Break Down: Omnibus Bill's Green Spending

By now, most people know that the stimulus package was crammed with goodies for the environment. There were new tax incentives for renewable energy projects, increased spending for public transportation and funds for making the electric grid more energy efficient.

Now that the stimulus package has been passed and the money is making its way into the economy, it's time to turn our attention to the next source of environmental funding, the $410 billion Omnibus spending bill.

The Omnibus is a catch-all funding bill that provides funding necessary for 12 cabinet departments and lower federal agencies to operate. Congress was supposed to approve the Omnibus late last year, but punted the difficult vote to this year.

Here is a list of environmentally-related funding provisions in the Omnibus from the House Committee on Appropriations...

• Environmental Protection Agency: $7.6 billion - Includes $224 million in grants for states to implement the Clean Air Act, $60 million in grants to reduce emissions from diesel engines, $50 million for the Energy Star program, $10 million in grants for communities to tackle climate change.

• Department of Energy: $27 billion - $175 million for renewable energy pilot programs, $273 million for improved vehicle battery and clean fuel engine technology, $200 million in grants for weatherization, $18.5 billion for innovative technology grants and $4.8 billion for the DOE's Office of Science.

• Climate Change: $232 million - This funding goes to addressing climate change while $2 billion was set-aside to study it. For 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels generated by the U.S., $10 million. For carbon capture and sequestration projects, $3 million. For a greenhouse gas registry, $6.5 million. Finally, $14.7 million for the Global Climate Change Mitigation Fund to encourage businesses to make green changes to their operations.

• Hazardous Waste and Toxic Sites: $815 million - $605 million for 1,500 Superfund clean-up sites nation-wide. $112 million to investigate and clean-up underground toxic spills. $27 million to clean-up Brownfields' former industrial and commercial sites.
  

To see the full list of environmental spending in the omnibus, check out the list on the House Appropriations Committee's website.

2008: U.S. Biggest Producer of Wind Energy

In 2008, the United States overcame Germany to become the top wind energy producer in the world!

Much of this achievement is due to the enormous growth of wind energy producers just over the last few years. New wind projects represented 42% of America's wind energy creation in 2008. They added 8.4 gigawatts to the grid, bringing our total wind energy production to 25 gigawatts. Germany's wind energy output is 24 gigawatts.

There is plenty of room for growth as the Senate seriously considers including $31 billion worth of tax cuts for renewable energy development and President Obama plans to push a "smart" energy grid.

Europe Banning Plasma TV's

Members of the European Union have finalized provisions of a minimum energy performance standard for televisions. On average, plasma televisions burn 50% more energy than their LCD counterparts. Because of their appetite for energy, the larger size plasma TV's will probably be banned under the new EU television standard.

In addition to banning large plasma TV's, the new EU rules will also phase-out inefficient TV models and will create a labeling system that tells consumers which TV's are the most energy efficient.

A similar television energy standard has been proposed in the United States but momentum for new rules fizzled out. The only progress made at the federal level is the inclusion of televisions in the Energy Star program beginning last November. Energy Star is a voluntary program for manufacturers whose products exceed minimum efficiency standards by some amount. Televisions with the Energy Star label have already reached store shelves.

In 2007, the federal Energy Bill required that televisions be included in the Energy Guide program. This program provides information to consumers about how much electricity the product use annually and how much operating costs will be over the lifetime of the product. Unfortunately, including televisions has been difficult because the Department of Energy hasn't provided the necessary testing methods.

As usual, states are picking up where the federal government has failed to act. California's Energy Commission is currently creating a new television energy standard that would require all new TV's use 50% less energy by 2013. The proposed standard would save the state 600 megawatts, the amount of energy generated by a large power plant.

To read more about new TV energy standards, click HERE.

Bank of America Stops Dangerous Coal Loans

You may not be aware of it, but almost all coal companies in the United States participate in Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining.

What is that? It is exactly what it sounds like. Coal companies set-up explosives around the tops of mountains and literally blow these areas away to expose coal deposits under the surface.

Obviously the result of this style of mining is the complete destruction of entire eco-systems and natural resources in return for easier access to coal.

There is also a serious human cost associated with mountaintop removal. A study performed by the Eastern Kentucky University found that children in Letcher County, Kentucky suffer from an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomitting and shortness of breath. The study connected these ailments to sedimentation and disolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. The study also found that long-term effects may include liver, kidney and spleen failure, as well as bone damage and cancers of the digestive track.

In addition to these health ailments, mountaintop removal coal mining also undermines the ecosystems' ability to naturally control flood waters and mud flows so that many towns have been seriously damaged by severe mudslides and flooding.

