable energy.” added Sanders.

By partnering with a local manufacturer of the solar hot water heating equipment, Co-op Solar offers deeply discounted systems that are assembled in Vermont. Further savings come from a 30% federal tax credit and a state incentive of up to $1,200, resulting in up to 50% off the typical cost. “These new solar hot water systems will pay for themselves through energy savings”, said John Quinney, general manager at the Energy Co-op.

“We are really excited about this partnership because we think that this is the kind of innovative marketing and innovative financing that solar hot water needs.” said Andrew Perchlik, Executive Director of CEDF. Congressman Welch’s Deputy State Director Jon Copans added, “This collaboration between Sunward Systems and the Energy Co-op of Vermont is exactly the kind of story he’s planning to bring down to Congress. The product is being assembled here in Vermont by a Vermonter. Then we have jobs to install that product on people’s homes. We’re saving Vermonters money on their energy bill. And finally, we’re reducing our fossil fuel use and our greenhouse gas emissions. So it really is a win-win-win situation here in Vermont.” Tom Berry, legislative aid to Senator Leahy, offered “Where it’s getting done right now in the United States on climate change and energy conservation is the local level. Senator Leahy would like to offer his congratulations to all the partners making this happen on the ground in Vermont right now, creating jobs and conserving energy.”

With the costs of fossil fuels continuing to rise, solar hot water systems can save a typical, four-person household, thousands of dollars in the uncertain years ahead. Co-op Solar systems can be financed through local credit unions and banks, which helps to make the program accessible to just about anyone. Certified local contractors install the solar hot water heating systems, usually in less than a day. “It may be the best investment you can make for your home and planet,” said Quinney.

The program has been expanded for 2013 and is open to any home or business owner within the service territory of the Energy Co-op of Vermont, including Chittenden County and parts of Grand Isle, Franklin, Lamoille, and Washington counties. The Co-op Solar program runs through April 30th, though state incentive funds may run out sooner. Solar open houses and public information events are planned and will be taking place in the Co-op Solar communities. Interested participants can sign up for a free, no obligation site assessment to see how much they can save by going solar. The online sign up form and additional information can be found at www.Co-opSolar.net.

The Energy Co-op of Vermont is a member-owned cooperative, delivering fuel oil, kerosene and wood pellets, and offering the installation and servicing of efficient heating equipment to a membership of 2,100 Vermonters. For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Ben Griffin by phone at (802) 395-1388 or by email at ben@ecvt.net.

Share Sustainably

Can fossil-fuel tax benefits boost the renewable energy industry? | Midwest Energy News

Sweetwater

This article, written by Dan Haugen, (here’s some of his work) was originally published by Midwest Energy News

Since the 1980s, U.S. oil and gas companies have benefited from a tax loophole big enough to build a pipeline through.

By organizing as a type of partnership instead of a corporation, companies that extract, process or transport “depletable” natural resources have been exempt from corporate income taxes.

That word — “depletable” — specifically excludes renewable energy, but a long-simmering effort to change that now appears to be gathering some steam in Washington.

U.S. Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, introduced a bill last year that would give wind, solar and other renewable projects the same tax benefit that fossil fuels have enjoyed for decades.

The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act has picked up bipartisan support, including Republicans from oil-rich states such as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Ted Poe of Texas.

But the bill also finds itself going against broader political momentum in Congress to eliminate loopholes and exemptions in order to raise revenue and lower tax rates.

Leveling the playing field

The first master limited partnership, or MLP, was devised in 1981 by a Minneapolis drilling and exploration company, Apache Oil Corp., now based in Houston. The structure offered a way to sell publicly tradable stock without being taxed as a corporation.

The model quickly spread to other oil and gas firms, as well as other industries seeking the same tax advantages, including real estate, hotels and motels, and restaurants. By the time Congress intervened in 1987, even the Boston Celtics had formed an MLP.

Worried that too many corporations would become MLPs to avoid taxes, Congress prohibited them except for companies that earn 90 percent of their income from specific investment, real estate and natural resource activities, including oil and gas operations.

