Author: Jerome a Paris

This started off as a short message to thank all of you who took the time to drop by in my diary yesterday, but as I was going through that huge number of amazing messages of support, encouragement, empathy, it got me thinking, and it coalesced into something which could be put to use.

We’re here on dKos because we care.

We don’t all care about the same things, we each have our pet issues and our worries, but the underlying theme is that we all care.

We care about the world around us. We care about where our countries are going, and what our leaders are doing in our name. We care about others, what’s happening to them and what could happen to them. We care about the future. And we care about each other.

This could be the very simple slogan of the Democrats, against the “me, mine, now” mindset of the Republicans: We care.

::

We care when politicians are crooked, even those on “our” side. Corruption and special interests are never good for democracy and the common good.

We care that our freedoms are threatened. It’s not important that we do not use personally each of these freedoms. Any denial of these freedoms to anyone else ultimately cheapens our democracy and weakens our other rights.

We care that the combination of infotainment and “party before nation” mindset is polluting political debate, killing dialogue, pushing everybody into apathy, narrowmindedness or isolation, furthering fear, selfishness, confrontation and hate, and encouraging demagoguery.

We care about the debt that we are piling up, which threatens the future prosperity of our children (and likely ourselves as well).

We care that so many are struggling to make ends meet in an economy supposedly of plenty, and we think that increasing inequality ultimately leads to decline and conflict.

We care that so many have to worry about their healthcare, because it’s a terrifying waste of lives (whether through stress, financial ruin or actual sickness), and ultimately costs all of us more.

We care that we are damaging the environment around us for short term profit. We know that we will pay for it eventually, in health costs, in damage to our cities and economies from worsening weather events, in the lost of unknown and unvaluable biodiversity, possibly in resources wars.

We care that cheap energy is running out. Whether it’s now, in 10 or 50 years, the end of the oil age is within the life span of our children, and we are doing too little to prepare for it and change our wasteful ways.

We care about human rights violations, absolute poverty and sickness, in many places around the world – not just when there is oil or other strategic interests involved – and we grieve, because we know that our countries could do more about it.

We care that appalling numbers of US soldiers are killed or injured in Iraq, and that even more Iraqis are killed or injured.

We care that we are being called hypocrites, and that we use double standards, and that the standing of the US and of the West in the rest of the world is (deservedly) at record lows, thus threatening more than anything else our long term security.

We care about our values, and care when they are abused in their very name.

::

We care, because it is the right thing to do, and because it is ultimately the best thing to do. We are all in this together. Selfishness only works in the short term.

We care. We are careful with your freedoms, your money, and your future.

We care. We believe in the future. Together.

Today, I am simply too tired to do yet another gloomy diary on energy, or the economy, or whatever the latest scandal is in Washington or in Europe.

I’ve lost count of the time when I read or wrote on this site that this was the last straw, or that one’s outrage meter had gone red, or that that particular bit of news would finally tip the scales.

And yet, it’s not happening. We are steadily going number, and getting used to increasingly high background levels of outrage. Will we ever pierce through that mortal fog?
In some ways, things are even worse for us news junkies outside the US. While we may not be as sensitive to the latest anti-abortion outrage, or gay bashing, or reality denying soundbite from the right wing think tanks, we have to deal with the reality of the Bush administration, which casts its shadow on the whole planet – and we have to deal with our own mediocre, criminal or incompetent leadership. Chirac? Should be in jail. Berlusconi? Should be in jail. Blair. Bush’s poodle. Barroso (EU Commission president)? Blair’s poodle. Putin? War criminal and dictator. The EU? Bickering and unable to speak with one voice. And meanwhile, we get all the news from Iraq and other places in their sickening gore. We hear how complicit we are in running the Guantanamo Gulag. We learn how weak and cowardly our leaders are in facing evil, whether in Uzbekistan, China, Russia or in the White House. Plus we have to face the relentless drum about how successful the US economy is and how sclerotic, outdated and dying our own countries are. It’s irrelevant that it’s mostly not true, it’s the prevailing wisdom. At least you guys can still think that you are part of the most successful and dynamic country on the planet, no matter that that success and dynamism are captured by a happy minority at the expense of everybody else, and that it will have a terrifying price tag in the future.

And yet we fight, because we have to, and because it’s the right thing to do, and because we still have hope that it’s not too late, and that we can bring back some semblance of normality to the world, some decency, some reason, and that we can avoid all the dire scenarios so often predicted on this site.

But sometimes, like now, despair takes over, and giving up sound so tempting. Grab some reality TV instead of dailykos. Read your horoscope rather than the latest news from around the world. Go drown yourself in whatever activities keep your mind and body busy (including even useful things like charity work) rather than caring about where the world is going. There’s only so much outrage one can take.

Why don’t others just see it? Are we crazy? Are we actually extremists, out of touch with the rest of humanity?

Why are we so few in thinking that torture is wrong? That selfishness should be tempered? That there is such a thing as the common good? Why are we so few to care? How do we fight the fact that’s it’s easier to just tune out?

And why do I have to be insulted as naive, or parasistic, or lacking in spirituality or values?

I know how to fight. But why do I have to?

Bremer claims he was used as Iraq ‘fall guy’ (Financial Times)

Paul Bremer, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, says that senior US military officials tried to make him a scapegoat for postwar setbacks, including the decision to disband the Iraqi army following the US invasion in 2003.

In a memoir published yesterday that broke a more than year-long silence, Mr Bremer portrays himself in a constant struggle with Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and military leaders who were determined to reduce the US troop presence as quickly as possible in 2004 despite the escalating insurgency.

Among the tidbits selected by the article (go read it, there is more, notably on the infighting between Rumsfeld and Rice, and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army):

A Pentagon spokesman yesterday confirmed that Mr Bremer had sent Mr Rumsfeld a memo based on a report by the Rand Corporation consultancy that recommended 500,000 US troops would be needed to pacify Iraq – far more than were sent. But Mr Bremer’s advice was rejected by military leaders and Mr Rumsfeld.

The interesting twist here is that this may give some cover to Bush and Rumsfeld who said that they never got requests from the military to have more troops. But is it just Bremer trying to shift the blame, or did the military brass know and keep quiet?

Mr Bremer’s account of his 13 months as Iraq’s governor is at times vituperative – scathing of the Iraqi exiles who formed the initial Iraqi Governing Council, resentful of Democrats in Congress who sniped at his efforts, the press for focusing on the negative and feeding on leaks, and bureaucrats in Washington who obfuscated when he was trying to rebuild an entire country.