Last summer, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought some Bank of America executives out to areas of Appalachia to see the impact of mountaintop removal coal mining. Bank of America has done business with several coal companies who participate in this destructive process and the company has also issued loans to such companies. NRDC was hoping an educational campaign might encourage Bank of America to limit loans to these coal companies.

On December 3rd, Bank of America changed its policy with regard to companies that utilize mountaintop removal coal mining. Their new policy states...

Bank of America is particularly concerned about surface mining conducted through mountain top removal in locations such as central Appalachia. We therefore will phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal. While we acknowledge that surface mining is economically efficient and creates jobs, it can be conducted in a way that minimizes environmental impacts in certain geographies.

NRDC has praised Bank of America for making this change and it encourages other banks to follow suit. It's not a perfect policy, but a step in the right direction.

To read about the new Bank of America policy, click HERE.

To read about mountaintop removal coal mining, click HERE.

Obama Keeps Promise on Big Oil Tax

Yesterday, the environmental world was abuzz with rumors that President-Elect Obama was backing away from his pledge to tax windfall profits earned by the big oil companies.

Obama argued during the campaign that the oil industry had benefitted for decades from tax breaks and subsidies designed to help it expand energy infrastructure, but now that oil companies are earning record-breaking profits, it's time to reverse the tax breaks so funds could be invested in renewable energy development.

Yesterday, some news organizations were reporting that an aide to Obama claimed he was no longer interested in a windfall profits tax because the price of oil had dropped significantly since the campaign and profits would probably be too low to tax.

Today, however, the Obama administration officially reaffirmed its support for rolling back tax subsidies for oil companies. They did point out that during the campaign, Obama was very specific in noting that the windfall profits tax would only be triggered when oil prices were at $80/barrel or more. As long as the prices are below that, no such tax comes into effect.

So, it seems, the policy of the Obama administration will be to roll back unneccesary subsidies to the oil industry and to put in place a windfall profits tax that applies when oil reaches $80/barrel or more.

Read the full story from Talking Points Memo HERE.

X-Prize Wants Your Green Innovation Vote

After November 4th, you thought you were done voting for a while, but now X-Prize needs your help. You may have heard of X-Prize before. They are an organization that provides million dollar rewards for individuals who create ground-breaking innovations. You probably remember Burt Rutan's private spaceship that earned him $10 million.

Now, X-Prize is focusing on sustainability. They are focused on innovations that will solve our energy and environmental crises. Many great minds have contributed their ideas and now its time to vote on the best ones.

You can vote by going HERE. The ideas are very interesting and the challenge is definitely exciting!

Obama's Cap & Trade Plan Coming in '09

Obama's energy & environment adviser Jason Grumet said today that the new administration will push its cap & trade proposal in 2009. Speaking to a carbon trading conference, Grumet said that 2009 will be a "very, very busy" period for government.

A cap & trade system places a limit on how much pollution certain industries can release. That limit is divided into credits that can be purchased and sold, like stocks, so some entities can pollute more by buying credits from those who are polluting less. As time passes, the limit is decreased and credits are pulled from the market as an incentive for the industry to invest in technology to decrease their pollution.

Both McCain and Obama had proposed cap & trade systems during the 2008 campaign. Passing the program will not be easy, however, as it failed in Congress just this past summer. Many states like West Virginia and Michigan are opposed to this type of program because it forces industry to spend money on cleaner burning technology.

Although the cap & trade program may be costly for many polluters, it will generate huge amounts of money for the development of cleaner energy and manufacturing technology. Already, similar programs in individual states and regions have raised tens of millions of dollars for renewable energy. Development of these new technologies will ultimately mean more jobs and a new economic sector for America.

Read the full New York Times article on Obama's cap & trade plans for '09 HERE.

Energy & Environment: Obama's Top Priorities

During a debate with John McCain in October, President-Elect Obama was asked what his top priority would be upon entering the White House. He was clear and concise in his answer; energy.

Obama explained that our energy problems were directly tied to rising consumer costs, dangerous foreign policy decisions and slowing job creation. He saw investment in domestic energy as a solution to both economic and international challenges.

As the new administration is created and indications of priorities begin to appear, ther are signs that Barack Obama is keeping his promise on energy reform.

First, just two weeks ago, Obama told Joe Klein of Newsweek that his number one priority upon entering office is addressing the energy and environmental crises' facing our country. Many are suggesting this will happen quickly if Obama and Congressional Democrats include funding for energy infrastructure re-building and new energy development in a fresh economic stimulus package that could soon take shape.

