For me it’s cloud ships that look like this:

When this flotilla (1500+) of wind-powered spew ships is complete and I can watch them bellow sea water and (presumably) fish guts into the sky, I will have reached the future. One can only hope that the accordion-like stacks will crouch lower and lower as the pressure builds until BOOM! A new cloud is born … to reflect the sun … so the Earth doesn’t get warm.

Clouds are good. Let’s make more.

TIMES crunches the numbers and comes up with some encouraging data…

The initial data released by Department of Transportation, however, shows that so far cash for clunkers has been a green success. The clunkers averaged 15.8 m.p.g., compared with 25.4 m.p.g. for the new vehicles purchased, for an average fuel-economy increase of 61%.

On the whole, American drivers are trading in inefficient trucks and SUVs for much more efficient passenger cars. Car manufacturers like Nissan are already retooling some models to improve their fuel economy so they can qualify for the credits.

But they rightly points out the potential pitfall in this situation…

It’s called the efficiency paradox: as we get more efficient at using energy — through less wasteful cars and appliances — the overall cost of energy goes down, but we respond by using more of it. In the case of cars, that means driving more. Ultimately our gas bill stays the same, but we spend more time on the road and pump the same amount of greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. The earth isn’t any better off.

This is one reason why it makes sense to have gas at a fixed cost that doesn’t go below that. Car makers have long be clamoring for this because without it the CAFE standards that the government sets don’t push people to buy the more fuel efficient cars if gas is cheap.

Is raising the fuel prices to a set level next on the Dems’ agenda? If not, should it be?

• Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
• Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
• Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
• Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
• You don’t need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
• Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
• The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

So what are your thought about the program? Will you take advantage of it?

We’ve been hearing about cellulosic ethanol for several years now, generally with the caveat that were at least a few years, and a few scientific breakthroughs, away from it coming to market and helping wean us from foreign oil. Unlike corn, which breaks down into the sugars necessary to be processed into ethanol relatively easily, cellulose is a hardy material that takes time and energy to break down. Its upside is that there happens to be more cellulose present than any other organic molecule on the planet. This is why millions upon millions of dollars has been poured into cellulosic ethanol research, genetically modifying naturally occurring enzymes to break it down faster and looking for ways to bring the price per gallon down closer to the price of gasoline.

Unlike corn, which takes land out of food production, is inefficient as far as how much energy it takes to produce and is a high maintenance crop, finding raw material for a cellulosic plant is easy. Wood chips from sawmills, the kudzu scourge spreading through the hot and humid Southeast, agricultural waste and even up to 80 percent of what ends up in our landfills could be used to make cellulosic ethanol.  Thankfully, the millions of dollars in research and development have begun to bear fruit.

A gas station near Ottawa is the first in the world to begin selling a cellulosic blend, called CE-10, to the public. Iogen, the company behind the demonstration plant that produced the fuel, plans to build its first full scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Saskatchewan. It has reached an agreement with the local government and Royal Dutch Shell to convert an old Mill site to their purposes, with the government even agreeing to purchase any green energy produced at the site. The running demonstration plant only has the capacity to produce about 3 million liters of ethanol each year, using wheat straw agricultural waste, while the new plant will be able to pump out about 75 million liters. It will make use of a more diverse feed stock, including agricultural waste from other crops, grasses native to nearby areas and even wood chips from area mills.

The march of progress continues, with a number of large companies making big investments into these technologies. Last year GM purchased a large share of Coskata, a big player in the emerging cellulosic ethanol industry, who claims to have developed a process that simplefies the complex and costly process of breaking down cellulose and brings the cost of production down to being competitive with gasoline. There are as many as two dozen companies with plans to build plants similar to Iogen’s, but the economic downturn is effecting their ability to finance these projects. Coskata is hoping to get some stimulus money, in the form of loan guarantees, to help finance its plant, with an estimated production of 50-100 million gallons a year.

As President Obama often says, if we intend to be a leader in the green energy industry of tomorrow, we need to move boldly in that direction today. Now is not the time to let companies who wish to lead us in there falter because of financing problems. Some are talking about a new stimulus bill, which most people reasonably see as a terrible idea, that would focus on these kinds of projects and job creation. The first should have done so, and I have little confidence that a new one would make it through congress without being similarly unfocused and pork laden.

We don’t get too many of these chances, where we can kill three birds with one stone. Job creation, independence from foreign oil and environmental progress can all be had with some smart funding priorities. Lets hope the administration recognizes this in time.

Congressional Republicans have been telling voters that the cap and trade energy policy that’s set for a vote on Friday will cost each household about $3,100.

CBO puts the lie to those numbers and shows that they’re nearly 20 times the actual costs…in 2020.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Climate change legislation pending in Congress would cost U.S. households only about $175 annually in higher energy and consumer prices, far less than the $3,100 “burden” opponents have claimed would result, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.