I suppose that’s the rule in such books: it’s everybody’s fault but the author’s. But…

What emerges clearly from the diary is that there was no detailed postwar reconstruction plan, that the US lacked decent intelligence to deal with an insurgency it failed to predict, and the naivety of Americans who were shocked at the dismal state of Iraq’s economy and infrastructure after years of sanctions.

In a book where he is supposed to defend his work, that this should come through is significant – although not so surprising given the reality on the ground.

In one particularly bleak moment in October 2003, Mr Bremer pleaded with the president to back him in this internal struggle. “I’m concerned that a lot of the Pentagon’s frenetic push on the political stuff is meant to set me up as a fall guy,” he told Mr Bush at the White House. When the president looked puzzled, he added: “In effect the DoD position would be that they’d recommended a quick end to ‘occupation’, but I had resisted so any problems from here on out were my fault.”

Mr Bremer lauds the president for backing him in most of these battles.

Puzzled, or clueless?

The book sounds as if Bremer does not want to cut himself off from the Bushistas, but a lot of actionable truth comes out.

It began as America’s embarrassment. Now it is Europe’s dilemma. (FT)

[A] dispute over the alleged kidnapping, detention and mistreatment of a German citizen by CIA agents, and a court ruling in the UK banning the use of evidence obtained by torture, have prompted Europeans to confront a question avoided since the attacks of September 11 2001: how far should they co-operate with the US in the war on terror?

Below, a summary of the mountain of evidence coming out, and my personal condemnation of the hypocrisy of our European governments.

A major word of thanks to Fran as most of the quoted articles come from her European Breakfast news review.

Gernot Erler, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, admits the US and Europe have “moved in separate directions” on tackling terror. “What’s needed is a more fundamental discussion [with the US] on how to pursue the fight against international terrorism,” he told the FT.

Across Europe a series of developments have highlighted the uneasy arrangement by which European governments have appeared to collude with the US in practices that they have rarely been willing to defend, criticise or even acknowledge. (…)

“We do not have a war against terror,” says one senior EU official, highlighting Europe’s less militaristic approach to the struggle to contain the terrorist threat. Yet the insider argues that neither the US nor Europe, as mutually interdependent partners, have any option but to co-operate with each other on the biggest issues.

(…)

Many Europeans argue that the Bush team seems not to understand that maltreatment of prisoners can provide a rallying cry for terrorist movements. “If we want to win the war against al-Qaeda, we have to win the battle of ideas and show that we live by certain values which exclude torture,” says Prof Paul Wilkinson, an expert on counter-terrorism at St Andrews University in Scotland.

The Bush administration’s reaction so far has been to raise the stakes by not-so-subtly reminding the Europeans that they have been complicit in the past:

Nevertheless, some US officials are irritated by what they see as Europe’s attempt to evade its responsibility. (…) A senior US official says Ms Rice intended to emphasise that the US acted with the knowledge of, and together with, its European allies. The implication “that the US was acting as a lone cowboy, a rogue state” drove the US to that public statement, the official says. “That was the rub.”

Before, while the US kept its European partners informed of its activities, neither side saw fit to advertise the relationship. Now, after weeks of revelations, the cover is blown. Rather than continue to avoid the issue, Europe will have to decide how far it is prepared to go in the battle against terror.

The problem is that, while the governments in Europe would be keen to follow the US line and avoid the issue altogether, they are under growing pressure from their respective oppositions, and from a combative press, to come clean. So far, they have tried to raise the issue as delicately as possible with US authorities (and in particular with Condi Rice, as she was in Europe recently), but both the flow of new information, and the hard stance of the Bush administration are making their position increasingly uncomfortable.

Public opinion is in no mood to compromise on this, and both the opposition and the media see blood in the water, as it is becoming increasingly clear that European governments were complicit in the illegal abductions and torture of their own fucking citizens.

Investigator links Europe’s spy agencies to CIA flights (Guardian)

CIA prisoners in Europe were apparently abducted and moved between countries illegally, possibly with the aid of national secret services who did not tell their governments, according to the first official report on the so-called “renditions” scandal. Dick Marty, a Swiss senator investigating allegations of secret CIA prisons for the Council of Europe, said that he did not think the US was still holding prisoners in Europe, but had probably moved them to north Africa last month.

Mr Marty said in a statement after a Paris meeting of the council that his information so far “reinforces the credibility of the allegations concerning the transfer and temporary detention of individuals, without any judicial involvement, in European countries“. The council has set its 46 members a three-month deadline to reveal what they know about the transfers. Mr Marty said that if it was proved that European governments knew the renditions process, involving flying terrorist suspects to secret interrogation centres, was going on, they “would stand accused of having seriously breached their human rights obligations to the Council of Europe”.

The Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU, and is a pan-European organisation which acts as a watchdog on human rights and democracy. It runs the European Court for Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, which acts as ultimate recourse for people that have been denied basic rights in their country of origin (even Western countries get sentenced by this court once in a while and its decisions, which can only be enforced by the relevant country, are always followed).

So the fact that the CoE investigator finds the allegations “credible” is a major piece of information, which will lead to further investigations to determine what exactly the European authorities knew.

And the pressure is mounting in various countries to get to the truth:

still form the Guardian

British MPs and peers were told by an international lawyer that their government would break the law if it did not investigate allegations that the CIA transferred terrorist suspects via Britain to secret camps where they may have been tortured. “Credible information suggesting that foreign nationals are being transported by officials of another state, via the United Kingdom, to detention facilities for interrogation under torture, would imply a breach of the [UN torture ] convention and must be investigated,” James Crawford, professor of international law at Cambridge University, told the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition.

Rendition victim was handed over to the US by MI6 (Independent)

MI6 officers interrogated a former UK student in Pakistan, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said yesterday. The man, a terrorist suspect, says MI6 handed him to the CIA for “extraordinary rendition” and torture .

The allegations by Binyam Mohammed el-Habashi, 27, in which he details the abuse, sleep deprivation and torture inflicted on him, were previously uncorroborated, but Mr Straw admitted for the first time that at least part of his story was true.

Reading from a brief, Mr Straw told MPs: “Mr Habashi was interviewed once in Karachi by the security services. The security services had no role in his capture or transfer from Pakistan. The security service officer did not observe any abuse and no incidents of abuse were reported to him by Mr Habashi.”

Asked whether he could confirm Mr Habashi was handed over to the Americans in Karachi, Mr Straw said: “I know nothing about it.” However, the official confirmation of Mr Habashi’s claims that he was seen by British MI6 officers while in custody in Pakistan will strengthen his legal claims that he was abused after being handed over to the US.