Second, Obama has already selected very experienced environmental advisers to head his energy and environment transition team. The man in charge of transitioning the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy is David Hayes, former deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior under Bill Clinton. In addition, Clinton's EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Department of the Interior Solicitor John Leashy join several other environmental advisers from the Clinton administration to help in the transition.

Third, Obama is considering well-known progressive leaders for posts in environmental agencies and inside the White House. Jason Grumet, President of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a leader in the Obama campaign on energy issues, is being considered for a top spot in the administration. Robert Kennedy, Jr., son of Robert Kennedy and famous environmental activist, is reportedly being considered for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, former Sierra Club president Lisa Renstrom; California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty; and Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles, are all also being considered for environmental posts inside the Obama administration.

As things begin to take shape for the new Presidency, all signs point to environmental and energy reform as high priorities for Barack Obama.

New Energy Star TVs Available for Shopping Season

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed raising its Energy Star requirements for televisions earlier this year. Those new requirements will go into effect November 1.

Fortunately, television manufacturers were prepared for the new standards and will be selling qualifying TVs beginning November 1.

These new TVs will be up to 30% more energy efficient. According to the EPA, if all televisions sold in the U.S. met the new Energy Start requirements, we could save $1 billion in energy costs and reduce greenhouse gases equivalent to taking 1 million cars off the road.

If you are interested in buying a new TV during the holidays, make sure to check out Energy Star's website HERE. You can see their requirements and search for models that meet the new standards.

A Must Read: Green Buildup

Tom Friedman, author of The World is Flat and Hot, Flat and Crowded has written an op-ed in today's New York Times about how high gas prices aren't necessarily bad for America.

Yet, it is impossible for me to ignore the fact that when gasoline hit $4.11 a gallon we changed — a lot. Americans drove less, polluted less, exercised more, rode more public transportation and, most importantly, overwhelmed Detroit with demands for smaller, more fuel-efficient, hybrid and electric cars. The clean energy and efficiency industries saw record growth — one of our few remaining engines of real quality job creation.

Read the full article on the New York Times website, HERE.

Leading By Example - Orlando Utility Commission

As the energy crisis intensifies, we are all called upon to make green changes in our lives. One of the simplest and most cost-effective places to start is in our home. Being cognizant of our habits and retrofitting home materials to be energy efficient can save money and the planet.

Sometimes its frustrating to make personal changes only to see companies or the government being wasteful. In Orlando, Florida the Orlando Utility Commission (OUC) is actually leading the charge for energy efficiency.

In Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, Gold is the highest standard for an environmentally friendly building. The new OUC building has been granted gold certification for its numerous advanced efficiency features.

Some of the green components include:

• Non-reflective roof to reduce heat trapped in the urban core, also called a "heat island."
• Rain water collection for irrigation.
  
• Solar energy and solar water heating.
• High efficiency glass windows.
• Recycled Materials.
• Priority parking for bicycles, fuel efficient and low emissions vehicles.

To read about the green features of the new OUC building, click HERE.

To view the OUC's green guide, click HERE.

Renewable Energy in Wall Street Bailout

With all the mixed emotions over the Wall Street Bailout, at least there was something in the $800 billion plan we can all feel good about.

Included in the bailout was an eight year extension of the solar energy tax credits. These credits will offer 30% credit to both commercial and residential solar panel purchases. This huge investment in the spread of solar technology will encourage the private market to develop and install millions of solar panels nationwide.

The United States was once the leader in solar panel development but the decision to stop funding government solar panel research during Reagan's administration allowed European nations to move ahead of us and build a huge solar industry. With this new extension of the solar panel tax credit, not only can be expand our renewable energy usage here, but we can begin exporting solar energy products to other countries and regain the competitive advantage in this growing industry.

Some of the specific provisions for solar energy in the bailout include lifting the cap of $2,000 for residential solar installations as an incentive for homeowners to install more panels on their property, a credit for utility companies so they can switch from coal power to renewable power for customers and support for the creation of 400,000 green jobs.

While the federal government was busy fixing past mistakes, they were ensuring a cleaner and mores stable future. Read more HERE.

Northeast Cap & Trade Sale Raises Millions

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have included "Cap and Trade" pollution programs in their Presidential platforms, although Obama was the only one of the two who actually voted to support such a program when it came up recently. 

