Wax On, Wax Off - The Pros...and Cons

since the bill is being voted on today, I thought it would be good to publish this.

Just a brief synopsis of the American Clean Energy Bill via Earthbeat Podcast

Wax On, Wax Off - The Pros & Cons of Waxman-Markey

Posted using ShareThis

A Q&A with Florida Representative Doug Holder

This is the second installment of my interviews with our local state legislators. I met with Rep. Holder at his office to talk about his thoughts on where we’ve been and where we are headed.

Did the legislative session meet your expectations?

The legislative session was challenging to say the least. My expectations going in were simply our constitutional charge — which was to balance the budget. And that, in itself, was a challenge. It required the majority of our time. Did it meet my expectations? I am happy with the fact that we were able to balance the budget and at the same time increase funding per student for education. So many people love to look at the number which is allocated for education and if that number is lower than it was last year, then they say, “We cut spending.” … But that’s not true. What happens is that we have an exact amount that is allocated per student in the state of Florida and the number of students fluctuates every year. And because our student population has decreased by 6,000 students from the past year, then that number will decrease accordingly. So even though the entire amount was decreased, the “per-student” amount has increased. That is one thing that I am happy that we were able to do.

We were also able to continue funding health care to the most vulnerable in Florida. One of my biggest successes was to continue the funding for Coastal Behavioral and First Step programs.

The disappointments are that we have more work to do with property insurance and tax reform. My big focus for Sarasota is creating incentives for business to provide new jobs and revenue such as green development and a comprehensive energy plan.

Any idea on how you will go about doing that?

We are on the cusp of putting together a plan that includes renewable energy which recognizes our need to become independent of foreign oil. That is what takes away the partisanship from energy. It is a comprehensive plan that allows us to fuel our vehicles as well as power our buildings. We have to pursue renewables in order to get off of fossil fuels. If it makes more sense, and it’s better and cheaper … then I’m all for that. And I think the oil companies are too, as long as they are included in that.

The Senate passed an energy bill, but it died before it got to the House. Are you saying that the Senate energy bill wasn’t comprehensive enough?

The full interview can be found on Creative Loafing

Searching for a job in the Green Ecomony?

Green Jobs are the key to our future. the problem is that we just can give out the keys fast enough. If you are looking for a job in the Green Economy, a good resource of information and job placement is:

Hinton Human Capital Blog

Shared via AddThis

And if you are available tomorrow night, Steven has a blog radio program that you can tune into on your computer. Steven will answer questions about the certifications and licenses you will need in the new Green Economy. I spent some time on the phone with him today. He's really tuned into the what it will take to turn a down economy into a profitable future for everyone.

Hinton Human Capitol Blog Radio

This Just In: Nuclear Industry wants more subsidies with the Climate Bill

From the Nuclear Information and Resources Service
http://www.nirs.org/

The Waxman-Markey climate bill (HR 2454) is now scheduled to reach the House floor for a final vote on Friday, June 26. The House is apparently hoping to finish work on this enormous bill in one day, which means there likely will be few, if any, amendments allowed for consideration.

Still, there is some threat that some amendments will be considered. And we already have seen one proposed amendment, from Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Fred Upton (R-MI), that would provide still more nuclear subsidies—this time including subsidies and tax credits for reactor manufacturing, encouraging a nuclear workforce, and encouraging reactor exports, among other issues. If amendments are allowed, other pro-nuclear amendments are likely.

Even if amendments are not allowed, opponents of the climate bill are likely to be given the opportunity to offer a full substitute bill. We have not yet seen such a bill, but this could well include key provisions of the Republicans’ energy policy, including support for construction of 100 new reactors.

The climate bill itself, which aims to place a price on carbon, is an indirect benefit to nuclear power. As a low-carbon emitter compared to coal, nuclear will benefit economically as the price of using coal rises. And that should be enough support for nuclear—there must not be any direct subsidies for this dirty and dangerous technology.

