Texas Comptroller tells Lege to start favoring oil and gas more

If wind power's not going to get special tax breaks, and never has gotten road repair subsidies or similar, isn't that really Comptroller Susan Combs' actual message, what I put in the header, and not her strident screech that wind power needs to be cut off from the state tax teat?

I'm not alone in saying that, either:

Jeff Clark, executive director of The Wind Coalition, said Combs’ report is unbalanced, misinformed and repeats the “flawed talking points pushed by the anti-renewables lobby.” 

“Texas’ wind energy industry has now invested more than $26 billion in 56 counties across Texas and provides 10 percent of the state’s electricity supply cleanly, reliably, cheaply, and without using water,” Clark said. 

Furthermore, he said, the wind power installed in Texas will avoid 23,103,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, the equivalent of taking 4,075,000 cars off the road. 

Clark also notes that the state continues to heavily subsidize the oil and gas industry at the same time.

And, that's far more than allegedly "clean" fracked natural gas will do, those green energy figures.

Clark also isn't alone. Note this:

Environmentalists criticized the report, saying it took a blinkered approach to energy policy. 

It understates the subsidies given to natural gas, nuclear and coal plants, said Tom Smith, head of the Austin office of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, and “ignores totally the costs of hidden environmental damages caused by these types of plants — such as the wastes from coal mining, fracking or nuclear power generation.” 

Russel Smith, head of the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association, said he had no comment on the Combs report, but in June he told the Statesman that rolling back support for wind power “ignores the obvious — that all energy sources have and continue to receive governmental support.”

Per comments in this piece by State Sen. Troy Fraser, the real issues is that the O&G industry has long, and historically well-developed, lobbying tentacles.

Plus, we haven't even talked about solar power, an area where Texas, despite its semi-tropical location, large amounts of sun (especially in West Texas, where higher altitude also helps) and other advantages, lags sadly behind other states.

As for Combs? As Texas Public Citizen showed three years ago, Combs has a long history of fighting renewable energy, speaking of O&G tentacles.

She also has a long history of being subservient to it in anti-environmental ways, as just documented again.

Obama's #green #jobs #fail

Boy, it's a bad day for Dear Leader when he's exposed as being even more anti-environmental by being OK with some smog, by the neoliberal portion of his claims to environmentalism being a big fail as another "green jobs company" shuts down in large part because this neoliberal president, in touting green jobs and refuses to do anything about China subsidizing such jobs itself, even as his own administration touts Chinese job creation:

Last week, for instance, the White House's U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, said we shouldn't be concerned with jobs that are about "making things that, frankly, we don't want to make in America -- you know, cheaper products, low-skill jobs."

Just a few short grafs show how much of a disconnect there is between Obama the myth and Obama the reality.

Here's more on the stupidity of subsidizing solar development projects while China subsidizes the hardware they need.

Meanwhile, environmental groups act surprised about all this. Why? As a senator, Obama had no problem with favoring anti-environmental ethanol, taking nuclear power industry campaign contributions, and telling fluffery about  "clean coal."

Well, "Gang Green" environmentalist groups. As the story notes, folks like CBD are ready to move on, in at least some way and sense.

“I think that two-plus years into Obama’s presidency is more than enough time for him to have established a clear weak record,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Can't say it any better than that, other than noting he never had a strong record to start with. When he appointed Kenny Boy Salazar as Secretary of the Interior, that should have been a signal right there. But, between the soft bigotry of low post-BushCo expectations, combined with "Gang Green" environmentalists often thinking in terms of "access" first, Obama got a pass.

There's not much that could be uglier than this, a failure on environmental issues in general connected with a failure on green jobs ...

Other than his August #fail on jobs in general. The mix of weak, clueless, timid and kowtowing to Wall Street is simply unacceptable. And, as long as the Senate has 41 Democrats with any more backbone than Dear Leader, how can most of the GOP presidential offerings really be that bad? (That's for people who don't like me saying "vote Green" and claim it's a wasted vote.)

UPDATE 1: Meanwhile, here's the details on the amount of growth of those Chinese solar plants, and details on their subsidization by Beijing. And, it's not cheap labor that's the driver on the expansion: it's government subsidies and tax breaks. That's clearly illegal, but yet, we haven't protested yet. (I don't know about the European Union, which has followed an American-type path of subsidizing solar panel use more than its manufacture.)

