The Republicans have been pounding the Democrats on energy policy so far this summer, effectively adopting an "All of the Above" approach (at least in terms of their messaging) to solving our energy price woes. The Democrats' responses, on the other hand, have failed to frame the debate on their terms, instead offering scattered solutions and saying "no!" to the Republicans' plans.

The Democrats, however, announced they plan to take back the debate as they return from recess next week and head into the fall. According to Congressman Markey (D-MA), they will deploy a counter-strategy capable of doing "a political reverse takedown on the Republicans."

The Democrats will test the Republicans with their own "All of the Above" strategy that will embrace offshore drilling as it calls for a renewable energy mandate, energy-efficiency measures for buildings, and oil industry tax provisions.

As the Republicans chew on that, I also have to wonder if the Democrats are really paying attention, once again, to what truly matters when it comes to energy policy in 2008.

The bulk of the paper is an analysis of the cloture vote, which failed to get its necessary 60 votes by a dozen, while 16 senators were not in senate to vote. Wheeler uses variables such as a state's proportion of power from fossil fuels, median state per capita income, senator's degree of political conservatism, senator's party affiliation, senator's gender, energy sector campaign contributions, and degree of risk from climate change-related disasters to see if any of these variables could predict with accuracy the senator's vote for or against cloture.

"I actually think if we deal with global warming in a way which raises people's energy bills, we will have blown it."

You can watch it here:

by Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus

And yet despite his dual passions, Gore has been slow to embrace investment in technology as a solution to the climate challenge. In the past, he's been heavy on the doomsday rhetoric, emphasizing "sacrifice" as a solution to global warming. But Gore's thinking on the issue may be evolving -- in a landmark speech in the summer of 2008, he called for large public investments in clean energy. Who will win out -- Google Gore or Gaia Gore?

Breakthrough's coverage of the many sides of Al Gore:

I haven't engaged much with Joe Romm of late, but I can't let this one pass. When Tom Wigley, Chris Green and I published our analysis of the spontaneous emissions reductions built into all IPCC scenarios (PDF), Joe Romm put up a post titled: "Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?"

The effort to pass a sensible climate and energy policy is not working. I don't just mean we're not getting the right content in legislation--whether it's trading or taxing or new investment. I want to face facts: right now there isn't serious political support, or even interest, for an "energy bill" with climate change solutions at its heart. Not from most Democrats in Congress, and not from the vast majority of Americans, whose support is desperately needed by us climate and clean energy advocates.

This can be our crucial moment--a point of deep popular unrest over energy hikes and economic decline. In the self-righteous furor of "drill here, now" and in the sparring over loafers and houses, we see a political establishment desperate to connect with a distrustful electorate. At this sudden crossroads, both we and the defenders of the fossil economy have an incredible opportunity to define the way ahead. So now, we can't spend one more day still trying to convince 41% of America to come to our 10% side. We have to go to them, and meet them where they're at.

Breaking news! Energy is still the number one issue of the 2008 presidential election and it is taking center stage at both parties' conventions this week and next. So far this election season, Republicans have been able to effectively capture this issue and run with it, bringing the American people with them and leaving Democrats in the dust.

The Republicans are winning an energy debate set entirely on their terms. They have been enjoying the strong voter support that accompanies an "all of the above" energy strategy, even if their message is only full of empty promises. Democrats, conversely, have been entirely left behind as they have struggled to find their voice in the debate and been hammered for being unable to restrain energy prices.

I can't really think of a better headline for this article than one I came across earlier today: "Looking for energy, Google goes to hell." Except, maybe: "Google goes to hell (in search of energy)."

Google's philanthropic arm, Google.org, is in fact sinking $10 million into the advancement of technology that harnesses energy coursing deep below the Earth's surface.

While this technology, advanced geothermal technology (AGT), has not received as much attention as solar or wind, its potential is simply enormous. According to MIT, by investing $1 billion in AGT over the next 40 years, the U.S. could develop 100 gigawatts of electricity that emits zero air pollution and provides even more reliable power than coal-fired power plants.

Scientific American reports that more than 2,000 times the entire annual energy consumption of the U.S. is available deep underground.

It shouldn't.

That debate is now undergoing a major shift. Conservatives like Jim Manzi, Newt Gingrich and others recognize that humans are affecting the climate and that something should be done about it. Liberals and environmentalists, like Joe Romm and most recently Al Gore, are beginning to recognize the political futility of peddling sacrifice, and have started emphasizing the need to make clean energy cheap. To be sure, both camps are still far apart in their view of global warming, with Romm seeing it as a future hell on earth and Manzi viewing it as little more than a rounding error. But if we fixate on these radically divergent views of the problem we risk missing some signs of agreement over what should be done about it.

Last week, the Crow Nation announced plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant in Montana that may provide fuel for the Air Force. That followed news of a potential coal-fired power plant on Navajo Nation land in New Mexico.

]]> http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/08/tribes_building_new_coal_plant.shtml http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/08/tribes_building_new_coal_plant.shtml Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:30:50 +0000 By Frank Laird, Breakthrough Senior Fellow

I kept wanting to title this blog "Hell freezes over . . ." Seeing T. Boone Pickens on TV promoting wind energy and implicitly criticizing the current administration was more than a little disorienting, not to mention quite a bit of fun. But it also has important implications for promoting a clean energy system.

The Pickens plan proposes using wind to help reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. At first glance, this seems unlikely to work, since wind produces electricity and the United States uses very little oil to produce electricity. The Pickens plan squares this circle by calling for another change: promoting cars that use natural gas instead of gasoline. The rapid expansion of wind power could displace natural gas electricity generation, which then frees up natural gas to use in transportation, which reduces the need for oil and so dependence on imported oil.

The obvious problem with this plan is finding ways to put large number of natural-gas powered cars on the road and create the accompanying fueling infrastructure. Whether or not the Pickens plan will work, we shouldn't miss the larger point: Pickens's announcement shows how large the potential political coalition is for an innovation policy focused on making clean energy cheap.

For those of us who have watched the energy scene for many years, it's hard to overstate how shocking it is to see T. Boone Pickens promoting wind power. And his promotion of wind is concrete; he's putting the largest windfarm in the world near Sweetwater, Texas. Pickens is the classic conservative, hard-nosed, Texas oil man, right out of central casting. He has been an outspoken opponent of almost anything associated with liberal politics or environmentalism. He was a funder of the infamous Swiftboat ads in the 2004 presidential campaign. If people like him can get excited about clean energy, the potential coalition for clean energy is much bigger than I had imagined.

Michael and Ted have been promoting an innovation-based energy policy precisely because it could break the old political stalemates and mobilize a new coalition that could put in place a vastly larger, long-term set of policies to make clean energy a reality. I thought they were right and had already seen people like the hip Silicon Valley venture capitalists, and even some folks from the fossil fuel industry, getting interested in renewable energy. But I never thought I'd see the like of T. Boone Pickens putting up a website that extolled the virtues of renewables. Odd bedfellows sometimes make for difficult coalitions, and I have no doubt there will be many bumps in the road to a sustainable energy system. But the Pickens plan tells me that the coalition we need could extend very far beyond the usual suspects. This could be quite a ride.

]]> http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/08/unlikely_allies.shtml http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/08/unlikely_allies.shtml Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:16:55 +0000