According to Ecorazzi, president-elect Barack Obama spoke on TV about his plans to green up the White House. Part of the plan is to evaluate its energy efficiency and set an example to the American people by doing so. That’s the way to go. Change has to be inspired from the top and considering Obama’s prestige at present, he’s potential to inspire people is immense.

Speaking of the people, the streets of London will be swarmed by protesters on Saturday, 06 December, demanding firmer action on climate change. Called National Climate March, it is being organized by the Campaign Against Climate Change, whose objective is to “bring people together to push for the urgent and resolute action we need to prevent the catastrophic destabilization of global climate”. I will be joining the march in Central London and will publish a report on the experience, so watch this space.

Have a great weekend!

This is not a letter from ExxonMobil, BP, or any other large corporation.

This is a letter from the small businesses that drill America’s oil and natural gas.

They want to be part of the Obama’s energy plan. They want the facts as they know them to be out there and included in the decision making process.

Petroleum and natural gas are not just used for energy production. They are used as raw materials and for heating in manufacturing and chemical processes as well.

I do not know what the IPAA thinks about the idea of Peak Oil, but I believe that oil will run out and that this means we need to start now how to not only power our cars and homes without the fossil fuels, but we need to figure out other manufacturing processes that do not need these scarce materials as well.

Yes, some chemical processes need heat, but perhaps there are different chemical pathways that use less heat. Yes, right now fertilizer is made with petroleum products. Is there a different way?

I applaud the IPAA as a front for all those small businesses that drill oil in America. I applaud the point of view and the facts they present at IPAA.org, but I feel bad that they will go away as oil goes away.

From the Newsweek teaser on the 2008 presidential race,

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, “I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”

I have to disagree with our president-elect. He is now our leader. He has to lead us: sometimes by words, sometimes by example.

But he must be reading my blog. It is something collective we must do, and we must be led there. By myself, my few actions will affect nothing. No one at Dominion Power notices that my heat is set low, or that I take warm showers, not hot ones. There is no glacier melting more slowly due to my actions.

It isn’t going to take a village to change where our world is going regarding climate change. It isn’t going to take a nation. It is going to take a world lead well.

Lead well, Mr. President.

I was thrilled to follow the American presidential election this week. A huge turnout, the outpour of emotion … it was quite moving to see all citizens swept up by the energy of political renovation. Speaking of energy, what does the new political scenario mean for the renewable energy sector? Enter Renewable Energy World with an article exactly on this topic. “President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate will have many items on the clean-energy agenda in 2009. Extending the Production Tax Credit, creating a Renewable Portfolio Standard and passing carbon cap and trade legislation are some of the top goals for lawmakers”, it says.

Bloomberg also has written about the impact of the new presidency on renewables and sounded a positive note, saying that Barack may speed into the conversion to “an economy fueled by renewable energy.” The New York Times’ Green Inc. blog also got positive feedback about Obama from various industry representatives it interviewed for this post. Finally, CNN Money opened an article saying that alternative energy sectors are likely to flourish under Obama, while fossil fuels may be in trouble.

All this could mean that there will be more jobs in the so-called green collar market. So what do you think? Will the renewable energy sector get stronger under Obama and more job opportunities will appear as a consequence?

First what are these problems? Decreasing energy supplies to go around, higher prices and costs for our energy, and environmental damage.

“But, gas prices are going down!” you are all shouting. But the war for oil: Iraq, Iran and Russia, is still going on. The pollution (a cost of petrochemical fuels) is not going away and needs to be cleaned up.

Will buying an fluorescent bulb stop any of this? No. The bulb still has to be made, packaged, marketed and shipped to a store near me. How about buying a new Hemp shower curtain to replace my evil PVC shower curtain? Not if my old shower curtain is still OK.

And the United States’ huge debt to everyone else is not good for anyone. Bankruptcy is not good for anyone. And that is where the United States is.

If you have to buy something, buy something sustainable. Let’s not dig the hole any deeper.

If you can get away from buying it, don’t.

I used to believe that it was good to buy things from China and from other third world countries since it would increase their standard of living and thus they would need to buy things from us. But that was before I understood the lack of environmental regulations and the loss of jobs here. I still want everyone (not just Americans and Europeans) to have a good standard of living, but I do not know how to make that happen. Some economists would say that it can’t happen. There is just not enough “stuff” to go around.

But I want there to be.

Does anyone else remember being a kid and having Mom say “Eat this, there are children starving in China.”? So, if I don’t buy that shower curtain, is there one extra for someone in China? Is there something left for them?

I, like John McCain, need to understand the economics of this more. But, if I use solar power, a wind turbine, a south facing home, I am leaving some energy out there in more traditional forms for others to use. If energy is the linchpin of economics, and from everything I have read, it is, then that more than anything increases everyone’s standard of living.