So, we can't totally blame Obama for the plant closures. That said, we CAN blame him for not seeing this coming down the road, for touting "green jobs" when he knew it wasn't true, and for pounding federal financial aid down a rathole when these companies were up against China.

The story notes that the administration did challenge similar Chinese practice on wind turbines, but by that time, the years of waiting (thanks BushCo, there) had let China build up its turbine industry to where it didn't matter. Democratic neoliberalism following in the footsteps of GOP hollowing-out. What a bad combination.

UPDATE 2: Sorry, Obama, but your "jobs-killing" excuse for this retreat? Businesses say regulatory issues aren't a concern.

 On re-election odds? I put Obama's chances against anybody not named Paul, Palin or Bachmann at less than 50 percent. And, sorry, Texans who know all about Rick Perry; I agree with polls, and see them holding true in the future.

Germany starts kids off 'green'

This is a GREAT idea: 'green,' environmentally sustainable toys for kids. I'd love some U.S. company — an American-based manufacturer, not just an American-incorporated Mattel or whatever — to start something similar. (It would have to be a U.S. company, because you know no Chinese manufacturer would do this.)

That said, in Germany as in America, there's a difference between what people will tell the general public, or even more, a pollster, and what they will actually do:
Robert von Goeben, co-founder of San Francisco-based Green Toys Inc., started making toys and other children's products from recycled milk jugs in 2008. Since then, he said, sales have exploded, recording 80 percent growth last year as demand for the toymaker's bright tugboats, pastel tea sets and colorful trucks surged.

"I think that the success of our company, shows that there is clearly a wide segment of the population that will pay a little more for environmentally friendly toys," said von Goeben, whose toys cost roughly a third more than comparable playthings made from conventional materials.

But Wild Toys, makers of animal figures and exploration sets, said their experience had shown otherwise.

The company, which sells mainly to zoos and museum shops, jumped on the green bandwagon two years ago, bringing out a line of purely organic plush animals, even making sure the cotton for the stuffing was grown with organic fertilizer. The toys cost about 25 percent more than their conventional counterparts.

"They are still sitting in our warehouse," said Wild Toys spokesman Valdemar Barde, adding that consumers are not yet ready to swallow the cost of going green in the toy box.

"We are still in that phase on toys that consumers say, 'Yes, we want to be green, but no, we don't want to pay for it."

But according to a survey conducted by the Nuremberg toy fair, roughly a third of consumers in Germany said they would pay 10 to 20 percent more for playthings made from sustainable products, also with an eye to their longevity.

Von Goeben notes the Chinese quality/safety concern, though, versus naysayers. And, in both Germany and America, the cost of "green" materials wouldn't add THAT much; the home manufacturing costs vs. Beijing would be half of the price difference, I'm sure. The flip side is that would be local, "green" jobs of a lower technical level than solar panels or something.

Sierra Club, hoist by its own green building petard

HAH!

The Sierra Club does NOT have rooftop solar panels at its HQ and gets busted.

But, wait, that's not all.

A Sierra Club staffer, in a comment to the blog post linked above. then notes the building is rented.

But, wait, that's not all, you Gang Green employee shill.

OK, prod the landlord, then. Or do what the Natural Resources Defense Council, a slightly more enlightened Gang Greener, did:

NRDC, down in Southern California, moved into its own new Western Regional HQ in 2003 that has solar panels, water recapture, energy conservation, etc., all adding up to an LEED Platinum certification.

More on the NRDC facility here:

NRDC's new headquarters, however, uses 60 to 75 percent less energy than a conventional building of its size, gets 100 percent of its energy from carbon-free renewables, and consumes 60 percent less drinking water. As (NRDC senior scientist Robert) Watson estimated, "If all commercial buildings in the U.S. were as efficient as ours, the country would achieve 70 percent of its Kyoto Protocol obligation."

So, why won't Sierra either pressure its landlord, or else build its own HQ? Hell, it's got all that Clorox greenwash money. It's surely also saving money from suspending the Florida chapter's leadership for protesting over that.

So, Sierra Club? Put up, or STFU.

Prop. 23 - The final failure of early 20th-century Progressivism?

The Big Oil-funded Proposition 23 in California, if it succeeds, may well spell the end to early 20th century Gov. Hiram Johnson's three-legged stool of progressive reforms of a century ago. Andrew Leonard has some thoughts on this proposition itself, but doesn't carry his reasoning nearly far enough.