“The net annual economy wide cost of the cap and trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion, or about $175 per household,” the CBO, which gives Congress nonpartisan advice about the impact of legislation under consideration, said in an analysis delivered to Congress late on Friday.

And that’s just the average price. These costs would be distributed differently based on incomes…

Low-income households would see an average net benefit of $40, mostly through rebates and other aid, while high-income families could see added net costs of $245 per year in 2020.

Think high-income families can afford an additional $245 a year so we can move much closer to energy independence?

Moving on…

This is an extreme example, but I can’t help but think car companies can easily hit the 35 MPG mileage standards Obama is about to lay out if the following is possible for a street ready car.

From Green Car:

Volkswagen’s CEO, Martin Winterkorn recently confirmed the company is working on a car that will get 235 mpg (1 liter per 100 kilometers) fuel economy. In 2002, VW showed its 1-Liter concept car that achieved 264 mpg (0.89L/100km). The project was cancelled in 2005 but VW has now revived it. How real is this? VW now says a limited production car could be offered by 2010.

The VW 1-Liter, developed in a wind tunnel, has a very narrow and very flat body configuration that necessitated tandem seating for the two occupants. Measuring in at 4.1 feet wide, 11.4 feet long, and just over 3 feet tall, the car features an amazing drag coefficient of just 0.159…even more wind-cheating than the slippery GM EV1 electric car’s 0.19 Cd. With its 235 mpg fuel economy, it can travel 400 miles on its 1.7 gallon fuel tank…all the while achieving a 75 mph top speed.

The future of cars is small and lightweight. Bet on it.

On my final day at the Offshore Technology Conference, I attended a panel on climate change. Now, you might expect an oil and gas industry convention would prefer not to discuss the effects of CO2 emissions. But the panel included three scientists who all gave mini-lectures intended to convince the audience that global warming is underway and that it’s the direct result of human activity. The word of the day was “unequivocal.”

If you are the type to believe serious scientists aren’t part of some global leftist conspiracy, the data is quite convincing. However, the panel suffered from a lack of credible skepticism. The only panel member who doubted the “unequivocal” nature of the conclusions was a man named Carl Langner, a climate change hobbyist(for lack of a better word). Not only was he a last minute addition to the panel and thus without a nifty PowerPoint presentation, he also lacked a scientific background, making his remarks easy to discount.

Now, I’m sure a lot of people would say there is no such thing as credible skepticism on this issue because, they would argue, any skepticism is based on corrupt self interest or ignorance. Problem is, there are a lot of people who reject the scientific conclusions, such as Gateway Pundit, who also attended the session this morning and came away convinced the panel was nothing more than global warming religionists.

So how do we move forward? Well, with the Democrats solidly in control, skeptics will likely be pushed aside. But, really, the skeptics’ fixation on proving the science false is just a symptom of the greater issue — namely that a lot of people are concerned that action to reduce CO2 emissions will drastically harm our economy without any serious benefit to the climate.

If those who support combating global warming could drop the moralizing and adopt a “how can we do this without harming business” attitude, we might find more common ground. It’s fine for the President and others to talk about creating “Green jobs,” but we have to make sure we’re not sacrificing the jobs we actually have now for one’s which we may or may not have later.

The science may indeed be unequivocal, but our next step is still up for debate. We can’t let our fear of a warmer world lead us to take rash action. We must balance the total cost, weighing quality of life, employment, economic viability and our climate. We should take action. But we need to make sure it’s the right action.

Today at the Offshore Technology Conference (which I am at on sponsorship by the American Petroleum Institute), I attended a panel discussion titled: The Case for Access to Oil and Gas Resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. As the title and graphic to my post probably reveal, the panel was less reasonable than the one I attended yesterday.

Let me say, first of all, I support exploration of the outer continental shelf. It’s been nearly 30 years since anyone has done oil and gas surveying and we need to know how much hydrocarbons are recoverable in the waters off our Eastern and Western seaboards. Exploration should be a no-brainer — we’re going to need oil and gas for many years to come, no matter how fast we ramp up renewable energy sources.

All that said, I was put-off by the anti-environmentalist (as distinct from anti-environmental) attitude of the panel. There seemed to be a general perception that if the environmentalists just got out of the way, the oil and gas companies would take care of things in the best possible way. The situation devolved to a point where one member of the audience accused characters like Dora the Explorer of “indoctrinating” our youth — and no one on the panel seemed to disagree.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no reasonable link between teaching children to conserve and recycle (as Dora does) and the issues surrounding OCS exploration and drilling. The panelists consistently said we need to find common ground, and yet they often had no problem lumping positive environmentalism with the kind of short-sighted, anti-oil crusades being waged by some of the less intellectually honest members of the left. You can’t say you want engagement on the issue (as these industry leaders say they want) and then act like Dora the Explorer is some leftist plot to ruin our future.