Row in Greece over Pakistanis’ detention (Dawn)

ATHENS, Dec 13: A prominent Greek lawyer on Tuesday accused British security forces of illegally detaining Pakistanis living in Greece days after suicide bombings in London in July.

Fragiskos Ragoussis, one of the country’s best known criminal lawyers, submitted a file to the Greek parliament on the allegations, automatically triggering a parliamentary investigation.

Mr Ragoussis, who is also a defence attorney for members of Greece’s once-feared Nov 17 leftist guerilla group, alleged that 28 Pakistani men were arrested, detained up to a week and interrogated on Greek soil by British security officials.

GERMAN MINISTER TO COUNTER CIA CLAIMS (FT)

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, German foreign minister, will today seek to counter accusations of a government cover-up of the abduction two years ago of a German citizen by the CIA by outlining how Berlin protested behind the scenes to Washington about the kidnapping, writes Hugh Williamson in Berlin.

Mr Steinmeier will use an emergency parliamentary debate on the abduction of Khaled al-Masri, a German of Lebanese descent, to present details of how the BKA federal crime authority and the BND intelligence agency both lobbied the US government in summer 2004 to disclose information on Mr Masri’s abduction.

(…)

The government has admitted it was told of the kidnapping in a secret US briefing on May 31 2004, three days after Mr Masri’s release, and Mr Steinmeier’s speech today appears designed to show that Berlin has not been inactive on the case in the last 18 months.

Row over CIA ‘torture’ flights engulfs Blair (Independent)

Tony Blair and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, were under pressure last night to refute convincingly claims that Britain has been complicit in alleged use of CIA planes to take suspected terrorists for torture in secret camps abroad.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, has accused the Government of conducting a “hear no evil, see no evil” policy on renditions, after repeated denials that Britain is colluding in transporting prisoners to countries where torture is reputedly widespread. But there are signs that the Government’s attempt to keep free of the controversy are becoming untenable, amid calls from MPs, human rights groups and European bodies for an in-depth investigation.

The Foreign Secretary revealed on Monday for the first time that he had agreed as Home Secretary to rendition for two flights from the UK to the US under the Clinton administration on the grounds that the suspects were to stand trial. He refused a third, he said, because he was not satisfied about the arrangements for sending the suspect to a third country.

Yesterday, under cross-examination by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Commons about rendition, Mr Straw said there could be a fourth case. He said that the Home Office was still checking the records.

Poland to examine claims of secret CIA jails (FT, yesterday)

The Polish government is launching an inquiry into whether the country hosted Central Intelligence Agency prisons on its territory, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, the prime minister, announced on Monday.

The charge by US-based Human Rights Watch that the US intelligence agency kept prisoners accused of terrorism in Poland has been consistently rejected by Aleksander Kwasniewski, the Polish president.

However, local media have uncovered evidence that US aircraft were stopping at Szymany, an obscure airport in northern Poland.

So you have formal investigations and/or parliamentary hearings in Germany, the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy and Romania, plus the Council of Europe. (France has been shamefully discreet on the topic – although, thankfully, not the press). This scandal is not going away.

But I want to be very clear that the governments are dragging their feet all the way and making every effort not to be hostile or negative to the Bush administration – so much so that that they are objectively complict in the cover up, which means that they are most likely complicit in the crimes in the first place. The Berliner Zeitung says it best:

When Allies Become Accomplices to Terror

But instead of openly declaring their complicity, European governments have silently aided and abetted.

(…)

The justifiable suspicion exists that European governments not only knew of the torture, but that they also benefited from the coerced testimony so gathered.

So this is not a Europe vs America thing, this is a citizens vs governments run amok thing. Thankfully, both our opposition and our media are making a big deal of this story, which gives us hope that the truth will come out and these crimes will be stopped – and punished.

You have to make noise on your side of the Atlantic as well. Get your opposition and your media to run with this story. This is vital for our most basic rights.

This was prepared for DailyKos, but I believe it has enough relevance to be front paged here. Your input welcome.

Energize America, Fourth Draft, 13 December 2005

Written by devilstower, Jerome a Paris and Meteor Blades.
Contributing Editors: A Siegel, besieged by bush, btower, chriscol, DoolittleSothere, jkl, mateosf and dozens of other helpful Kossacks.

Following is the fourth version of a Kossack-generated strategic energy plan designed to provide the United States with energy security by 2020. As you may remember, I started this process with Building together an effective Democratic energy policy (I), which came after a number of energy diaries where lots of great ideas and proposals had been brought forward by the Kossack community. The project quickly blossomed into an effort to draft a comprehensive and coherent U.S. energy policy that could be used by Democrats and other energy security advocates. Subsequent versions included diaries by Meteor Blades (Reenergize America – A Democratic Blueprint (Second Draft)) and devilstower (Energize America – A Democratic Blueprint (Third Draft)).
I am grateful that this series of diaries has been so strongly supported by so many of you, and it has been an extremely fulfilling process for all involved.

With this Fourth Draft, we have refined our focus, sharpened our message and begun to build the financial models to support the plan, including both a funding model and target investments for each specific proposal.

To sustain our momentum and keep our work going forward, we now ask you to:

• help us ensure that the message is clear, the logic sound, the tone appropriate and the depth sufficient. The bumperstickers need to be punchy and explicit; the “elevator pitch” needs to be clear, concise and attractive; and the flyer text needs to be accessible – and convincing – to all Americans.

• critique the legislative proposals and their associated projected financials: comments on political impact, analysis of assumptions used, costs or benefits we may have overlooked or exaggerated, suggestions to improve the proposed legislative text; input on missing financials would be most useful. That section should be understandable to anyone with an interest in energy policy, but detailed enough to be taken seriously.

• provide any specific wording, ideas, arguments, et cetera, that you would like included in the plan. (Detailed wording will be much more helpful than general comments at this point.)

We also need your help with the document format. If you have design, graphics, layout or other similar skills, we’d like to hear from you, either in the thread or by e-mail. We expect to finalize Energize America in January or February for consideration as the Democratic Energy Platform, and will be looking to Kossacks to once again build nationwide support for a long-overdue progressive solution to this country’s evolving energy crisis.

With all that said, here we go.
________________________

The bumperstickers/sound bites

Energize America

Energize America – A Blueprint for U.S.  energy security

Energize America – A Democratic Blueprint for U.S.  energy security

Energize America – The 20/20/20 plan for Energy, Environmental and Economic Security.

Energize America – A path for a healthier America

Energize America will diversify our energy sources, promote energy efficiency and substantially expand America’s renewable energy industrial base.