It's clear that all three of the three legs of Hiram Johnson's stool of initiative, referendum and recall are broken.

The Davis fiasco (thank doorknob Issa wasn't elected to replace him) showed Big Money could corrupt recalls.

The initiative process has already long been corrupted.

And, as Prop. 23 is a referendum on previous state actions, not just an initiative, it looks like that third leg is about to disintegrate, too.

China: Green cheater or green genius

On the surface, it certainly appears the great Red giant is a big Green cheat. Surprised? It's industrial policy, mercantilist trade, etc., right?

Well, first, it couldn't be a big Green cheat without lots of enabling by the U.S. and the EU. Nobody's filing WTO antidumping cases, even though this is clearly what Beijing is doing.

(M)ultinational companies and trade associations in the clean energy business, as in many other industries, have been wary of filing trade cases, fearing Chinese officials’ reputation for retaliating against joint ventures in their country and potentially denying market access to any company that takes sides against China.

And, proof this is not just illegal subsidies, but will actually become "dumping," if not already?

Government-subsidized turbine makers are now preparing for large-scale exports to the United States and Europe, which could also result in violations of W.T.O. rules.

Chicken-shittedness is alive and well, in other words. And, this isn't "unskilled labor," like making plastic trinkets arguably is.

In fact, this is at the heart of Preznit Kumbaya's green jobs push. Which is rapidly being undercut:

China is also on track to make nearly half of the world’s wind turbines this year. China offers financial incentives for utilities to use wind power, which is less costly than solar power, and the country passed the United States last year as the world’s largest wind turbine market.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is "beginning discussions" on how to respond. Just like this administration, a day late and 8.3 yuan short.

Instead of "beginning discussions," Team Obama needs to listen to Alan Tonelson and Kevin L. Kearns of the United States Business and Industry Council. The pair argue that we need to continue reducing our trade deficit as one part of continuing to stimulate the economy. Fighting Chinese dumping in green manufacture would be a good part of that program.

For a further look at some of these arguments, with a somewhat different angle than mine, visit Salon.

So much for Obama's green jobs

Half the world's solar panels are already made in China, and Tom Friedman notes that's only going to increase.

A 10K-sized McMansion is NOT 'green'

I don't care if the size of "just" the house itself is "only" 6,500 square feet.

It sounds like the system Berkeley used to green-certify this behemoth is lacking in some areas, such as amount of mature trees to be cut down, use, or lack thereof, of recycled materials, and more.

Obama's 'green jobs' push takes another hit

Another "giant sucking sound," to riff on Ross Perot, as China is now the world's largest maker of wind turbines.

“Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.

That said, the story notes that China now has the world's largest electric power market and also its fastest growing. So, much of that increase in manufacturing will be for domestic use, but Obama's "green jobs" could be short-term construction/installation of turbines as much as building them.

That said, a lot of turbines aren't yet on China's electric grid, which appears to still be less efficient than ours. Speaking of such things, unless Beijing threatens to shoot shoddy manufacturers, made-in-China turbines may not be so great after all.

Also, China has the grandest plans for wind power. That said, at least Beijing is buying solar panels from the U.S, at least for now.

Cheap solar power needs Obama help

But, so far, Stan Ovshinksy isn’t getting government love.

China going greener

As Tom Friedman notes, China’s major commitment to green power is twofold — Beijing recognizes major climate-change problems at home, and it sees the green of dollar signs, through exporting green manufactured products.

Result? By the end of this year, China should pass us as the No. 1 producer of wind power. Another “decline and fall” moment for the U.S.?

Hyundai goes green for $3 bil

Korean carmaker Hyundai will invest more than $3 billion in various “green” ideas, including hybrid drives, hydrogen fuel cells, finding weight savings on materials and more.

In comparable terms, it would be like General Motors investing $50 billion. Fat chance of that.

Shopping green and sustainable – at WallyWorld?

First, per the story, if any company can start a national retailer trend in documenting the carbon footprint of manufacture, etc. it is indeed Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart plans to begin by asking its more than 100,000 suppliers around the world to answer 15 simple questions about the sustainable practices of their companies. Questions include “Have you set publicly available greenhouse gas reduction targets? If yes, what are those targets?”

