Environmental Disasters

As we're  on the edge of our seats about the BP spill in the gulf, the Nigerian Delta has experienced the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year since the 1960's.  Foreign Policy lists 5 on-going environmental disasters, from underground coal fires in China and Pennsylvania, which produce 2-3% of global greenhouse gas every year to the Eastern Garbage Patch, which is a mess of garbage and plastic in the middle of the Pacific Ocean larger than the size of the continental US and about 100 feet deep.

Oil Spill

The oil slick may be reaching the shore of Louisiana today, endangering wildlife as well as an enormous oyster cultivation industry. BP has said it would welcome military/national guard intervention, which has been discussed by Louisiana's governor.

I've avoided writing about it because I just didn't want to think about it at all.

For more from NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/01gulf.html

From National Geographic: Gulf Oil Spill Pictures: Aerial Views Show Leak's Size

Energy for Brazil

The vast majority of Brazil's energy already comes from hydropower and they're looking to add the world's third largest hydropower project. The cast of Avatar has been protesting in the Amazon, but the auction went ahead this week, and the Belo Monte project will be built.

The fundamental question is how to walk the line among environmental preservation, forcible relocations and economic development. Some of the fundamental problems with developing hydropower in the Amazon are that in many places the river carries quite a large load of silt, which will eventually diminish the power generation, and that because the Amazon is so far from where the power will be consumed, the line losses in transmission can be 20-30%.

Brazil’s rapidly growing economy needs more energy, preferably renewable. The scale of the dam—it will be the world’s third-largest hydroelectric station after China’s Three Gorges and Brazil’s own Itaipu—is epic. So is the investment, of at least 19 billion reais (nearly $11 billion). But ever since the engineers in Brasília rolled out the blueprints for damming the Xingu two decades ago, the project has attracted powerful opposition.

Environmental groups and river dwellers say Belo Monte will flood vast patches of rainforest while desiccating others. “The forest is our butcher shop, the river is our market,” Indian leaders wrote in a newspaper. They were aided by greens from Europe and the United States, including the tribes of Hollywood. James Cameron, a film director, flew in to daub his face in red paint, hug an Indian and join the protest...

Yet greens were not alone in their lack of enthusiasm for the project. Some of the country’s leading builders, such as Odebrecht and Camargo Corrêa, pulled out of the auction, convinced that the government-dictated power rates, capped at 83 reais ($47) per megawatt-hour, were too low to assure a fair return on their investment. (The winning consortium offered a slightly lower rate.) The government had to pledge billions of dollars in soft loans and tax breaks to lure bidders. Even so, two firms in the winning consortium immediately dropped out, apparently because they thought the tariff too low.

Not since a military government quartered the Amazon basin with roads, dams and settlements in the 1970s has Brazil seen such a row over the rainforest. Ironically, Belo Monte is a project shaped by the lessons of the past, drawn and redrawn to cull the power of the forests without razing them. That challenge—developing the wilds and having them too—is in many ways the riddle of modern Brazil. The rest of the developing world is watching closely to see whether it can be solved.

A generation ago similar protests over an earlier version of the same dam—known then as Kararao—forced officials to rethink their strategy. They came up with Belo Monte. It was not just a marketing ploy. Instead of building a great wall across the Xingu to create a massive reservoir, Belo Monte is designed as a run-of-river dam, a technique that harnesses the natural flow of the river to drive the turbines. [economist.com]

Incomplete Manifesto

The Academy for Global Citizenship, a charter school where I serve on the board, is developing a zero net-energy building for our permanent home. We have some great pro-bono work being done by the the OWP/P Architecture firm in Chicago. They're bringing together a huge number of people to collaborate on this project at a meeting later in the spring. One of those is Bruce Mau, who is a frequent collaborator with Frank Gehry. I checked out his web site this morning and came across his Incomplete Manifesto that guides the work of his studio. Some of the ideas are very interesting, and even if you know them already, good to be reminded.

By the way, if anyone has any ideas on who'd like to contribute to a capital campaign for this project, let me know. No idea is too crazy.

11. Harvest ideas.
Edit applications. Ideas need a dynamic, fluid, generous environment to sustain life. Applications, on the other hand, benefit from critical rigor. Produce a high ratio of ideas
to applications.

12. Keep moving.
The market and its operations have a tendency to reinforce success. Resist it. Allow failure and migration to be part of your practice.