“It just doesn’t make any sense. It never made any sense why MLPs were available to them and not to us,” says Blake Nixon, president of Geronimo Wind, a Minnesota wind developer that has been lobbying for MLP changes since 2009.

Allowing renewable companies to organize as MLPs is among a handful of tax reforms the industry and its supporters say will help level the playing field with fossil fuels. Others include allowing them to organize as real estate investment trusts, or REITs, and letting renewable tax credits be claimed by more types of investors.

Need for financial innovation

Setting up renewable projects as MLPs would make it easier to sell shares to individuals and institutional investors such as pension funds. Widening the pool of potential investors would inject new competition, which could lower the cost of financing projects, and ultimately lower the cost of renewable power.

Currently, there are only about 20 large financial institutions that have large enough tax bills to claim the full value of federal credits awarded to renewable projects. Wind and solar developers that want to take advantage of the credits need to recruit one of these players to invest in every single project.

“They basically get to set terms,” says Nixon. “Because there’s so few of them, there’s very little flexibility in the terms and in the costs of the money. There’s very little competition among them to drive those costs down.”

Even though borrowing rates are at historic lows, these large renewable investors charge interest rates of 8 to 9 percent, after tax, per project, says Nixon, compared to 4 to 5 percent that’s common for MLPs.

As the cost of wind and solar technology has fallen, financing costs have stayed high and become a bigger share of overall project costs, says Felix Mormann, an associate professor of law at the University of Miami and a fellow at Stanford’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance.

“It’s time for us to complement ongoing technology innovation with critical financial innovation,” says Mormann.

Mormann co-authored a Brookings Institute report published in November called “Smarter Finance for Cleaner Energy: Open Up Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to Renewable Energy Investment.”

Not a ‘magic potion’

MLPs aren’t a “magic potion,” however, warns Joe Condo, vice president and general counsel for Chicago renewable developer Invenergy, which has lobbied for MLP changes for several years.

“One concern we have is that some folks who support MLP are saying maybe this is a replacement for [production tax credits],” says Condo. “We don’t agree with that.”

The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank, agrees. In a 2011 policy brief it concluded, “Because MLP s would only increase the eligible investor pool … by themselves they would most likely not supplant the tax incentives currently in place.”

Coons’ bill is getting more attention than previous efforts to extend MLPs to renewables, but they’ve still been getting “a fair amount of pushback from Capitol Hill,” says Keith Martin, a lawyer and lobbyist with Washington, D.C., firm Chadbourne & Parke.

Martin is scheduled to speak about MLPs and REITs next week at the Wind Power Finance & Investment Summit in San Diego.

If the bill advances, it would likely move forward as part of a broader corporate tax reform bill that Congress is expected to take up either this year or next year, says Martin. Even if it succeeds, the impact could be muted if Congress decides to tax partnerships, as some have proposed.

Martin says both parties want to lower the current 35 percent corporate income tax rate. Democrats want to lower it to 28 percent and Republicans are aiming for 25 percent.

“It’s a monumental task to take the rate that low,” says Martin.

Adding exemptions will make it tougher. A 2011 Congressional Research Service reportestimated that extending MLPs to renewable energy firms would cost the U.S. Treasury about $2.8 billion between 2010 and 2014.

An alternative, that report suggests, if the goal is a level playing field: close the loophole for oil and gas companies.

~ I hope you’ll share a few of your thoughts in the comment section below. I also hope you check out the source article and read the comments there.

via Can fossil-fuel tax benefits boost the renewable energy industry? | Midwest Energy News.

Share Sustainably

Obama under pressure after Nebraska governor signs off on Keystone XL

A day after promising action on climate change, president now faces crucial test of commitment to environmental causes

Environmental activiss protest against Keystone XL pipeline heading for the White House

Barack Obama’s powerful call for climate action faced an immediate test on Tuesday, with the president forced into a decision on one of the most contentious items on his agenda: the Keystone XL pipeline.

A day after Obama made a strong commitment to climate in his inaugural address, the governor of Nebraska signed off on the pipeline, leaving it up to the White House to decide on the fate of the project.

