- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
February 2013 Archives
What does the controversial Keystone XL pipeline stand for? And what is at stake when President Obama decides its fate?
The 1,700-mile, tar-sands project has come to symbolize much more than a pipeline. Almost five years after the project's first step into the regulatory process, Washington is still fighting about its fate.
To some, the transcontinental project is an engine for economic growth and its approval would be a sign that Obama is serious about boosting the economy. To others, green-lighting the pipeline means game-over for combating global warming because the project would carry carbon-heavy tar sands.
The State Department is not expected to make the necessary national-interest determination on the pipeline until at least spring of this year. Obama is likely to make the final call on the project, a decision that could slip into the latter half of 2013.
What does the pipeline mean for both the U.S. economy and efforts to curb climate change? How could the decision affect America's relations with Canada, our northern neighbor where the pipeline originates?
What does the battle over this one pipeline mean for future efforts to build energy infrastructure?
18 responses: Amy Harder, Thomas Gibson, Brent Erickson, Dan Conover, Frances Beinecke, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., Thomas J. Pyle, Carl Pope, Jack Gerard, Brigham McCown, David Holt, Michael Wu, William O'Keefe, Michael Canes, Scott Sklar, Bernard L. Weinstein, Bill Snape, Kevin Massy
Sizing Up Obama's State of the Union Address
In his State of the Union address, President Obama challenged Congress to act on climate change - but declared that if lawmakers don't act, he will.
He did not detail how, specifically, he'll use his executive authority, but his speech appears to set the stage for a series of cabinet actions, starting with Environmental Protection Agency regulations on both new and existing polluters.
How much can Obama achieve on climate change without Congress? What will be the impacts - environmental, economic and political? What obstacles and challenges stand in the way?
20 responses: Kateri Callahan, Brent Erickson, William O'Keefe, Bernard L. Weinstein, Rachael Jonassen, Jamie Rappaport Clark, Brigham McCown, Kevin Crapsey, Dave McCurdy, Charles Drevna, Bill Snape, Paul Sullivan, Manik Roy, Frances Beinecke, Carl Pope, William O'Keefe, Evan Tracey, Jack Rafuse, Bill Snape, Christine McEntee
[Editor's note: Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., is guest-moderating and providing the question this week.]
Increasing energy efficiency can be a powerful catalyst to turbo charge our economy and make us more competitive. Efficiency and productivity gains have a long track record of helping consumers and businesses reduce the amount of energy they are using. In fact, without efficiency the U.S. would need nearly 50% more energy than we use today, according to the Alliance to Save Energy. Until now, most of the attention has been paid to how we can save energy, rather than how we can get more out of the energy we use, and how increasing energy productivity can boost the economy. Understanding how to leverage efficiency gains to create a more productive energy economy is something that can yield huge benefits.
The Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency Policy has been studying various technologies and policy options to create a set of policies that would provide a blueprint to double energy productivity over the next 20 years. On February 7, I will join my fellow commissioners in unveiling recommendations on how to achieve this goal and "get more bang for our energy buck". This "Energy 2030" plan provides policy solutions through investments, modernization, and education and includes an in depth analysis that shows how these gains in energy productivity can increase U.S. GDP up to 2%, create annual savings of $327 billion, and save the average household $1,039.
Energy efficiency is also one area in energy policy which has a long history of bipartisan support. In the final days of the last Congress, lawmakers approved energy efficiency advancements and voted to extend energy efficiency tax relief through 2013. I hope that this Congress can work together in a bipartisan manner to produce a robust energy efficiency plan that will result in positive impacts across our economy.
18 responses: Kateri Callahan, Kateri Callahan, George Biltz, Craig Rucker, Phyllis Cuttino, Jackie Roberts, Dave McCurdy, Jonas Monast, Ned Helme, Kateri Callahan, Amy Harder, Kate Offringa, Paul Sullivan, Michael Canes, William O'Keefe, Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., David Holt, Scott Sklar