What is a "Cap and Trade" program? Essentially its like a mini-stock market. The government sets an allowable level of pollution output for companies like manufacturers, factories, energy producers, etc. For the sake of explanation, we'll say they set the level at 100 pounds of pollution for each company. They then distribute 100 credits (like stocks), equal to one pound each, to the polluters. Now those polluters have the choice to buy credits from other polluters, sell credits to other polluters or hold on to the credits they have. If a polluter installs a new technology that reduces their pollution, they don't need all 100 of their credits anymore and can sell them to another company that actually needs to pollute more. Eventually, the government lowers the allowable level of pollution, say to 90 pounds. Credits are then pulled from the market and polluters are forced to become cleaner or to buy more credits. All of this creates incentive for companies to adopt new technologies and reduce their emissions. 

The difference between the Obama plan and the McCain plan is that Obama wants to sell these credits to polluters and McCain wants to give them away. This is a significant difference between their policies. What is there to gain by selling the credits instead of giving them away? A program in some Northeast states shows there is much to gain by selling credits. 

In the absence of a federal "Cap and Trade" program, 10 states in the Northeast United States organized their own program. The states set a cap on pollution levels and plan to reduce that cap by 2.5% each year, starting in 2015. Yesterday, they began selling credits for the first time to regulated polluters. Credits were sold for $3.07 per ton of excess emissions. Forty million dollars was raised through the sale, all of which is dedicated to investing in new energy and pollution control technology. 

The Northeast program isn't perfect and has attracted some criticism for not being strict enough, but its an indication that a program can successfully manage pollution levels across several states. It also shows that significant funds can be raised to help fund research and innovation during a time when government budgets are restricting such funding. 

To read the full story about the Cap and Trade sale in the Northeast, click HERE. 

Bloomberg Backs Off Wind Energy for NYC

Well that was fast. Just yesterday I wrote a post about New York City Mayor Bloomberg's suggestion that the city install wind and solar energy generators to create 10% of its energy from renewables by 2010. I warned readers that this might be a lot of hot air since he provided few details about cost and strategy, unfortunately I was right.

Today, Bloomberg backed off of his idea saying, "I have absolutely no idea whether that makes any sense from a scientific, from a practical point of view." One would think the Mayor of New York City would have some better information before rolling out a new energy initiative.

Although the Mayor should be applauded for thinking about reforming the city's energy sources, he should take this challenge a little more seriously. David Carr, of the Alternative Energy Institute, in Canyon, Texas, said, "I don't think this was very well thought out."

Of all the confusion over Bloomberg's proposal, the one thing he has gotten right is his call for energy conservation. Conservation is the fastest, cheapest way to save energy and money. New York should put serious effort into finding ways to reduce energy consumption at both the government and commercial levels.

New York Turning to Wind Energy

I blogged about an Energy Department study which found that wind energy could equal the power currently generated by nuclear energy simply by using existing technology and investing sufficient capital. You can read that post HERE. One of the only obstacles to gaining 20% of our energy from wind is space. It is difficult to find enough property for all those wind turbines.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come up with a plan to install wind power generators on the tops of the city's bridges, on buildings and shorelines. Mayor Bloomberg believes that turbines in the windier areas of the city like Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island could provide 10% of New York's electricity in 10 years.

In addition to installing wind energy generators, the Mayor's plan also calls for solar panels installed on the roofs of high rises in the city.

What is important now is for the Mayor to follow through on his plans and begin detailing the funding and strategy for installing these alternative energy sources, or else the plan is just a bunch of hot air.

McCain Selling U.S. Treasures for Campaign Cash

For years, John McCain opposed additional domestic oil drilling. It is well documented (read HERE) that when he switched that position on June 16th, oil industry contributions to his campaign grew enormously. In May, McCain raised $208,000 from oil executives, in June he raised $1.1 million. Since that time he has continued to receive hefty contributions from anyone associated with the oil industry.

Its frustrating, to say the least, that McCain traded campaign contributions for America's environmental health. Apparently though, he isn't through.

One of the most protected pieces of American land is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Millions of acres in Alaska are set aside from development and human encroachment so that we can study and conserve the natural environment there. Forty-five species of land and marine mammals inhabit the area, including species of whale and bear. Native tribes live in and rely on the refuge for survival and travel.

In 2005, John McCain voted to protect ANWR from oil drilling that would bring people, machines and settlements into this pristine area. In 2008, as a Presidential candidate, he is thinking of changing his mind.

The Weekly Standard's Steven F. Hayes wrote this week that McCain told him he is reconsidering his support for protecting ANWR from oil drilling. Apparently those big oil industry checks got McCain's mouth watering at the possibility of raising more money by opening up America's most precious preserve. He is also reacting to polling that suggests the public is willing to do anything to lower the price of gasoline.

I wonder how much the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is worth to McCain. He once said drilling in ANWR is akin to drilling in the Grand Canyon. Its amazing how much can change when campaign money is involved.

Read Hayes' story from the Weekly Standard HERE.