13. Slow down.
Desynchronize from standard time frames and surprising opportunities may present themselves.

14. Don’t be cool.
Cool is conservative fear dressed in black. Free yourself from limits of this sort.

15. Ask stupid questions.
Growth is fueled by desire and innocence. Assess the answer, not the question. Imagine learning throughout your life at the rate of an infant.

16. Collaborate.
The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential.

17. ____________________.
Intentionally left blank. Allow space for the ideas you haven’t had yet, and for the ideas
of others.

18. Stay up late.
Strange things happen when you’ve gone too far, been up too long, worked too hard, and you're separated from the rest of the world.

19. Work the metaphor.
Every object has the capacity to stand for something other than what is apparent. Work on what it stands for.

The Carbon Debate

Well, things are moving along, with or without Congress. You know it's real when the SEC gets involved.

The ultimate fate of carbon policies may be up in the air. But utilities and industrial enterprises are still under pressure to report their climate-related activities to investors.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has voted 3-2 along party lines to force companies to consider their potential exposure to climate change when it comes to filing their financial statements. While the position is one that the Obama administration has advocated, its genesis formed a few years earlier as investor and environmental groups joined hands to petition the body for uniform rules.

"The transition to a carbon-constrained economy is underway, and public access to material information concerning the risks and opportunities that companies face, and their means of addressing those risks and opportunities, is vital to investors," writes the California Public Employees' Retirement System.

The group, which asked the SEC more than two years ago for guidance, says that disclosure should include corporate policies and governance structures related to climate change as well as a tabulation of the registrant's current and forecasted greenhouse gas emissions. As such, investors need to know what the potential financial risks may be along with any climate change-associated litigation. [energycentral.com]

Just what the world needs...

Venezuela and Russia say they are working on a series of agreements for Moscow to provide the South American country with technology for the development of industries ranging from robotics to biochemistry.

Venezuela's science and technology minister, Jesse Chacon, says the agreements will likely be signed next year.

Russian authorities have presented more than 5,000 technological projects for Venezuela's consideration.

Chacon says the transfer of nuclear technology is not among the projects that were presented at a forum in Venezuela's capital Monday — even through Russia plans to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy to produce electricity. [news.yahoo.com]

Yes, we currently subsidize fossil fuels!

This seems like a no-brainer. How did this not happen sooner?

Group of 20 leaders are close to an agreement on phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels in an effort to curb global warming, though no fixed dates have been set, reports Reuters.

Several G20 countries subsidize fuel such as coal and oil, at a cost of about $300 billion, to keep prices artificially low for consumers, which boosts both demand for hydrocarbons and emissions, reports Reuters.

Obama aide Michael Froman told Reuters that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies worldwide could cut greenhouse gases by up to 12 percent by 2050, citing estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency. He said United States would agree to the cuts as well.

Thoughts on a Fuel Tax

I want to thank my faithful readers for responding to a post from a few weeks ago where I announced I was in favor of a fuel tax. In case you haven't looked at the comments, I'm copying them here:

1. A very sensible solution if you live in one of the big eastern cities with lots of available public transportation. Quite a different story if you live here in the west, where our cities grew in the era of the automobile and public transportation is practically non-existent.

2. I,too, listened to that NPR story and found it convincing. Then again, there is no reliable public transportation around me, so I have to drive to work. What happens to those who can least afford the tax? They can do without other "sins", but not their paycheck.

3. So how are you going to feel when you have to pay more for all your goods and services? Merchandise arrives in stores with the help of gasoline. The stores aren't going to absorb that cost for you. And service providers...plumbers, electricians, housekeepers...are sure to add on a fuel surcharge. So even though you are an urban dweller, don't think you wouldn't be affected.

FT's take on Obama's car efficiency plan

Although a tax of $1 or $2 per gallon of petrol would be more effective in altering consumer behaviour and giving a clear demand signal to manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, it would not get through Congress.

But it is an inefficient – and probably ineffective – way of meeting the twin aims Mr Obama has set out for the motor industry and the US carmakers: to curb fuel consumption and dependence on foreign oil and to help the Detroit three “once more outcompete the world”.

The corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) rules that Mr Obama wants to tighten have a history of causing unintended consequences. They were passed in 1975, following the oil crisis, to get drivers to buy smaller and more efficient cars, but instead gave Detroit an incentive to make sports utility vehicles.