I know those on the panel and in the audience were just voicing their frustrations in a closed environment. In the real world, I imagine they are more willing to interact with their Green counterparts. However, I don’t think progress can be achieved so long as oil and gas interests see themselves as some kind of victim. Yes, we need to explore and drill in areas previously off limits. We have the clean technology and high-end machinery capable of making such efforts efficient and of minimal impact to the environment. But if the oil and gas industry wants to convince the majority of Americans of this necessity, they need to be able to separate positive environmentalism with ill-informed obstructionism.

There should be a common ground solution to our future energy needs. But both sides need to move away from demonization.

From today through mid-week, I’m in Houston attending the Offshore Technology Conference. I’m here on the sponsorship of the American Petroleum Institute which has brought in a cadre of bloggers, presumably to help generate coverage and discussion of petroleum issues. Since I believe energy and climate change policy will be some of the most important debates we have over the coming years, I wanted to take this opportunity to delve deeper into the issue.

This morning, I attended a panel focused on meeting our energy challenges. The panelists included an array of wonks, consumer groups, politicians and industry leaders. Going in, I was wary I might be subjected to a bunch of spin. But the group managed to present some very reasonable arguments, concerns and ideas about our nation’s energy policies.

Jason Grumet, who is the Executive Director of the National Commission on Energy Policy and who advised President Obama during the campaign, set the tone with his assertion that in order to move forward, we must first “move beyond the debate careening between ANWR and Kyoto.” Roger Ballentine of the Progressive Policy Institute also pushed this idea, stating that energy policy has become too politicized and we can’t afford to have two sides who talk past each other.

Needless to say, this kind of post-partisan rhetoric caught my attention. As did the statement by Marvin Odum, president of the Shell Oil Company, that he supports cap and trade. That came with the caveat that the policy be “done right,” (i.e. with safeguards to prevent shocking the economy), but in my naiveté, I assumed an oil company would be reflexively against measures such as CO2 cap and trade.

In fact, throughout the nearly three hour discussion, I heard wide agreement that we need to focus on both climate change AND energy policy — and separating the two and picking sides will only prevent anything from being achieved.

In the face of the current financial crisis, we easily forget that a year ago, we were all talking about $4 gasoline. While those costs have fallen dramatically, we’d be foolish to think our problems are resolved. We need a multi-pronged approach to addressing our future energy needs: conservation, alternative energy sources and, yes, more exploration.

Over the next few days I’ll be reporting on and discussing all of these. Check back in.

Take a look at the following at see how many of these you agree with.

From ABC:

Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.

But hold tight.

If some views that may be perceived as liberal are ascendant, so are some conservative ones: Opposition to gun control is also at a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. There’s continued broad support for tighter border controls. And contrary to President Obama, half of Americans wouldn’t flatly rule out torturing terrorism suspects.

I agree with every single one of those views except ruling out torture. I don’t think that should be in our playbook, and I’m sure the readers of this blog know exactly why so I won’t get into it.

But everything else I’m on board with. And, yes, I oppose gun control and I want tighter border security.

The first because it’s not our guns that are making us less safe, it’s our drug laws and prison systems that breed criminality. And look at any study where you have conceal and carry. Crime goes down. Sorry folks, but when more people have guns, society gets more polite.

Turning to illegal immigration, in this new, post 9/11 world, it only makes sense to have much tighter border control. And if we want to begin legalizing illegal immigrants, we’re going to have to lock the border up tight. There’s no other way. You can’t have one without the other, and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

What this tells me is that we’re definitely a moderate nation, and probably leaning a little bit more towards being center left. And after 30 years of being center right, that’s to be expected.

So, how do you compare?

This isn’t necessarily related to politics, but the following tech is pretty huge if you’ve been following the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) space.

So yeah, they’re cool, but what could be the most significant thing about these displays is that they don’t require a backlight and so they use significantly less energy than the televisions of today.

How much energy do televisions use? And how much consumption could be cut by replacing them with OLEDs?

Mounting evidence suggests a supervolcano located in modern-day Siberia may have killed 90% of life on Earth by wrecking havoc on the planet’s climate. The event happened 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian era.

The theory is the supervolcano’s magmas intruded on massive coal fields and turned the volcano into the world’s largest carbon burning plant, spewing out 100,000 gigatons of carbon. Reaction with salt deposits may have also shot methyl chloride into the atmosphere, causing the ozone layer to effectively collapse. The volcano remained active for 200,000 years, so the timeframe for this climate destruction remains unclear.