SMART Goals: By 2020, Energize America will reduce oil and gas imports by 20%, reduce carbon emissions by 20%, and generate 20% of electricity from renewable sources.

Note: I will put each of these in separate comments below so that you can indicate which ones you prefer by rating the corresponding comment
________________________

The business card version

Energize America – A Blueprint for U.S.  Energy Security

Increase energy diversity to strengthen our national security and economic stability
Energize America will provide 20% of electricity from renewable sources.

Replace current energy policies that leave America vulnerable
Energize America will reduce imported oil and gas by 20%.

Promote energy efficiency and conservation to protect Americans and the environment
Energize America will  reduce carbon emissions by 20%.

Invest in renewable energy to create jobs and enhance America’s technological leadership
Energize America will make America the global leader in renewable energy technology, equipment and production.

By 2020, Energize America will:

• make the nation safer from unstable regions of the world – where most of the global oil supply is located;
• insulate the U.S. economy from energy supply disruptions – both natural and human-made;
• create several hundred thousand new American jobs in high-value manufacturing and service industries;
• preserve the environment for future generations by shifting from fossil fuels to clean and safe renewable energies;
• enhance U.S. political power and expand U.S. military options;
• reestablish America as the world leader in renewable technologies and economic growth;
• significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution

Energize America – A Blueprint for U.S.  Energy Security

________________________

The flyer version

Energize America – A Blueprint for U.S.  energy security

America is at a critical crossroads regarding energy policies.  We can drift further down a path of increasing – and increasingly dangerous – dependence on imported oil, or we can boldly choose a future that will Energize America by diversifying our energy sources, promoting energy efficiency and substantially expanding America’s renewable energy industrial base.

The risks of maintaining the status quo are simply too great to ignore, especially as petroleum production begins to decline while worldwide demand is rapidly increasing.  Our continued dependence on fossil fuels, combined with this expected growing global mismatch between petroleum supply and demand, threatens to cripple our economy, destroy our environment and hold our foreign policy and military hostage to the whims of unstable regions of the world.  America’s political leaders have failed for decades to seriously address this crucial issue. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a sad demonstration of that failure in that it compounds our problems by making the nation ever more dependent on imported oil, with little care given to long-term stability or environmental stewardship.

Americans increasingly realize that we must act now to put our country on a path toward energy independence.  This journey will not always be easy, nor will it be quick – but it is an essential and honorable effort that will ensure economic prosperity, strengthen national security and protect our environment for future generations of Americans.

Energize America is a modern day “Apollo Project,” similar to President Kennedy’s 1960s plan that electrified the world and united the nation around the previously unthinkable goal of landing an American on the moon.

Energize America will make it possible to achieve energy independence within our children’s lifetimes.  Just as President Kennedy’s call to action inspired a generation, so too will Energize America. The United States can once again serve as a beacon of hope, opportunity and prosperity, but we must act now, with clear focus and national purpose.

By 2020, Energize America will reduce oil and gas imports by 20%, reduce carbon emissions by 20% and generate 20% of electricity from renewable sources. This will:

• Increase energy diversity to strengthen our national security and economic stability
• Replace current energy policies that leave America vulnerable
• Promote energy efficiency and conservation to protect Americans and the environment
• Invest in renewable energy to create jobs and enhance America’s technological leadership

Energize America‘s goals are “SMART“

• Strategic – they greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help make America more secure;
• Measurable – their progress will be visible to all;
• Aggressive – because we need to begin what will be a decades-long move away from our dependence on foreign oil before it is too late;
• Realistic – they are attainable with sustained personal commitment and steady political leadership; they will require significant investment but will provide a solid return;
• Targeted – at developing renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency and protecting our environment.

Increase energy diversity

Energize America will provide 20% of electricity from renewable sources

America’s reliance on imported oil threatens our national security and economic stability.  Foreign relations, homeland security and our economy are intertwined with energy policy.   America imports 60% of the oil it consumes, and U.S.  demand continues to grow in the face of shrinking supply and rapidly growing global demand.  As developing countries increasingly compete with the United States for depleting supplies, oil prices will rise dramatically, setting the foundation for global turmoil as countries mobilize to protect their interests.

Only by building independent and sustainable energy sources and infrasturcture can we avoid potentially catastrophic consequences in the global race for energy security.  Today, interruptions in oil and gas supplies can cause significant disruptions in our way of life.  Energy diversity, and infrastructure diversity, will insulate Americans from these supply disruptions, whether they are caused by natural disasters or political upheaval.

Energize America will make it possible for U.S.  entrepreneurs and companies to invest in American-made energy technology tailored to regional needs, and it will encourage the growth of all renewable energies technologies, known (solar, wind, geothermal, bio-mass and biofuels), tentative (long-life batteries, thermal depolymerisation), and others as yet unknown. It will support demonstration projects for both “coal-to-liquids” technology and “intrinsically safe” nuclear power-plant design.  It will ensure that best environmental practices are consistently applied to the indispensable coal-based power industry.

Promote energy efficiency

Energize America will reduce imported oil and gas by 20%

In addition to diversifying our energy sources, Energize America will help all Americans be more efficient consumers of the energy we have.  The most immediate way to reduce our dependence on imported oil without impairing our quality of life is to eliminate waste, encourage energy-smart consumption and remove obstacles to innovation.  

Innovation is an American birthright.  Forty years ago, the Apollo Project captured the world’s imagination.  Twenty years ago, American-made wind turbines were the world’s most advanced. For decades, American automotive technology was the most advanced. Now Asia and Europe enjoy an increasing lead in the rapidly growing market for ultra-fuel-efficient cars and Europe has taken the lead in wind energy.  

Energize America will support math and science education to develop the next generation of energy-aware American engineers, and will provide for worker training and retraining to support the migration to a national culture of energy efficiency.

Energize America will mandate the federal government to lead by example and spur innovation by spending federal money only on cars, buildings and other equipment that meet new energy-efficiency standards.

Energize America will help homeowners and consumers to make informed choices in the migration to ultra-fuel-efficient cars and energy-smart buildings.

Invest in renewable energy

Energize America willreduce carbon emissions by 20%.

Global climate change is now undoubtedly linked to human activity and, in particular, to greenhouse gas emissions, whether carbon dioxide or methane from power generation, car exhausts or landfills. In addition to creating economic growth, renewable energies help us protect the environment and to preserve pristine public lands for future use by reducing the need to mine and burn hydrocarbons.  Cleaner land, air and water will make our planet a safer place to live, and can improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Renewable energy technology has matured rapidly.  Once considered economically unfeasible or technically impractical, solar and wind power are now being aggressively deployed worldwide.  Global investment in renewable energy reached a record $30 billion in 2004.  America will not only participate in these important new global markets, but will lead through the development and production of high-value, American-made, exportable renewable-energy solutions.

