Articles by praktike

Congress pours more money down the “clean coal” drain

Just another of the many lovely turds that the House has inserted into the energy bill:

Years ago, the federal government spent $117 million on an experimental "clean coal" power plant in Alaska designed to generate electricity with a minimum of air pollution -- but the project never got up and running.

The plant, built in the late 1990s just outside Denali National Park and Preserve, never worked as it was supposed to, cost too much to operate and provided power only intermittently when it was tested, according to the utility company that was supposed to run it. Five years ago, the state closed it down.

Last week, the House came up with a solution: spend an additional $125 million in the form of government loans to convert the experimental "clean coal" facility into something that works.

Read the rest.

Altogether, there is about $1.8 billion in the House energy bill for research into "clean coal" technology. There's no doubt that coal is going to have to be a major part of America's energy future, but I'm deeply skeptical. We may simply be paying for more screwups like the one in Alaska.

If the Bush administration and the GOP Congress were serious about emissions from coal-fired power plants, it wouldn't have torched New Source Review and gutted the EPA's enforcement division.

NOW segment on global warming gets us all fired up again

So I watched Friday's NOW segment about climate change, and I'm fired up again after being somewhat discouraged for the last few years about the political atmosphere surrounding this issue. I'm also convinced that pressure to take action to reduce carbon emissions is ultimately going to have to come from the business community itself, as the reinsurance industry and other risk-averse sectors make their voices (and financial clout) heard. The utility company executive featured on NOW, James Rogers of Cinergy, had been looking at the facts and coming to the conclusion that the sooner action is taken, the better off his business will be. He cited Tony Blair's pledge to cut Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide by sixty percent over 50 years as a good example of setting a big policy goal and allowing businesses, which crave certainty, to adjust accordingly. One wonders, however, whether the British will move beyond offering a periodic "frank exchange of views" with the United States over climate change, and really push for action.

Weather prevents Bush from celebrating Earth Day

Am I the only one wondering whether the weather has a sense of humor?

President Bush canceled an Earth Day visit to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on Friday because of bad weather.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the threat of hail and thunder storms was keeping the president from visiting the park, but Air Force One still was making a brief stop at an airport outside Knoxville, Tenn., so Bush could make remarks near the park on Earth Day.

Bush then planned to fly on to Texas, where he was spending the weekend at his ranch and then hosting Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Monday.

I have a vague hunch that Bush won't be telling the Saudi dictator about his approach to energy conservation.

Climate change clown show

One of the favorite techniques of the (rapidly dwindling ranks of the) climate change deniers is to say, well, gee, there's so much uncertainty out there and we better get all the facts before we do anything whatsoever to address the danger. Obfuscate, delay, and hope for the best.

Well, it turns out that the Bush administration doesn't even want to find out what might happen because, presumably, it fears the consequences:

The Bush administration's program to study climate change lacks a major component required by law, according to Congressional investigators. The program fails to include periodic assessments of how rising temperatures may affect people and the environment.

The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, conclude in a report to be released today that none of the 21 studies of climate change that the administration plans to publish by September 2007 explicitly address the potential effects in eight areas specified by a 1990 law, the Global Change Research Act. The areas include agriculture, energy, water resources and biological diversity.

Without such an assessment, the accountability office said, "it may be difficult for the Congress and others to use this information effectively as the basis for making decisions on climate policy."

The investigators also said the program was behind schedule, with just one report on track out of nine that are to be published by next September. The 1990 law requires a report to Congress every four years on the consequences of climate change.

Shameful.

The report is here.