But, at the same time, even thought WallyWorld has invited other discount retailers to participate, I am sure there’s a financial angle somewhere.

Beyond that, will the sustainability focus on the carbon footprint of shipping all the made in China schlock here? If not, it is still a pretty hollow idea, regardless of any financial angle.

That said, I don’t know how all these American suppliers would deal with the double-whipsaw of WallyWorld pushing for low prices and carbon cleanliness at the same time.

Finally, if this is real — Wal-Mart, will you extend it to human rights and labor rights, too? And, with real certification inspections?

Listen up, pocketbook anti-greens

Global wind energy grew nearly 30 percent last year, with the growth rate being highest in the U.S. (Germany is still No. 1 in percentage of electric power derived from wind, despite being a less windy country.)

China doubled its wind power. European countries besides Germany saw large increases.

Bottom line is, people wouldn’t be expanding wind power this much if it weren’t viable.

Romm, McKibben, Whitehead push ‘green’ stimulus

With one notable caveat and one big WHY

First, let me get to the WHY, because it’s near the top of the article the three wrote on Salon.

McKibben says:

I think we should at least keep in mind the possibility that we won't really get out of this economic crisis -- that far from being a cyclical downturn, it may be a signal of something more remarkable: the confluence of forces, like peak oil, finally starting to bring our growth era to an end. If so, it makes sense to push at least a little investment in the direction of infrastructure that would support a different kind of economy than the one we've spent the last hundred years building.

Indeed, what if?

Romm has a laundry list of green stimulus specifics he suggests.

And Whitehead has the caveat:

Basic Keynesian macroeconomic theory states that deficit spending can be used to help an economy recover from a downturn. We've been applying deficit spending for the past eight years or so and we are staring at an ugly recession. Deficit spending did not prevent the recession, so it may be that further deficit spending is not the answer.

So, in different ways, both McKibben and Whitehead are saying we need to think NEW, not just think big, on fiscal actions.

Read the full article; it’s got some good insights.

Wally World, Mckey D’s go green

First, I disagree with some of the critics cited in this story – a green building is a green building, period, no matter who owns it, what they sell there and whether the parking lot is full or not. What, you want stores with fewer customers?

At the same time, these critics miss the boat by focusing on environmental issues only, rather than saying something like:

How do we use this as leverage to work on getting Wal-Mart to be more labor friendly?

Sierra Club green jobs hypocrisy follow-up

Last night, I blogged about Sierra’s trumpeting its participation in the Green Jobs for American program, along with NRDC and the Steelworkers, but noted that, in the past, tchotchkes for membership renewals seem to not come from this country.

So I e-mailed, direct to Executive Director Carl Pope, asking if the gimme garden back offered on an envelope flier inside the latest issues of Sierra mag, came from inside the U.S. or not.

Per Sierra Club’s Director of Marketing Membership Johanna O’Kelly, that would be a big nugatory on their tchotchke backpacks creating green jobs in the U.S. of A. Via e-mail:

Our Green Jobs initiative revolves around jobs that are focused on providing eco-preferable products/services from energy and energy-saving devices to organic materials. Unfortunately, backpacks do not usually fall into that Green category since they have to meet certain basic criteria for consumers’ usage, such as water resistant, light weight, durable, etc.

Backpacks do relate well to our mission as we were formed as an outings
organizations with the thought that if you get someone outdoors, they are much more likely to help protect those places. Our bags are made overseas in one of several factories that have been inspected by a US auditing company of our choosing for meeting our workplace code of conduct standards. They are well made and last a long time and thus stay out of the waste stream longer as well.

So, let me unpack this big steaming pile of crapola, per the follow-up questions I e-mailed to O’Kelley.

1. Doesn’t fuel costs for shipping from China (unless Sierra discloses what country these gimme gifts come from, China is the empirically logical assumption) count as part of the green issue?

2. Doesn’t the higher pollution from Chinese factories, Chinese coal-fired electric plants, etc. count as part of the green issue?

3. In your second sentence, it sounds like you're saying, in essence, that American manufacturers can't make something that good, or at least, they can't make something that good at Chinese sweat equity wages. Well, just as people like Michael Klare note that U.S. military costs ought to be factored into the “true” cost of oil, shouldn't Chinese environmental degradation be factored into the "true" cost of Made in China?