Thus, it is important to contact your House members now and let them know that enough is enough: there must be no more taxpayer support for nuclear power in the climate bill. Please send your member the letter below (please feel free to edit as you wish) and please call your member with this message as well: Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121.

CLIMATE: Waxman, Peterson announce agreement on cap-and-trade bill (06/23/2009 at 07:14 PM)

Darren Samuelsohn and Ben Geman, E&E senior reporters

Two powerful House Democratic committee chairmen announced terms of a deal this evening on a comprehensive global warming bill, paving the way for a vote later this week.

Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told reporters today he would vote for the House climate bill -- and bring dozens of rural lawmakers with him -- after Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) agreed to make a number of concessions that had drawn the ire of farm state members.

Waxman agreed to put the Agriculture Department -- rather than U.S. EPA -- in the lead for management of the offset program that pays farmers and other landowners to conduct environmentally friendly projects. Congress will turn to the Obama administration for guidance on how to fold in EPA.

Waxman also consented to block EPA from calculating "indirect" greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes when implementing the federal biofuels mandate. The Democrats will impose a five-year moratorium to allow further study of the issue, with consultation from Congress, EPA, the Energy Department and USDA instrumental in restarting the measurements in the biofuels rules.

Peterson and Waxman have been negotiating for several weeks on the climate bill, with the Minnesota Democrat threatening to bring as many as 50 fellow lawmakers along with him during a floor vote on the bill.

"We have something that I think works for agriculture," Peterson said. "We have a couple of areas that may get resolved down the line, but I think we have a meeting of the minds about where we are generally headed."

"The essential thing is we have an agreement," Waxman added. "We will be moving forward Friday. We will pass this bill." Waxman also insisted he would bring environmentalists along because of the core agreement on climate.

Democratic staff are expected to write language tonight on the key agreements and plan to release the text tomorrow for inclusion in a manager's amendment before the floor debate, the chairmen said.

A Renewable Energy Dream Team: Sarasota and FP&L

Today, in Sarasota, FL a coalition of elected officials will appear in city hall to address their power company, Florida Power and Light (FP&L). FP&L is holding public hearings to address their request of a base rate hike...a rate hike that they haven't asked for since 1985.

I wrote an article yesterday for Creative Loafing on what FP&L is asking for. I went on to explain that even though they haven't had a base rate hike since 1985...we are still paying more for our electric. Within minutes I got a call from a representative of FP&L wanting to talk to me about my information.

This very nice gentleman and I talked about the merits of the requests and the intentions of FP&L. He assured me that the rate hike request was to help FP&L become more efficient in the future...which in turn would save us all money. Then we went on and talked about FP&L's commitment to our future and the future of renewable energy.

The Desoto Solar Field is a very nice start. Babcock Ranch is a very nice idea. He even pointed out that FP&L renewable energy efforts have created 1000 more jobs for Florida. All which have my support. But the truth is...it's not enough. As we talked about this past legislative session, I brought up the energy bill that only existed in the Senate. He pointed out that FP&L only asked for nuclear energy to be 2% of the bill. I reminded him that the citizens of Florida have supported nuclear energy for many years - whether they like it or not, thanks to the legislation. Why is it so hard to conceive that we could do the same for renewables??

Well, today, Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, Rep. Doug Holder, Rep. Buchanan, Commissioner Kelly Kirschner, Commissioner Jon Thaxton, Commissioner Joe Barbetta, and a bevy of others will be in City Hall in Sarasota to discuss with FP&L along with the Public Service Commission (PSC) the possibility of setting up a pilot program for Sarasota that will work like a similar program in Gainesville - Renewable Energy Dividends. Unlike Gainesville, where they own their own municipal utility, Sarasota has a partner ship with FP&L...therefore the program has to work in coalition with FP&L.

This group understands that the citizens of Sarsota do not want to be left out in the cold. Stying ahead of the curve is what they are all about when it comes to protecting the environment and becomming a more sustainable city.

I am anxious to see what they can do today. If they understand how serious Sarasota is about it's expectations, I am sure today will be the first of many talks with FP&L that will put Sarasota on the map once again!