Energize America will make America the global leader in renewable energy technology, equipment and production.

Energize America will restore America’s technological edge through improved innovation and investments in education and industry that will create well-paying jobs and exportable American-made products, while leaving our land cleaner and our nation more secure.

Energize America‘s agenda includes comprehensive legislation and a funding strategy targeted at transportation, power generation, energy efficiency and protection of the environment.

By 2020, Energize America will reduce oil and gas imports by 20%, reduce carbon emissions by 20%, and generate 20% of electricity from renewable sources.

________________________

The Legislative Agenda

Energize America includes a comprehensive set of proposed legislation, which can be implemented collectively or individually.  Not all legislative items are equally important, but all are vital to reforming our national energy posture and putting America on a path of energy independence.

TRANSPORTATION

1. The Automotive Mileage and Pollution Credit Act

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars, currently about 22 miles per gallon (mpg) for all vehicles combined. Passenger vehicles account for approximately 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption, so increasing fuel efficiency is the quickest way to reduce our foreign oil dependence. Passenger vehicles also contribute about 20 percent of all U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, so increasing fuel efficiency helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Energize America proposes a fresh approach to both CAFE standards and the current federal rebate on fuel-stingy hybrids.

Energize America proposes to provide Americans who buy a car or pickup truck with a $200 rebate for every mile per gallon the new vehicle comes in above the national average through 2015, adjusted annually. For example, a 2005 Ford Escape hybrid, which has a 33mpg rating, would qualify for a rebate of $2200 ($200 x 11mpg). The rebate program will apply to all qualifying vehicles (whether hybrids, diesels, fuel-cell or other), with a rebate cap of $6,000. Rebates for commercial vehicles will be calculated based upon their relative reduction in the amount of pollution produced by a vehicle in normal operation.

This act will cost an estimated $24 billion in 2007, growing to $58 billion per year in 2025, but will yield energy savings worth $8 billion to Americans in 2008, growing to $125 billion in 2025. The average efficiency of America’s car fleet (trucks included) will increase from today’s 21mpg to 32mpg. America’s fuel-import bill will be reduced by 14% in 2015 (worth $40 billion at today’s oil prices) and 24% in 2025 ($85 billion) and carbon emissions will be cut by 254 million tons in 2025 (or 51%, worth $7 billion at current market prices) compared to the situation if nothing were done.

2. Government Fleet Conversion Act

Energize America will require that within two years of passage of this act the government begin to purchase the highest-mileage, lowest-polluting vehicles available for any given task, and that within five years of passage, the entire federal government fleet be replaced by high-efficiency vehicles.  This act will also provide incentives to state and municipal governments to do the same.  Such a program will guarantee to manufacturers a large client base for efficient vehicles, and will eliminate the purchase of many low-mileage vehicles now marketed primarily for fleet purchases.  

While it would be good to begin enforcement of these rules immediately on passage, U.S.  manufacturers are currently unable to offer competitive vehicles in many segments.  A program that spurs the purchase of foreign-made cars and light trucks would likely mean additional erosion in American jobs. To give U.S.  manufacturers a fair chance to compete, a two-year window will thus be provided after signing. For example, if this bill were passed in January 2007, all new government fleet purchases would be high-mileage vehicles beginning in 2009 and the federal fleet would be fully converted by 2012.

With a federal, state and local fleet of approximately [x00,000] vehicles, this program would yield oil savings worth [$xx billion] per year from 2012, thus bringing an equivalent amount in budgetary spending at no cost to public budgets as most public sector cars are renewed every [3] years today. (input with numbers here kindly requested from Kossacks)

3. Bus Fleet Conversion Act

A few municipal mass-transit agencies and school districts are converting their bus fleets from those that burn gasoline and petroleum diesel to those that burn compressed natural gas. A handful are looking at buying hybrid electrics or converting to biodiesel, a fuel made from vegetable oils.  By using incentives for end users and guaranteeing a market to manufacturers, the Bus Fleet Conversion Act will mandate conversion of the nation’s bus fleets to natural gas, electric, hybrid-electric or biodiesel over a period of 10 years from the date of signing.

With a nationwide fleet consuming 120,000 barrels of oil per day, this program would yield petroleum savings worth nearly $4 billion per year from 2015. Incentives would be sized to make this act “revenue neutral” to States and localities.

4. Telecommuting Assistance Act

Energize America will establish a tax credit for companies that use telecommuting to reduce employee travel.  The maximum credit will be set at $2,000 per year for a full-time employee who telecommutes five days a week. This will be pro-rated on a $400-a-day basis for employees averaging fewer than five days a week telecommuting. To receive the credit, companies must agree not to outsource the credited position to an overseas firm for a period of at least five years.  In addition, the act will impose a return to older, more relaxed IRS rules to allow telecommuting workers to claim a portion of their house as an office for income-tax purposes.

If by 2015, an estimated one million white-collar workers ([10]% of the relevant work force – again input with numbers here kindly requested from Kossacks) switch to telecommuting an average of two days per week, the fuel savings would amount to 200 million gallons yearly (or $400 million at current prices) for a budgetary cost of $800 million a year. Companies would also benefit from lower office-rental requirements, and all Americans would benefit from less gridlock.

5. Passenger Rail Restoration Act

American passenger rail service could rebound if a single modification were made – increased speed on dedicated infrastructure. Energize America proposes a federal-state-private partnership to build, equip and operate two new high-speed rail lines using existing technology, such as Japan’s bullet trains or Germany’s Inter City Express trains. One system would be built in the Northeast (e.g., New York City to Washington), and one in the South or West (e.g., Los Angeles to San Francisco).  European experience shows that high-speed trains are more convenient, faster and profitable on high-density or metropolis-to-metropolis lines up to 400 miles.

Federal involvement would be limited to facilitating the permitting procedures and providing a stable regulatory framework over at least 25 years of operations of these high-speed lines, which would be built, financed and operated by the private sector.