“Construction and operation of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline … would have minimal environmental impacts in Nebraska,” Dave Heineman, the governor of Nebraska, wrote in a letter to the White House.

The approval now leaves the fate of a project seen as a litmus test of the administrations environmental credentials entirely in Obamas hands.

It also removes any breathing space the president might have had to put together a plan to make good on the stirring promises on climate in his inaugural address.

Republicans immediately pushed Obama to approve the pipeline.

“There is no bureaucratic excuse, hurdle or catch President Obama can use to delay this project any further,” John Boehner, the Republican speaker, said in a statement. “He and he alone stands in the way of tens of thousands of new jobs and energy security.”

Obama called a halt on the Keystone XL project a year ago, citing opposition from Heineman and local landowners in Nebraska to the proposed pipeline route.

Heineman, a Republican, had initially held off on approving the pipeline, which would carry crude from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on Texas Gulf coast, because of concerns about its proposed route.

Now with Heineman signing off on the pipeline, that political cover is gone, leaving it up to Obama to make a decision on a project that has come to symbolise the clash between environmental protection and economic growth.

In the letter, Heineman said he was satisfied with the revised pipeline route, which would avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.

The route would still cross part of a crucial aquifer. However, Heineman said he was satisfied with the safety plan put forward by the pipeline operators, TransCanada.

“The concerns of Nebraskans have had a major influence on the pipeline route,” he wrote.

Campaigners accused Heineman of selling out Nebraska landowners.

“Governor Heineman just performed one of the biggest flip-flops that weve in Nebraska political history,” said Jane Kleeb, the executive director of the group Bold Nebraska.

The move now puts Obama under immediate pressure to render his decision on the pipeline. With Nebraska on board, there is only one major hurdle remaining for the Keystone XL project. The State Department must review and approve the nearly 1,800-mile route because its crosses an international border.

The looming decision has compounded the pressure on Obama, only a day after he raised expectations for action on climate in his second term.The White House was already being pressed for specifics of Obamas climate plan at Tuesdays press briefing. Tuesdays moves further ramps up the pressure.

The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, offered no new details, and may have dialled back the climate cause by reaffirming Obamas commitment to developing Americas home grown fossil fuels. He also declined to say much about the pipeline decision.

Environmental groups argue that Obama has no other choice but to block the pipeline – if he is indeed serious about acting on climate change. They had also hoped that the incoming secretary of state, John Kerry, would be more inclined to block the project than Hillary Clinton. The State Department had earlier determined the project would have only minimal effects on the environment – though that review has been much criticised by environmental groups.

The project is crucial for landlocked Alberta, which is facing difficulty getting its vast store of crude out of the ground and into American and European markets. But it would also unlock a big source of carbon, and tie Americas economy more closely to the burning of fossil fuels.

Campaign groups are planning a day of protests at the White House and around the country on February 17 to try to force Obama to block the project. “If President Obama is serious about tackling climate change, he needs to reject KXL once and for all, and were not going away until that happens,” campaign groups 350.org and Sierra Club said in a statement.

Suzanne Goldenberg is the US environment correspondent of the Guardian and is based in Washington DC. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle East, and in 2003 covered the US invasion of Iraq from Baghdad. She is author of Madam President, about Hillary Clinton's historic run for White House

Suzanne Goldenberg is the US environment correspondent of the Guardian and is based in Washington DC. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle East, and in 2003 covered the US invasion of Iraq from Baghdad. She is author of Madam President, about Hillary Clinton’s historic run for White House

via Obama under pressure after Nebraska governor signs off on Keystone XL | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Share Sustainably

Scientists Urge Parties, Populace, To Find Common Ground On Climate

Is Climate Change Real? Scientist seem to think so.

Tom Zeller Jr

Even among those who agree on the broad contours of climate change science — that is, that the planet is warming, and largely as a result of mankind’s prodigious use of fossil fuels — finding common ground on what to do about it, particularly given the divisive politics on Capitol Hill, is no easy task.

As I and others have noted in the past, a fundamental clash in world views between left and right often makes it impossible for either side to hear reasonable appeals to consensus on the climate problem — infrequent as those appeals tend to be.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, the environmental organization based in Cambridge, Mass., is attempting to cut through the static with a new video featuring two scientists — one politically conservative, the other tending toward the Democrats — who make the case for cooperation.