The basic problem with the CAFE standards is that, rather than altering patterns of demand, they attempt to ration supply. This flaw is exacerbated by the divide in the rules between standards for “cars” and for “light trucks”, which Detroit has ingeniously exploited.

By the 1980s, petrol was cheap again and drivers did not want to buy the lighter, less powerful cars that were fuel-efficient. Instead, they switched en masse to people carriers and SUVs that were classified as light trucks, and so could be thirstier...

A petrol tax is a rare example of a policy that would be simple, let the market operate, and be likely to achieve Mr Obama’s aims. “This is a noble long-term goal, but a gas tax is an immediate incentive to change,” says David Gerard, an economist at Carnegie Mellon university.

Unfortunately, raising the federal petrol tax, which is currently 18 cents per gallon, to levels that would make it bite is not politically achievable in the US. Instead, the president has had to rally everyone around a clunky and leaky regulatory alternative. That really is extraordinary. [FT]

Sec of Energy Chu

Last week, Secretary of Energy Chu gave a lecture titled, "The Energy Problem and the Interplay between Basic and Applied Research." Here's the review of the lecture at Salon.com, where you can also find a video of the entire lecture.

Addressing a roomful of scientists and students at MIT on Tuesday, however, gave Chu a chance to let his geek flag fly. In a packed auditorium, he delivered MIT's Compton Lecture on the topic "The Energy Problem and the Interplay between Basic and Applied Research." It must have been a huge relief not to have to dumb himself down -- this was an audience primed to laugh appreciatively at jokes about microscopy involving the word "angstrom." I just spent a little over an hour watching it, and I had to marvel, once again, at the fact that a real scientist, a fervent believer in the fundamental importance of basic scientific research, is the man in charge at the Department of Energy. (Thanks to Greentech Media for the tip.)

His lecture ranged across a wide variety of topics, from the number of Nobel Prizes that have been granted for advances in fertilizer technology (two and a half) to the energy efficiency improvements in American refrigerators to the history of Bell Labs and how advances in quantum physics paved the path from the vacuum tube to the transistor. Through it all, he expressed confidence and optimism in the premise that technological progress will allow us to confront the challenges of climate change and energy constraints. There's a lot of "exciting" science to be done, he said more than once, and he seemed thrilled at the prospect of spending the government's checkbook funding the "dazzling" work of the future.

Perhaps most important, while he touted likely advances in battery technology and solar power and genetically engineered biofuels, he was very clear on one point: The crucial front to make immediate progress on is energy efficiency and conservation. Buildings consume 40 percent of the energy used in the United States each year: Making them more energy efficient might not win Chu another Nobel Prize, but it could easily save us from having to build a few more power plants that we can't afford.

He finished with a slide of a picture of the Earth rising above the lunar landscape taken by the astronauts on Apollo 8.

"It's our home," said Chu. "Let's take care of it."

It's about time

For years, Detroit has spent more money on lobbyists fighting higher fuel efficiency standards than they have on efficiency R&D. The Bush administration was on their side - hey, fat cars were good for W's oil buddies.

At long last, now that they've got no choice, US car manufacturers are going to have to do what's right. Too bad they couldn't manage to do it of their own volition, but had to be strong-armed.

Why, after decades of battling, complaining and maneuvering over fuel economy standards, did carmakers fall in line behind the tough new nationwide mileage standard President Obama announced Tuesday?

Because they had no choice. The auto industry is flat on its back, with Chrysler in bankruptcy, General Motors close to it, and both companies taking billions of dollars in federal money. Foreign automakers are getting help from their own governments. Climate change legislation is barreling down the track, and Congress showed last fall that it had no appetite to side with Detroit any more.

Simply put, Detroit and the other companies need Washington’s help, and they are powerless to block the rules Washington dictates.

“They can feel the political winds changing,” said David Doniger, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council who has faced the car companies in court many times. “They need government aid to stay in business. When you have your hand out for help, it’s hard to use the same hand to thumb your nose at the federal government.”

In 2005, car companies were able to stop fuel economy legislation. By 2007, with the country awakened to the realization that global warming was a threat, they were forced to go along with higher standards but managed to water them down.