POWER GENERATION

A variety of renewable energies have come a long way in the past three decades, particularly wind turbines and photovoltaics. These renewable sources still only provide a tiny fraction of America’s (and the world’s) electricity. To reach Energize America‘s goal of generating 20% of our electricity with renewables by 2020, the act proposes to support by legislative initiatives the following programs:

6. Clean Coal Generation Act

Coal is relatively cheap and extraordinarily abundant in the United States. At present, coal generates about half of America’s electricity, with dozens of new plants being built across the country. For the next half-century, coal-burning power plants are currently planned to be the primary source of electricity. Given coal’s potentially devastating environmental damage, it is essential that we improve every aspect of our use of coal. The act would:

• Outlaw mountain top removal that is denuding mountains and choking streams across Appalachia. Limit surface mining to areas where “return to contour” is the rule. Ban all dumping of spoil into waterways.

• Stop serial offenders by steeply increasing fines on failures to protect the environment.

• Allow easier prosecution of those who use “shadow companies” to evade environmental and safety regulations in the coal industry.

• Repeal the “Clear Skies Act” and return to the previously passed Clean Air Act provisions. Coal-burning plants should no longer be allowed to expand under regulations that allow them to pollute the way they did 25 years ago. The act sets 2020 as the deadline for bringing all coal-burning plants into full compliance.

The costs of this act will be limited to the federal budget, as they will bear essentially on the coal companies themselves, by forcing them to adapt environmental “best practices.” Such practices reflect the need for this industry not to pollute or otherwise despoil our lands, the air we breathe or the water we drink, and will be implemented in a consistent way so as to ensure a level playing field for the industry.

7. Extension of the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit from 2007 to 2015.

The United States will have an estimated 15,000 megawatts of installed wind-power capacity by 2007. An enhanced Production Tax Credit (PTC) could raise that figure in the short run and vastly expand it after 2009 by providing wind-farm entrepreneurs a stable and predictable market.

In a country mourning the lost of manufacturing jobs and aching for clean, low-cost power, wind power offers benefits on both fronts.  Wind-turbine manufacturing would create new heavy-industry jobs at home, jobs whose product can readily be exported.  To enable this future, there has to be a stable, long-term demand for wind power.  Building 10 megawatts of wind generation capacity brings with it approximately 40 jobs over the one-year construction period, and two full-time jobs over 20 years, for a total of 80 person-years of new employment, and an expected 50,000 well qualified jobs under the act in 2015.

The budgetary cost of the PTC would reach a maximum or $700 million a year in 2015, but would turn into a surplus as the newly created jobs generated income-tax revenue in addition to benefits to local economies (where the wind farms are built and operate) and to the communities where the industrial capacity will be based.

8. Five Million Solar Roofs Initiative

Originally proposed as the One Million Solar Roofs Initiative by the Solar Energy Industries Association in 1997, and endorsed by President Clinton, this initiative needs to be pushed much further than has been done so far.

Energize America‘s plan will put five million electricity-generating systems on American roofs between now and 2012 by tripling the current tax credit of $2,000 to $6,000 for residential solar installations and extending the program beyond its 2007 cut-off.

At an annual cost of less than $400 million over the next 15 years, the program will add 15,000 megawatts of solar electricity, more than 15 times the currently installed amount of such power worldwide, and equal to the power provided by 50 typical coal-fired plants.  By spurring demand, this act will provide ready market for solar products, encourage American entrepreneurs to create new products, and spur the creation of small businesses. It will create an estimated 100,000 jobs in the United States.

9. Renewable Portfolio Standards Act

Nineteen states already mandate that small amounts of retail electricity sold within their borders come from renewables, and other states are considering similar requirements. With milestones set at 5, 10 and 15 years, and assisted by tradable “Renewable Energy Certificates” (RECs) linked to overall kilowatt-hours, this act will require all but the smallest utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Companies that generate power from qualifying renewable facilities will be issued RECs that they can hold for their own use or sell to others. Plants that fail to meet the targets will be forced to either purchase RECs from others that have exceeded their goals, or pay fines.  

By focusing the act on net results rather than imposing specific solutions, the act will allow providers to invest in methods most suitable to their areas, and develop renewable energy sources under market mechanisms.  

10. The Federal “Net Metering” Act

Programs that allow homes to sell power back to energy companies during times of high generation (effectively running their meters in reverse) exist in several states, but these programs are a hodge-podge of local regulations. Energize America will provide Federal regulations to standardize this practice and expand it nationwide. We expect consumers to generate 5% of American electrical energy by 2020.

11. Federal Alternative Energy Demonstration Act

By means of venture capital and a federal grant program, this act will promote the construction of one major, experimental alternative power project in each state of the Union or large metropolitan area. Americans need to see alternative energy as both economical and practical. Highly visible projects can help build confidence, validate new technologies, promote public education and develop cutting edge expertise. These demonstration projects could include wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, ocean thermal, geothermal and other energy sources that have not yet been tested in a full-scale model.  The specific Energy Demonstration project deployed in each state will be determined by each state’s legislature. State or private funds will be matched by federal funds one-for-one up to $100 million per project, for a total cost of up to $5 billion over 10 years.

12. Coal Liquefaction Demonstration Project Act

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has given fresh attention to an old technology that turns coal into liquid fuel that, if produced in large enough quantities, could reduce the need for imported petroleum. A significant investment in coal-to-liquids could theoretically fuel tens of millions of America’s vehicles until a more sustainable technology became available. However, there are serious questions at every step of the way, from energy-efficient extraction to environmental impact concerns.

The modernized Fischer-Tropsch technique that Schweitzer and others have proposed as the method to convert America’s abundant coal reserves into synthetic fuels needs a full-scale test. The act will set the parameters for a public-private partnership to build and operate two coal-to-liquid plants using state-of-art “scrubbers,” carbon dioxide sequestration and other strict environmental controls.

13. The Standard Nuclear Power and Demonstration Project Act

While many people have understandable reservations about nuclear power, it can serve as a reliable source of “dispatchable” energy to meet baseload demand, especially over the next 20 years as large-scale renewable energy sources come on line.  Nuclear power is at a standstill because of well-justified environmental and safety concerns.  A new nuclear plant has not been built in the United States for more than 20 years, despite promising technology advances.  To clearly understand nuclear power’s potential for cost-effective and environmentally-sound energy, this act would have the federal government:

• In partnership with industry, mandate the siting, design and construction of a full-scale “intrinsically safe” nuclear power plant to test its suitability as a pioneer for a new generation of nuclear plants;

• Work with the IAEA to create new standards for the regulation and inspection of nuclear plants worldwide, and for improved regulation of nuclear waste;

• Investigate and standardize means of waste disposal, while understanding that no solution will be perfect.

• If the test plant proves itself, and waste disposal problems are resolved, the act would provide incentives for expansion of nuclear power by allowing the construction of additional plants that conform to a standard, intrinsically safe design.  All such plants would require that uniform planning, site evaluation, construction, disposal and operations be carried out to ensure environmental, worker and general public safety, and all such plants would have to meet the regular inspection regime of independent inspectors.