“Leaders of both parties need to take seriously what science tells us,” says Peter Frumhoff, the science and policy director at UCS and the left-leaning half of the production, in the video posted on Wednesday. Frumhoff is joined in his appeal by Kerry Emmanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, who is described as a Republican supporter.

“It’s a conclusion based on established physics,” Emmanuel says of human-driven global warming, “and on evidence gathered from satellite data, ancient ice cores, temperature stations, and fossilized trees and corals.”

The pair urge viewers to discuss the issue — and to share the video — with family and friends who might not align with them politically. They also urge viewers to call Congress and demand efforts toward consensus. “It’s time to find common ground,” they say.

Indeed.

Follow Tom Zeller Jr. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tomzellerjr

via Tom Zeller Jr.: Scientists Urge Parties, Populace, To Find Common Ground On Climate.

Share Sustainably

Extension of wind energy credits to boost local industry

blyth-offshore-wind-turbineProduction Tax Credit Boosts New England Wind Industry

The extension of wind energy tax credits — passed as part of the fiscal cliff deal — includes a key change that will make it easier for wind ­developers in Massachusetts and elsewhere to obtain what are viewed as crucial incentives for a burgeoning industry.

In Massachusetts, the tax credits have helped spur new wind development. Last year, for example, at least half a dozen projects — including the largest in the state, the Hoosac wind farm in the towns of Florida and Monroe — doubled the state’s wind energy generated capacity over the last decade to 99 megawatts, or enough to power at least 26,000 homes.

Legislation passed by Congress on Tuesday ­extended two programs that support wind development, a growing segment of the energy mix in Massachusetts and the nation as policy makers seek clean energy sources to help combat climate change.

The production tax credit pays eligible projects 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 10 years of production, making the energy competitive with electricity generated by natural gas. The investment tax credit pays 30 percent of costs for small, community wind farms and offshore wind projects.

Lawmakers tweaked the eligibility requirements so that projects that begin construction in 2013 may apply for the incentives. Previously, projects had to be generating power by year’s end to qualify. That was an uncertain prospect that made it more difficult to attract financing, given the length of time — 18 to 24 months — and complexity of building a wind farm.

<br />

 

The change, state officials and wind energy developers said, should boost development in Massachusetts and elsewhere because it provides investors with the assurance they need to back wind projects.

“The financing community, the banks, need to have some consistency,” said the state’s energy and environmental affairs secretary, Richard K. Sullivan Jr. “They need to know that they’re going to have these credits.”

The language change means Cape Wind will qualify for tax credits, if the controversial 420 megawatt project starts construction in the waters off Cape Cod this year as expected. Project spokesman Mark Rodgers declined to comment on Cape Wind specifically, but said the tax credits’ renewal will help to expand wind energy development — onshore and off.

“The United States can maximize the energy, economic and environmental benefits wind power can provide by expanding onshore wind while also launching a domestic offshore wind industry,” Rodgers said in a statement.

Congress has allowed wind energy tax credits to expire in the past, and each time it has, wind projects have stalled and workers have lost jobs. The American Wind Energy Association, estimated that 37,000 jobs could have been lost this year if Congress had not included the credits in the fiscal cliff deal.

Many believe that allowing developers to claim the credit by simply beginning construction was essential to any sort of wind development this year, given that the credit was extended at the last minute. Without the new language, few would have been able to start and finish projects soon enough to take advantage of the incentives.

“It would have made 2013 a very dreary one, there’s no doubt about it,” said Paul Gaynor, chief executive of Boston-based First Wind, which has developed nearly 1,000 megawatts worth of wind projects in half a dozen states.

Now, however, Gaynor and his staff of 175 employees are gearing up for one of their busiest years, he said.

”I sent around an all-employee call this morning that said, ‘Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a pretty productive year,’ ” Gaynor said.

via Extension of wind energy credits to boost local industry – Business – The Boston Globe.

Share Sustainably
Seo Packages
What is seo - seo tips