October 2012 Archives

How is the absence of discussion about global warming going to affect our ability to do something about it?

Climate change and the federal government's role in addressing it are conspicuously missing from the presidential campaign trail and the halls of Congress. A broad range of environmental groups and other experts have called on the presidential candidates to discuss it. President Obama briefly discussed climate change in an interview with MTV last week, but he didn't say anything about his administration's pending environmental rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions or any other substantial way he intends to address the issue. No matter who wins the White House, the next president will be forced to confront the global warming a few key ways, including through the international negotiation process and the looming Environmental Protection Agency rules controlling greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming.

What does this so-called climate silence mean for Washington's attempts to address it in any meaningful way? What is the inaction on global warming costing us in terms of insurance for extreme weather like storms (including Hurricane Sandy bearing down on the East Coast this week) and droughts? What are other ways this inaction is costing both the country and the world?

Or, does the fact that the presidential candidates have not mentioned global warming very much make little difference in the overall effort to address the problem?

20 responses: Kevin Massy, Dirk Forrister, Jamie Rappaport Clark, Heather Taylor-Miesle, Don Wuebbles, Rich Deming, Eli Hinckley, Christine McEntee, Kathleen Sgamma, Roger Platt, Jennifer Morgan, Manik Roy, Mindy Lubber, David Holt, Tyson Slocum, Christine McEntee, Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., Bill Snape, William O'Keefe, Scott Sklar

What challenges are facing electric vehicles right now?

The bankruptcy last week of A123 Systems, a Massachusetts-based advanced-battery manufacturer, has shone a scrutinizing limelight on electric vehicles and on the technology's ability to compete in an oil-dominated market with other alternative fuels, such as natural gas and hydrogen-fuel cells.

During his first run for the White House in 2008, Barack Obama promised to put 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Just over 31,000 battery-powered and plug-in electric vehicles have been sold this year so far, which is a scant 0.28 percent of all vehicles sold this year. (Including conventional hybrids, that percentage goes up to 3.26 percent of cars sold this year.)

What should the federal government do, if anything, to get more electric vehicles on the road? Should Congress offer support for all types of alternatively powered cars, electric ones?

Like many new technologies, this sector seems caught in a chicken-and-the-egg cycle. To encourage more drivers to adopt electric cars, the market needs to produce more charging stations, But in order to jump-start more charging stations, the market needs to see more electric cars on the road. What role should Washington play to get the electric cars industry out of this dilemma?

17 responses: Phyllis Cuttino, Amy Harder, Amy Harder, Eileen Claussen, Robbie Diamond, David Friedman, Allen Schaeffer, Craig Rucker, Tom Kuhn, Bernard L. Weinstein, Matthew Stepp, William O'Keefe, Carl Pope, Matthew Stepp, Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., Brian Wynne, Scott Sklar

Should Congress repeal tax breaks that the oil and natural-gas industry has had for the better part of the last century?

In recent weeks, two of Washington's most prominent Republicans--GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.--have explicitly said that at least some oil and gas tax breaks would likely be eliminated as part of overall corporate tax reform that Congress hopes to tackle next year. Most congressional Democrats and President Obama, meanwhile, have called to eliminate most oil and gas tax breaks for at least the last four years.

How should Washington consider this sector's tax breaks as part of policymakers' call for broad corporate tax reform? Should just certain tax breaks for the industry be repealed while maintaining others? Or should the industry's federal tax treatment remain the same?

16 responses: Daniel J. Weiss, Rich Deming, Thomas J. Pyle, Brooke Coleman, Barry Russell, Jack Gerard, Amy Harder, Dennis McGinn, Brigham McCown, David Moulton, William O'Keefe, Kathleen Sgamma, Kevin Knobloch, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Scott Sklar, Tyson Slocum

What renewable-energy issues are at stake in the increasingly tense relations between the United States and China?

The Commerce Department is scheduled to announce on Wednesday its verdict in a case charging Chinese solar-panel makers with illegal trade practices. Experts say the administration is likely to slap major tariffs on Chinese solar products. This is just the latest development in a long and sometimes ugly clean-energy race between major economies, particularly China and the United States. The Commerce Department is also considering taking similar action against wind-tower imports from China. What's more, the U.S. Trade Representative's office has filed two complaints with the World Trade Organization against China, alleging the country is limiting exports of rare-earth minerals, which are key in renewable-energy technologies.

All of these developments have made their way to the presidential campaign trail, where both President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney are criticizing China on some of these issues and others.

What can the administration, Congress, and the private sector do to ensure the success of America's renewable-energy industry while also maintaining relations with China? What are the implications from the solar tariff case and other related cases for the broader renewable-energy industry? What do all of these actions say about how the U.S. is faring in the global clean-energy race?

5 responses: Brigham McCown, Bill Dickenson, William O'Keefe, Rhone Resch, Scott Sklar

Should Washington overhaul the permitting process for energy projects of all stripes?

Many energy developers, including those for renewable energy and fossil fuels alike, complain about how long it takes for permitting officials to review projects, including wind farms, pipelines, and power plants. These long regulatory processes are caused by a confluence of factors, including local opposition (NIMBY, or not-in-my-backyard) and prolonged National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

Two recent examples illustrate these challenges. President Obama delayed the approval process for the Keystone XL pipeline last November because of local concerns in Nebraska about the project's impact on a major aquifer. That project has been winding its way through different regulatory processes for more than three years. Cape Wind, the offshore wind-farm project that is poised to be the country's first, has been slogging through the permitting process and beating back local opposition from powerful politicians like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., for more than a decade.

Bipartisan legislation in the House would streamline environmental reviews of all types of energy projects, but it doesn't seem poised to gain much traction in the Senate.

Should Congress pass that measure, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., or a similar one? What else should the White House and Congress do to more efficiently review energy projects? Or is the process operating as it should?

12 responses: Don Santa, Jamie Rappaport Clark, Brigham McCown, Kathleen Sgamma, David Holt, Chase Huntley, Carl Pope, William O'Keefe, Rich Deming, Bill Kovacs, Scott Sklar, Tyson Slocum