ENVIRONMENT AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

14. Coal Generation Carbon Reduction Act

In close relation to the Clean Coal Generation Act, and the Carbon Reduction Act below, the Clean Generation Act will apply to coal-fired power plants as well as to other large industries that generate significant volumes of greenhouse gases. It will

• Regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Just as the Clean Air Act imposes a gradually more stringent series of guidelines on other pollutants, Energize America‘s Clean Generation Act does the same with carbon dioxide. By 2020, all coal-fired power plants should be operating at 20% reduced CO2 levels. By 2040, we should require that total production of CO2 be cut in half through both scrubbing and sequestration.

• Revise pollutant certificate trading. Producers who invest in technology that puts them ahead of government requirements get a payback by selling the “right to pollute” to less-advanced producers. However, these certificates should be regional, not nationwide, to prevent a large “pollution bull’s-eye” in the Midwest and resultant spread of these pollutants along a corridor of the east. Energize America would add CO2 certificates (which are already traded on a voluntary basis) to the mix.

• To ensure that transforming coal into synthetic fuels represents an actual improvement in CO2 production over burning petroleum products, all coal liquefaction or gasification plants should be required to use sequestration or scrubbing from the outset.

15. Carbon Reduction Act

Leading experts believe that average temperatures across the world will climb by several degrees over the coming century. Icecaps and glaciers are already melting, sea levels are rising, and extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. Some portion of this change comes from burning hydrocarbons and producing carbon dioxide. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons causes health problems for many people. By themselves, the potential economic costs of these health effects and a changing climate run into the trillions of dollars.

The Carbon Reduction Act will formalize trading in CO2 certificates, and impose a gradually tightening regime of CO2 emissions standards.  In parallel to the Coal Generation Carbon Reduction Act, it will apply to all industrial sectors that are significant producers of greenhouse gases on a consistent and predictable fashion.

At the same time, the act will call for the United States  to reengage the world community on global climate change.  America must rejoin and lead international efforts to find remedies for the ill effects of climate change, and make sure that worldwide efforts are fair, thorough and do not put U.S. industry at a competitive disadvantage.

16. Federal Energy Policy Enforcement Act

Good energy policy requires reliable, fair and consistent application and enforcement of rules. Specialized agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission can do their job and enforce these acts only if they have the proper support, political and material. This legislation will increase the agencies’ capacity to detect and react to fraud and compliance failures, heighten their ability to punish scofflaws, and ensure non-partisanship by proposing new rules for the nomination of their top officers.

Budgets will be doubled in real terms from their current levels over the next 15 years in order for these administrations to cope with the workload required of them in the implementation of the proposed Energize America legislation, with dedicated and specially trained agents in each agency.

Energize America requires sustained effort and discipline, and these agencies will be the leading actors in ensuring that such effort is shared fairly and brings the desired results for all.

EFFICIENCY AND EDUCATION

17. National Energy Efficiency Act

Over the past 25 years, conservation has been frowned upon among many Americans because people have believed, as Ronald Reagan once said, that they will “freeze to death in the dark.” But conservation doesn’t require physical discomfort or giving up modern conveniences. In fact, due to increased efficiencies, Americans are already using 25% less electricity than was predicted 30 years ago.

Moreover, conservation displaces much more expensive and polluting sources of energy.  Amory and Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute term these savings “negawatts,” and it is both the cheapest and most effective type of reform in the short term. The act includes:

• Development of an energy education curriculum for elementary and secondary schools. Conservation is like driver’s education – every generation needs it.

• Fund the deployment of SUN centers in every state. Under Jimmy Carter, four regional SUN centers were established nationwide to provide outreach to consumers eager to learn how to be more efficient in their energy consumption.  Information provided ranged from the simplest – like weatherizing and shopping for energy-saving appliances; to the most complex – like designing a house to take advantage of natural lighting and heating.  

• Launch an independent federal review of appliance efficiency with an eye toward boosting standards as new technology becomes cost effective.  This review would also ensure that consumers get accurate, easy-to-understand information about the true energy costs of their appliances.

• Require all new federal buildings, as well as state and local government buildings constructed with federal assistance to be designed and built with the highest level of energy efficiency feasible, including being as energy self-sufficient as technologically possible on the date the design for each such building is approved.  Currently, the federal government operates under the Energy Savings Performance Contract, which allows private contractors to help federal agencies improve the energy efficiency of their facilities. This voluntary initiative will be made mandatory.

18. Home Improvement Credit Act

Home owners and rental-property landlords who upgrade their dwellings according to a standard, geographically-adjusted conservation-and-efficiency formula will receive tax credits up to 50% of the cost of the upgrade. New or old homes purchased with FHA or FmHA loans will be required to meet conservation standards.  Low-cost loans will be provided under the auspices of the same agencies to cover any needed upgrades.  This will ensure that consumers at the lower economic end of the home-buying spectrum are not disadvantaged with homes that are cheaper to buy, but costly to heat and cool.  

19. Demand Side Management and Profit Decoupling Act

Utilities are often in the best position to know what would generate the most savings in energy use at home or in our offices, but for as long as their income derive from selling more power, they will have no incentive to provide such energy-smart advice. This act aims to change this, by allowing utilities to profit from any energy savings that they can generate for their clients. It will include:

• tax credits for energy audits and energy-saving investments for clients, up to 50% of the net energy saved over 5 years;

• accelerated depreciation for all energy efficiency and renewable energy investments.

• buildings that meet the highest energy-efficiency standards are open for accelerated depreciation for entire project

• construction that meets EERI standards accelerated to 15-year rather than the current depreciation of 27 and 33 years.

• a U.S.-wide Demand Side Management program of no less than 2.5% for all utilities (gas, electric) (with the exception that renewable energy sources are not required to be counted in gross revenues).

• Profit Decoupling:  The federal government will work to establish guidelines with state governments so that all utilities that commit (and maintain) a DSM program of 4 percent of gross revenues will be enabled to capture profits from efficiency programs through profit decoupling.

FUNDING ENERGIZE AMERICA

Our aim is a legislative package that pays for itself over its life to 2020. In order to get there, a general rule in each of the above Acts will be that all incentives should go to goods and services that help improve energy efficiency or energy independence, while taxes or penalties should be borne by energy-intensive or wasteful activities.