This time, they arrived at the table so debilitated they could extract only the barest of concessions. The primary gift carmakers received from Mr. Obama in Tuesday’s proposal was the certainty of one fuel economy standard from California to Maine, rather than the patchwork that would have resulted from two sets of regulations, one by the 18 states that wanted tighter standards, and another for everywhere else. [NYTimes.com]

Car-free suburb in Germany

Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars.

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called “smart planning.” [NY Times]

So, what do you think? Is it the right thing to do, reducing emissions and oil dependency, while encouraging exersize? Or is it taking this whole green thing too far?

He gets it (on energy & climate)

I'm delighted to see that Obama has created a special office for climate change, along with not putting oil and politics at the forefront for the Dept. of Energy and the EPA. Here's a nice summary:

Dominated by lobbyists for the oil industry, the task force Vice President Dick Cheney convened early in the Bush presidency laid the groundwork for the administration's dangerously antiquated approach to meeting the nation's energy needs.

Its core recommendation -- to open more federal land to oil, coal and natural-gas development -- largely led officials for the next eight years to ignore conservation efforts and the need to develop clean, alternative energy....

Finally, though, the winds are changing. This week, President-elect Barack Obama named his top energy and environmental team. And fortunately, its members signaled their intention to reshape the nation's energy market so it can kick its dependence on unstable, U.S.-hating, oil-rich countries. They spoke of the urgency to invest in green technology and infrastructure projects to help rejuvenate the economy. And they promised that science -- not political expediency -- will drive their efforts.

Clean Coal Ad

This ad is from Al Gore's Reality Coalition. Do you think it's effective? I'm not so sure. It asserts there's no such thing as clean coal, without giving evidence. I just saw it while I was watching This Week. I may not disagree, but I feel like the ad and the accompanying website talk down to the reader/viewer, not trusting we can handle actual information.

Knowing a bit about coal-fired generation, building new coal plants that would allow older ones to be shut down would help the environment. Given that a full one half of US electricity is produced through coal and that we have a lot of coal in the ground, what is Gore's suggestion as an alternative? The US needs a short term solution to its power issue, which can not be satisfied only through alternatives.

Oil, Lobster, Insecurity

It's sad that fuel prices and economic insecurity lead to this, but lobster demand and prices are down, according to the NY Times. One interesting thing noted here is that the fishermen are leaving traps for, say, two days instead of one to save on fuel. I wonder if that's a fuel efficient practice they'll keep for the long term.

So, if you are looking for a treat, why not go for lobster instead of beef or some other food that's also rising in price. Beef, in fact, gets the price bump from both transport costs and the huge rise in grain and feed stock prices.

Obama's Energy Plan

Hmmm, I liked Obama's refusal earlier in the summer to back the silliness of a summer gasoline tax holiday, but now I'm not sure I'm completely in line with his new thinking. I'm all for weaning ourselves off Venezuelan and Middle Eastern oil within a decade (though I can't imagine that will actually happen.) What I'm no so excited about is the interest in opening up more Alaskan wilderness to drilling for several reasons:

1. There are ample federal lands where oil companies already have concessions and are doing nothing with them
2. We only have so much wilderness - leave it alone!
3. We should be spending that money, yes THAT MUCH money, on conservation technologies and alternative energy technology

Friedman on Energy

Once again, Thomas Friedman has it right. A few years ago, Bush announced that we're addicted to oil. Bush, for once, was right. But, instead of doing anything sensible about it, like putting real money behind alternative energy technology or extending the tax credits for solar, wind and geothermal, he refused to ask Detroit to increase their average mpg and has continued his love affair with the Saudis.

Now, just as he's preparing to leave office, he's trying to give his oil buddies two last gifts: he wants congress to allow drilling off-shore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which will do nothing to bring down oil prices before 2030, and he wants the Saudis to give us more oil in the short term to lower prices, increasing our dependence on foreign oil, which would help to kill alternative energy development at home.

Bush has never had an energy policy, except for the completely shady one drawn up behind closed doors with no names attached, early in his first term. Once again, no leadership, just crony-ism.

Oil - Where does it come from? Where does it go?

Check out this fantastic map done by the FT. It shows big oil producers, consumers, reserves and the movement of trade.

Yep, $100+/barrel is here to stay

I wrote a post earlier in the month about $200/barrel oil. Here's an interesting piece on the Goldman Sachs analyst whose been at the forefront of these predictions. At the very end of the article there are some interesting quotes by oil companies about where they think oil prices will settle.
Shell: $35-$65/barrel
ConocoPhillips: $90/barrel
Chevron: says Shell's estimate is too low
ExxonMobile: no comment

What does everyone think? Will this stimulate innovation? Or bring the economy to a grinding halt?