Boxed Wine: Good for the Environment

The New York Times is reporting today that Italy's Agriculture Ministry has approved the use of its "Quality Assurance Stamp" on some boxed Italian wines. This is in response to a growing trend around the world of moving to boxed wines for environmental reasons.

Boxed wines are not new, they've been around for more than three decades. They are popular in Australia and France, but they have failed to catch on in the United States. With consumers and businesses thinking more about their carbon footprints, it may not be long before boxed wine is more common in America.

Those heavy glass bottles used to transport wine is difficult to ship because it is delicate and does not make the best use of space. According to the Times, a 750 mL bottle of wine generates about 5.2 pounds of carbon dioxide during its journey from California to New York. A 3 liter box, by comparison, uses half the amount of carbon dioxide of a 750 mL bottle. If 97% of wine consumed in the United States was switched to box packaging, two million tons of carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced each year, the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the road.

There are some other benefits associated with boxed wines. For example, if you have a hard time finishing a bottle of wine (you lightweight) boxes keep wine fresh for about four weeks longer than a bottle.

Some California wine makers are beginning to embrace the boxed wine movement. Hopefully Italy's seal of approval will make this eco-friendly option more palatable in the U.S.

To read the full New York Times story on boxed wine, click HERE.

How Much to Solar Power Your Home?

If you've been thinking about making changes to your home to make it more energy efficient and eco-friendly, you may have considered installing solar panels on your roof. It is a convenient place to put the panels and it is currently wasted space.

The most difficult aspect of planning a project like this is estimating the possible costs. A new website might make this part a little easier.

RoofRay is a great website that combines Google Maps with solar panel estimating formulas. Once you are on the site, find your property on the Google Maps window. Highlight the area of the roof you plan to cover with solar panels. Input the slope and angle of your roof. RoofRay will give you a rough estimate of the installation costs and potential energy generation based on your plans.

To check it out, click HERE.

Big Box Stores Use Big Roofs for Energy

Its an emotional struggle each time you visit a big box store. You know they pose a threat to local businesses, they sell products made in sweat shops, they treat their employees badly and destroy acres of land with huge impervious structures. The problem is, they do it all while being convenient and cheap.

Apparently the retailers know your inner conflict and they are trying to reconcile their evil deeds by installing solar panels on their giant roofs. The New York Times published an article this week that documents this growing trend of national retailers using renewable energy to save money while attracting "green minded" individuals.

Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Whole Foods and Safeway have initiated programs aimed at taking advantage of a renewable energy tax credit that may expire December 31st. So far, less than 10% of the stores' locations have installed the solar panels but they may continue the program if Congress renews the renewable energy tax credit this year.

Big box stores are generally the biggest users of energy in many small communities. Their roofs provide ample space to offset that energy use. According to the Times' article, if Wal-Mart installed solar panels on all of their stores, including their Sam's stores, the result would roughly equal 23 square miles of solar panels, or an area the size of Manhattan.

The solar panels can provide 10-40% of each store's electricity needs. This is dependent on weather conditions and the store's demands. Unfortunately, solar power is still more expensive than coal or natural gas. According to an energy expert quoted in the Times' piece, a kilowatt hour of coal costs 6 cents, a kilowatt hour of natural gas costs 9 cents and a kilowatt hour of solar energy costs 25 cents.

There are many ways to bring down the cost of solar energy so that it is competitive with non-renewable sources. The most important way is by encouraging these large-scale commercial installations that increase competition among solar panel manufacturers which drives down prices and increases innovation. The federal government can encourage large-scale commercial installations by providing appropriate tax incentives that reduce barriers to initiating solar panel programs. The federal government's best existing incentive, the Renewable Energy Tax Credit, has not yet been renewed this year.

To read the full New York Times article, click HERE.

New Program Makes Your Computer Green

I have written in the past about some of the ways you can make your computer run more efficiently so it uses less electricity. This is one of the most important things we can do to reduce our energy usage. There are over a billion computers in use throughout the world and each is responsible for its own 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This new, small program makes is easier to manage your computer's energy usage and actually shows the financial and environmental savings.

The program is a free download called Edison by the software maker Verdiem. After downloading and installing it, you are given a set of options like setting peak computer usage times. By choosing to save more or save less, you can set your computer to go to sleep in 10 minutes or 45 minutes. All of this is done in a colorful intuitive interface that makes the whole experience simple.

The best feature of Edison is the ability to see exactly how much money and carbon emissions you will save over the course of the year by making certain adjustments. Its surprising just how significant the changes can be by just making a few tweaks in your settings.

To download Edison from Microsoft, click HERE.