Today's promise is lost on tomorrow's hope: the giving tree

For each day we wait in hope that tomorrow's opportunities will present itself, we lose. For each opportunity that we pass on, we will live with regret. For tomorrow will be unlike today and you will never get today's opportunities back again.

For each tree we cut down, we take with it the life that lives under it. The animals, the insects, the plants, the people...will leave with the tree. The air will immediately change around it. The space that it once inhabited will no longer be the same.

Trees are replenishable, but not the life that it gave while it was here. And for every tree that we replant, it takes a life time for that new tree to nurture the those possibilities back again.

With every forest that we clear cut, for every mountain top that we remove, for every ocean that we dump in, we destroy an possibility of the knowing what life was within it, what secrets it holds, what future it could have given, what answers it could have told.

We, the human race, move about with a sense of entitlement. But its the earth, as slow moving as it is, that is the one with all of the power. For it is giving, but it will also take away what is not appreciated. When we cut down a tree, the life it provides us leaves and does not return again. We can not nurture it back. We are but only Shepards.

News and Updates with the Waxman/Markey Energy Bill

I was on a conference call with Chairmen Waxman and Markey about their energy bill today. The bottom line for them is: "chances like this come up once every 15 years" (meaning that we have a democratic President and a democratic majority in the congress.) They are asking for all of the grass roots organizations to stand up in support of this bill - the way it is now.

But the way it is now is not the way it was supposed to be. Scientists of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have said we need to cut emissions by 25 – 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The way this bill is now, the reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions is set between 4 and 7 % below 1990 levels by 2020;this disturbs a lot of environmental groups.

The bill also includes carbon “offsets” that are offered to polluting industries that could be used to effectively eliminate real reductions of greenhouse gas emissions for over a decade; billions in subsidies in the form of allowances over the life of the bill will go to polluting industries; and coal-fired power plants will be supported through some $10 billion in ratepayer subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS). And there are also provisions that actually remove the President’s existing authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under laws already on the books.

Chairman Markey reminds us that coal is still abundant in the United States. If we can create a "clean coal" then we can help China do the same. Without coming out and saying it, he implied that "clean coal" could also be something that we export to other countries.

Chairman Waxman reminded us that Global Warming is a global problem and that we have to look at the bigger picture. To be honest, he kind of lost me on where he was going with that one. Maybe because I couldn't get over the "Take it or Leave it" attitude I was detecting. I mean, in a nutshell, he basically said the responsibility for this bill is on our heads if we don't support it. Either way, as much as we want a stronger bill, it doesn't look like we are going to get one.

Tomorrow is the last opportunity to get involved and have your voices be heard: "Thursday, June 11, 2009, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives will be answering questions about the upcoming energy legislation" Click on this link to post your questions or vote on the ones that you think should be asked: Energy Bill

For my news: I am doing a series for Creative Loafing on a Q&A with our Florida Legislators in hopes of getting some insight on what happened to this past session and what might come of the next session. And since I am getting paid by the piece, I will not be stopping until I have covered the entire state.

How to become a sustainable city.

This is my recent article for Creative Loafing:

June 3rd, 2009 by Susan Nilon in News, Sarasota-Manatee

Eric Corey Freed is the author of Green Building & Remodeling for Dummies, an architect and representative of the nonprofit group, URBAN RE:VISION. He was recently at the Green Cities conference in Orlando talking about his vision of urban development and the project that he is the moderator for: RE:VISION Dallas.

I think every city should be looking at ways to become a sustainable city that is not “anti-growth” or “pro-growth,” but “smart growth.” Every city reinvents the wheel. When it came to their planning code, they copied someone else’s model. But instead of sharing knowledge between each city as to what works and what doesn’t work, they continue on as if they live in a vacuum.

Our measurement of growth is that you continue growing, but in nature that doesn’t happen. Animals don’t keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode… and so our cities shouldn’t. They should grow to a certain size and then stop when they are sustainable. But we haven’t done that.

To continue reading:
Creative Loafing: Interview with Eric Corey Freed