Group items tagged

And I promise you this: This nation, the United States of America, will take the lead internationally.

USA Energy goals: Cheap, plentiful energy Clean energy with low environmental impact Reduce carbon emissions by 50% Reduce reliance on OPEC by 50% Achieve global energy leadership

An aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency in the United States over the next 18 years could cut the nation's growth in energy use by 50% or more, according to a new report. The report, "Vision for 2025: Developing a Framework for Change," was prepared by the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Leadership Group, which comprises more than 60 leading organizations, with DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acting as facilitators. The report sets a goal of achieving all cost-effective energy efficiency improvements throughout the United States by 2025. If that goal is achieved, the nation will spend $100 billion less for energy in 2025 than it would otherwise and will avoid emitting 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The nation will also achieve $500 billion in net savings from its energy efficiency investments.

The Guardian reports this morning on a private report to Gordon Brown that suggests that Britain should oppose binding target for renewable energies in Europe (20% of all energy by 2020, as agreed earlier this year at this spring's EU Summit). The Guardian flags the juicy political bits ("work with Poland and other governments sceptical about climate change to "help persuade" German chancellor Angela Merkel and others to set lower renewable targets", "a potentially significant cost in terms of reduced climate change leadership"), but also provides some of the apparent underlying reasons provided, which are worth commenting upon: it undermines the carbon-trading scheme which "allows wealthy governments to pay others to reduce emissions"; it costs too much money (£4 billion a year to get to 9% by 2020); it does not help push for new nuclear plants as it "reduces the incentives to invest in other carbon technologies like nuclear power"; Let's say it plainly: each of these arguments is stupid, short-sighted and, quite simply, false. Let me take you through them in turn (under the fold).

Today, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) released its much-anticipated Global Corporate Climate Change Report (CDP5). This is the fifth annual report by the CDP tracking carbon disclosure and attitudes toward climate change in the world's largest companies. The CDP additionally this year launched the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI), an honor roll for companies who are best addressing climate change issues.

Investing in new nuclear power plants, which produce electricity 24 hours a day and seven days a week, can be a major growth engine for our economy. Nuclear plants can be located close to growing demand centers, and next to existing transmission lines. Renewables, which produce power intermittently, must often be sited far from cities and the grid.

Today’s energy situation is reminiscent of Soviet cold war times. In 1957, Russia launched the first satellite into space, and in 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first human in orbit. Afraid Soviet space domination would make our country unable to defend itself, President Kennedy announced Apollo, a 10-year, $100 billion program (in today’s dollars) to land a man on the moon. Eight years later, Neil Armstrong made his “giant step for mankind” and America quickly regained world leadership.