So what have I rambles around to? An Answer.

Using alternative energy is the only way to increase everyone’s standard of living.

As the world reels from the hurricane that has been devastating global markets, an article on the BBC website puts things into perspective. According to a new study commissioned by the European Commission, we are losing “more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis”. And how much?, I hear you ask … The study puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion, an amount calculated by adding the value of the various (free) services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.

The study was headed by a Deutsche Bank economist as a way to launch a stern and understandable message to politicians who should be giving top priority to the conservation of ecosystems and the non-human earthlings who inhabit them. It’s a no-brainer, really. We need nature to survive, otherwise we’re done with, finito! If they can find the money to bail out banks, then …

These findings were broadcast from the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona, Spain, which closes tomorrow. The event also revealed that at least 1,141 of the 5,487 mammals on Earth are known to be threatened with extinction. Which means that besides trashing the place for ourselves we are not only making the planet hell for the other animals, we are exterminating them. Let’s hope whoever takes the helm of the White House is listening.

It’s been quite a week with the arrival of Sarah Palin on the national stage of the presidential elections. We have written about candidates’ stance on green issues here. So, with the arrival of Palin, green campaigners would like to know where she stands on the issue of climate change, which is a key election issue. Nothing much has been said yet (the focus has been heavily set on Palin’s love of hunting), although a report from the Sydney Morning Herald may give us an idea:

The Alaska Governor has said that she [Palin] has tried to persuade McCain to agree with her on drilling in the wildlife refuge. She also has said that she was happy that he changed his position over the summer and now supports offshore oil drilling. Palin’s environmental views could get more of an airing now that she has landed on the national stage. Last month, the state of Alaska under Palin’s guidance sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne in an attempt to reverse his decision to list polar bears as a threatened species. Palin said that scientists’ predictions that global warming would eliminate the ice where the bears live in summer were unreliable.

Trusting scientific evidence of human-caused climate change is one of the essential motivators to look for alternative fuels, I would say. But there’s still a lot of water to pass under the elections bridge … We’ll be keeping an eye on any developments related to Palin’s stance on climate change and her views on alternative energy.

You can read all three paragraphs of Bob Barr’s energy policy here.

His policy has nothing about alternative fuels, conservation, or transportation. His policy is “Get rid of the regulations and drill.”

I was originally interested in a Libertarian party candidate. I believe we should be allowed to make our own choices. I believe we have the responsibility to live with our own choices. But government should not be drowned in a bathtub. It is one method for us to pool our resources and make big things happen. It is also a good way to make sure that people work with each other fairly. No lying on SEC statements. No lying on medical claims for drugs and therapies. No lying on contracts. No stealing from the stockholders or the pension fund.

I cannot personally fund alternative energy research in any meaningful way. But all us can with just a few pennies each.

I am not going to discuss the details of Obama’s energy plan. I am only going to discuss it in comparison with McCain’s.

First off, you can look at a summary and get to more detailed aspects of it here.

The first real difference is its length and breadth. It actually goes into detail. How much detail? It was like he was reading energyrefuge.com and putting all of our great ideas into one organized place. Insulating homes, conservation plans, increasing efficiency, reducing Federal energy spending. new technologies, electrical grid improvements. It is all discussed. He even discusses short-term fixes for oil prices which may no longer be needed since prices are dropping…I have seen $3.41 per gallon prices for gasoline. (That is a 15% drop.)

I am, however, not happy with its promise of the development of clean coal which is so far more of a pipe dream than switchgrass ethanol. But I do think that every avenue should be researched.

And something else I like was that he actually has a separate environmental program (unlike McCain who only put the environment under his energy plan.) And even though some of his environmental program mimics his energy plan, there are additional topics like improving water quality and preserving wetlands.

No matter who you are going to vote for, look at the plans and argue for those policy items that you want to be implemented.

Here is the link to John Sydney McCain III’s energy plan known as the Lexington Project.

There are a few big headings including Oil Speculation, Expanding US production, Reforming our transportation sector, Investing in clean energy, Protecting our environment, and Promoting energy efficiency. But the devil is in the details.

How many devils are in these details?

Hidden under speculative oil prevention is his caveat against a windfall profit tax against the most profitable EVER. I would argue instead for increasing the fees for all of the oil the companies are currently pumping out of our land and waters. And use that money for research and consumer support.

Hidden under Protecting the Environment is his plan for a cap and trade plan for greenhouse gas emissions. These can be rigged up to happen any way and there is always the problem with green washing. And the worse part is that this is his complete protecting the environment energy plan. The complete title for this section promises a lot more: “Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation.” There is no foundation here.

I could go on, but I suggest you read his plan for yourself, and with all political statements, read it carefully for what it has and for what it is missing.

If find some other “imps” in McCain’s plan, leave them as a comment below.