4. If you want (to hand out) a tchotchke, why not hook the Sierra wagon to the carbon-offset star and plant 10 trees in the name of each member upon renewal?

And, that fourth comment was not meant as snark. I seriously mean that.

Sierra with your bags, WWF with your stuffed pandas and polar bears, and any other enviro groups passing out cheap made in China crap, STOP! Especially if you’re going to claim you’re trying to great more environmentally-based jobs in America.

In a follow-up e-mail, O’Kelley’s eyes may have opened:

On the fuel costs, you’re right I need to do that calculation again since it has been so long. … I think it is pretty fuel efficient but I need to probably figure this again. And we only have the factories do cut and sew — no mfg. And you are right about the US. mfg. There so few factories left. But again, as I mentioned before we do have these places inspected. You can go here for more info: http://www.fairlabor.org/all/code/index.html

And as for premiums, we test a myriad of things and we go with whatever produces the most membership sign-ups. We have not tried carbon offsets but have tried things such as compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) which unfortunately did not work well. Maybe we will give the carbon offset a try sometime although we find that most people want something tangible for themselves ... but maybe I’ll try it though. Thanks for the idea.

Mercedes going REALLY green

It’s planning the first commercial production diesel-engine hybrid. Imagine an SUV that gets 40mpg.

(Note: Ford had a diesel-hybrid car as a concept vehicle several years ago, but even with the new clean diesel, has not seen fit to bring it to market. The Big Three, geniuses again!)

Mercedes also plans three diesel-hybrid cars. All four vehicles will use its BlueTek four-cylinder diesel engine.

And, this SUV is not sacrificing Mercedes-style power. It’s got a 0-60 time of 7.3 seconds. Plus, it claims to be even cleaner than any of Toyota’s gasoline-hybrid SUVs.

Aviation world going greener

A hydrogen-powered car may be years if not decades away from reality due to infrastructure issues, but a hydrogen-powered plane? Already here. Boeing recently gave a hydrogen-powered plane its maiden flight, but cautioned the technology was just suitable for small private planes.

Meanwhile, in Paris, Orly Airport is tapping into geothermal energy for green terminals.

And, not just the terminals itself. A Hilton Hotel and two airport-based business districts will also be hooked into the system, which could provide one-third the area’s power.

The real call for the next Prez not at 3 a.m.

Instead, as Joseph Romm, author of the excellent book “The Hype About Hydrogen” (five-starred by me on Amazon) says, the next president will have a daily call for global warming action.

Romm says either Clinton or Obama would definitely be better than McCain at answering this call, but that we shouldn’t expect either one to be a miracle worker:

Before I look in depth at them, the first thing to make clear is that no president, not even a modern-day Lincoln or FDR, could possibly stop global warming even by their second term. The increase in concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is primarily what determines how much humans will increase the planet's temperature. To stop concentrations from rising further, the entire planet will have to reduce total annual emissions at least 60 percent or more from current levels, including carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Absent a World War II-type mobilization, that kind of dramatic change in the planet's energy system will take a few decades.

Beyond a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system (which in the Clinton and Obama platforms calls for deeper CO2 cuts than Schmuck Talk Express™ does), Romm says the next president has other global warming calls to make:

• Appoint judges who will uphold laws to reduce emissions against challenges from the big polluters.
• Appoint leaders and staff of key federal agencies who take climate change seriously and believe in the necessary solutions.
• Embrace an aggressive and broad-based technology deployment strategy to keep the cost of the cap-and-trade system as low as possible.
• Lead a change in utility regulations to encourage, rather than discourage, energy efficiency and clean energy.
• Offer strong public advocacy to reverse the years of muzzling and misinformation of the Bush administration.

Romm says both understand the need for major upgrades to the electric power grid, and changing how utilities do business.

And, despite pandering toward coal and ethanol interests, especially on Obama’s part, Romm says both candidates calls for lower-CO2 fuels will rule out serious increases in either ethanol or coal gasification.

As for either one being better than Mad Max McCain, Schmuck Talk has already said he would vote against clean energy tax credits already on the books.

And the need for more than the current do-nothingism? Huge:

That is why China is projected to be the top producer of both solar photovoltaic cells and wind turbines by 2010.

We’re getting our ass kicked on green energy, and there’s plenty of jobs out there if we want to stop getting our ass kicked.