'Super spike' oil analyst gains a lot of Wall Street cred

By Louise Story

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Arjun Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s. But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a "super spike" - a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel.

Murti, who has a bit of a green streak, is not bothered much by the prospect of even higher oil prices, figuring that it might finally prompt the United States to become more energy efficient.

An analyst at Goldman Sachs, Murti has become the talk of the oil market by issuing one sensational forecast after another. A few years ago, rivals scoffed when he predicted that oil would breach $100 a barrel.

Few are laughing now. Oil shattered yet another record Wednesday, as the price of light sweet crude for July delivery rose above $132 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are 99 percent higher than a year ago, according to Bloomberg News.

Murti, 39, argues that the world's seemingly unquenchable thirst for oil means prices will keep rising from here and stay above $100 into 2011. Others disagree, arguing that prices could abruptly tumble if speculators in the market rush for the exits.

But the grim calculus of Murti's prediction, issued in March and reconfirmed two weeks ago, is enough to give any American pause: At $200 a barrel for oil, gasoline could cost more than $6 a gallon, or about $1.60 a liter, in the United States. U.S. pump prices are now around $4 a gallon.

That would be fine with Murti, who owns two hybrid cars.

"I'm actually fairly anti-oil," said Murti, who grew up in New Jersey. "One of the biggest challenges our country faces is our addiction to oil."

Murti is hardly alone in predicting higher prices. T.Boone Pickens, the oilman turned corporate raider, said Tuesday that crude would hit $150 this year.

But many analysts are no longer so sure where oil is going, at least in the short term. Some say prices will fall as low as $70 a barrel by year-end, according to Thomson Financial.

...

Murti said he "applauds" investors for driving up oil prices, since that would spur investment in alternative sources of energy.

High prices, he said, "send a message to consumers that you should try your best to buy fuel-efficient cars or otherwise conserve on energy." Washington should create tax incentives to encourage people to buy hybrid cars and develop more nuclear energy, he said.

Of course, if lawmakers heed his advice, oil industry analysts like him might one day be a thing of the past. That is fine with Murti.

"The greatest thing in the world would be if in 15 years we no longer needed oil analysts," he said.

U.S. oil executives questioned

Executives with big oil companies on Wednesday gave a wide range of estimates when U.S. lawmakers asked them how high oil prices should be, Reuters reported from Washington.

At a hearing on oil prices before the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., the U.S. arm of Royal Dutch Shell, said that his company could be successful with oil prices at $35 to $65 a barrel, well below the record U.S. crude oil futures price of $132.73 a barrel reached Wednesday.

"I think in a range - somewhere between $35 and $65 a barrel - is what has been consistent in our ability to run a successful company," Hofmeister said.

Executives with Chevron and ConocoPhillips disagreed.

"I believe that the incremental cost of supplies is something above $90 a barrel," said John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips.

Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, also said that Hofmeister's price range was too low to allow companies to break even.

J.Stephen Simon, a senior vice president of Exxon Mobil, declined to give a price estimate.

Lifting an 18 cent tax for 3 months is an Energy Policy?

To lift a quote from the article below: "Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes ... the true American energy policy today: "Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.""

I wish I'd written this article. It pretty much says what I was thinking. When Obama was getting pressure to also lift the gas tax for the summer, he made the point that this would save the average person $30, and take away valuable funding for transportation infrastructure.

The energy to be serious, from The International Herald Tribune

By Thomas L. Friedman

Friday, May 2, 2008

It is great to see that we Americans finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead the United States, it takes your breath away.

Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer's travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: We Americans borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build the country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we'll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars - burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: "Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most."

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here's what's scary: America's problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you would want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage - gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars - and you would want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage - new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few people know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up.

At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again - which often happens - investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That's how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President George W. Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Bush - showing not one iota of leadership - refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

"It's a disaster," says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. "Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take 'congressional risk.' They say if you don't get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects."

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point "where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics" that it would turn its back on the next great global industry - clean power - "but that's exactly what is happening." If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20-billion worth of investments that won't be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America's premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany - 540 high-paying engineering jobs - because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. "Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets."

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious - the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.