Global warming has been an increasingly popular theory as to what caused the Permian mass extinction. The question is, can our own carbon spewing ways lead to a similarly drastic result? In total, humanity is responsible for the emission of about 8 gigatons of carbon a year. But I’m guessing our planet and climate are quite different from that found 250 million years ago. Nevertheless, the research is fascinating.

This should be welcome news for all of you Federalists.

From NY Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

Once they act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.

So Obama continues to undo many of the policies of the Bush administration, but does this one make sense? After all, having a patchwork of different emission standards seems like it might not be the best for the auto industry’s economic health.

Still, one has to think that automakers would simply make cars that adhere to the highest standards and continue on from there.

More as it develops…

When Big Oil executives “advised” the Bush administration on energy policy, a lot of people were rightfully upset over the obvious conflict of interest. So, should we also be upset that Barack Obama is getting environmental advice from those who stand to profit from increased regulation and green investment? Well, Al Gore is in Chicago to discuss energy and climate change with Obama and Joe Biden. And Gore now stands to substantially profit from the implementation of his ideas.

[Gore has] plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.” …

Mr. Gore also has a position in a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit — another group of people investing in companies that would be worth real money in an America with Gore-favored environmental policies. The firm sells carbon “offsets,” which are only window dressing at present, but which would be assigned artificial value through artificial scarcity under state-imposed emissions limits.

Gore’s investments by no means invalidate his opinion or diminish his knowledge on the subject. But they do create certain conflicts of interest that Obama and other government officials will have to take into account when seeking Gore’s advice.

A lot of people find ways to profit from the field in which they work. And there is nothing wrong with investing in technologies and companies that are advancing a cause in which you believe. But there is a difference between an advocate and a lobbyist. If Gore is promoting government action that would directly profit him, it’s hard to say he’s not a lobbyist. And if he’s lobbyist, we have to treat him with increased skepticism.

Right now, there’s no indication that Gore is trying to use his access and authority to generate a big payday. Nor do we know if Obama is turning to Gore just to be considerate or if he plans to turn to Gore repeatedly. But there’s reason for the rest of us to pay attention. Nothing pollutes public policy as quickly as conflicts of interest. That’s true whether we’re talking about Big Oil or clean-energy technology.

Remember folks, these are loans and we could actually make money on the deal…the same way we did last time when we helped a car company out and mandated they increase their CAFE standards.

From NY Times:

WASHINGTON — Faced with staggering new unemployment figures, Democratic Congressional leaders said on Friday that they were ready to provide a short-term rescue plan for American automakers, and that they expected to hold a vote on the legislation in a special session next week.

Seeking to end a weeks-long stalemate between the Bush administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, senior Congressional aides said that the money would most likely come from $25 billion in federally subsidized loans intended for developing fuel-efficient cars.

By breaking that impasse, the lawmakers could also clear the way for the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., to request the remaining $350 billion of the financial industry bailout fund knowing he will not get bogged down in a fight over aiding Detroit.

One additional thing to keep in mind is the compromise reached here. Because that the money will be coming from funds already set aside with the passage of the 2007 energy bill. And it will help these companies accomplish the same thing that money was intended to do in the first place…develop more energy efficient cars.

Yes, reorganization will happen in the meantime, and yes, they may need additional money to help them with that, but that road is preferable than a protracted bankruptcy that would shatter consumer confidence in their brands.

More as it develops…

Note to self: do not mess around with Mother Nature…ever.

Christopher Beam of Slate talks about the recent seismic shift in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Out: Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the tough, cantankerous eminence grise of the House Democratic caucus (he’s 82), who was so deferential to Detroit as chairman of the House energy and commerce committee that Lee Iacocca once said he “stood up for the auto industry beyond the call of duty.”

In: Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the tough, mustachioed eminence slightly less grise of House Democrats (he’s 69) known for his relentless investigations and aggressive proposals for combating climate change.

Barack Obama’s own transition team could not have hoped for a better outcome. In fact, there are signs it did more than just hope.

Dingell’s ouster came after the Democrats’ Policy and Steering Committee voted 25-22 in favor of Waxman’s candidacy. In charge of the steering committee is Waxman’s fellow California Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And ousting the leader of the House’s most powerful panel—environmental issues, health care, and consumer protection all fall under commerce’s purview—is generally not done without permission from the top.

Of course, there is another explanation…

Maybe Dingell knew that his time to protect the auto industry was over, that climate change legislation was on the way in and Waxman needs to be chairman of the committee in order to get that through.

And since Dingell is from Michigan, there’s no way he could lead that charge and represent his ailing constituents.

What do you think? Could Dingell have fought this fight but decided not to?

Thoughts?

Here’s a first look at Jay Inslee, who appears on the shortlists for Prez-Elect Obama’s Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Energy..