20. Energy Research Funding Act (“Energy Cents Make Sense“)

This act implements a compounded one-cent per gallon federal gasoline tax, with the tax increasing one cent a month for 10 years.  Proceeds would go to fund, in addition to the Acts above, specific programs, including:

• general funding of research and experimental pilot projects in renewable energy production;
•  support for R&D for ultra-dense energy storage (batteries);
•  Improvements in materials recycling and energy conservation;
•  Energy subsidies to low-income families

In the first month, the tax would be only one cent, barely noticeable, but with gasoline consumption at 320 million gallons per day, that single cent would generate almost $10 million a month for energy research.  At the end of the first year, the act would be generating more than $100 million a month for energy research.  At the end of the 10-year period, the total tax would be $1.20 per gallon.

Altogether, the program would require a cumulative investment of $36 billion by the third year, which would turn into a net benefit by year six, and would generate massive economic value for Americans in the long run.

We intend to provide detailed yearly budget projections in the next version of Energize America, and we count on professional numbercrunchers amongst kossacks to volunteer to assist us in that endeavor.

Via World Changing, this great tidbit noted by the Dept. of Energy’s Green Power Network:

Green Pricing

November 2005 – Utility customers participating in green pricing programs that offer some form of protection from fossil-fuel price changes are finding that their green power premiums are shrinking or even turning negative. For example, as of November 1, Colorado customers participating in Xcel Energy’s Windsource program are paying 0.66¢/kWh less for wind energy than for “regular” electricity because of an increase in the utility’s energy cost adjustment (ECA). Since the ECA announcement, Xcel has sold out of its remaining available wind energy supply and has established a waiting list for new program signups.

(Go to original article for links to all the individual utilities and their programmes)

In Oklahoma, OG&E Electric Services customers purchasing the OG&E Wind Power product now pay 0.13¢/kWh less for wind energy than for traditional electricity and customers of Edmond Electric’s pure&simple wind power program now pay 0.33¢/kWh less. Both utilities adjust their fuel charge monthly. Finally, in September, Austin Energy announced an increase in its fuel charge, which will bring the rate for its most recent GreenChoice product offering to near parity with the standard electric rate.

The great advantage of wind is that its cost of production is VERY predictable. You need to spend a significant chunk of money upfront, but after this, the production costs are very low and extremely predictable (technical maintenance, replacement of some part after a number of years, full stop).

You cost over the long term thus depends on the financing terms you can get to cover that initial investment and “spread” it over a number of years. Typically, it is possible today to get 15-year financing for that upfront investment.

With current prices for turbines and ancillary equipement (about $1m for 1MW as a rule of thumb, a bit more currently because of the ongoing boom in demand in the USA), and depending on the wind available at your site, your initial investment will cost about 3-4 c/kWh in debt repayment. Add to that approx. 0.5c/kWh in operatiing costs (increasing over the years to 1c/kWh), and you get power that will cost you 3.5-5c/kWhwith absolute certainty over the next 15 years, and much less after that (turbines are considered to have at least a 20-year life).

Coal-fired plants generate 2-3c/kWh power in today’s conditions, but they are sensitive to coal prices (which doubled in the past year), and they could (and should) be hit by carbon taxes which will increase their price.

continued below …
Natural gas-fired plants, the great new thing of the industry in the late 90s, used to have 3c/kWh costs as well, but that was predicated on 3$/mbtu gas. With natural gas currently at 14$/mbtu, and not currently expected to go below 7$/mbtu in the next 5 years, gas-fired plants are currently providing 6-8c/kWh power.

As I explained in an earlier diary, gas-fired plants usually being the marginal producers, they effectively set the level of wholesale prices for electricity, which have thus increased, slowly bringing retail prices up with them.

Until recently, the expectation of long term wholesale electricity prices arouns 3c/kWh made wind power uncompetitive, thus requiring a support mechanism, the PTC, to make it possible for investords and lenders to put long term money in that sector. And the 1.8c/kWh for 10 years provided by that taw mechanism have been enough (when available, which it was with irregularity in recent years) for the industry to be financed and to develop. Despite current high prices, banks are not yet willing to bet on such prices remaining high for 15 years, and thus still requite the support of the PTC to provide finance, and it would still kill the industry to do without it for now. (Disclaimer – yes, I work in banking and I finance wind farms, so this may sound self-interested, but (i) I don’t work in the USA and (ii) it’s still true). But eventually it may become unnecessary – basically as soon as utilities decide that they are willing to take that risk and sign fixed price purchase agreements with wind farms at high enough prices – like 5c/kWh – prices which, being fixed, will end up being very cheap for the utilities if the alternative is 8c/kWh gas-fired.

The gist of all this is that there is no rational reason today not to promote wind power today – it will be the most economic source of power in the long term – it already is in the short term.

And I have an additional bit of good news. The International Energy Agency, hardly a loony green outfit, has just published a new report (Variability of Wind Power and Other Renewables (pdf), which basically says that the impact of the  intermittent nature of wind power on grids has been overestimated and can be managed reasonably well with well-known technical solutions.

That means that investing in wind power will NOT require additional investment in gas-fired or coal-fired standby capacity to cover times of low production – these can easily be managed by the grid.

As the issue of birds inevitable pops up each time I write about wind power, I will refer you to previous discussions of this topic:

Wind Power – Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife (pdf)  from the GAO.

This diary summarises a few scientific studies and quotes the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the topic:
Wind power: birds, landscapes and availability (I)

Other discussions on birds, with various sources:
http://www.dailykos.com/…
http://www.dailykos.com/…
http://www.dailykos.com/…
http://www.dailykos.com/…

The conclusion is that, while the wind farm in Altamont, Ca has killed a number of raptors, and care should be taken in all cases to site windfarms away from migratory pathes and other potentially hazardous locations for birds, the overall impact of wind farms on bird is extremely low.

Overall, wind power is cheap, reliable, and mostly harmless. These things cannot all be said of all the alternatives, so wind deserves to be promoted a lot more than it currently is – and it will actually be profitable!

We all know how you Americans are competitive and want to win every contest you participate in. And, lo and behold, you have presented the world with an exceptionally gifted candidate for the title of “Worst President Ever”.

But don’t think that this is a done deal, because there is serious competition around. Of course, the French are in the race, trying to spite the hyperpuissance with inflated claims of relevance – but today, I will let the Brits, hardly our cheerleaders, to make the case for Jacques Chirac. And your arch-enemy, the Iranians, have becoem serious contenders with their new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First, out of fairness, the most recent advances by your champion:

US policy on torture, as summarised by Der Spiegel

Tell us about the CIA flights.
The US doesn’t torture.
Tell us about the black sites.
The US doesn’t torture.

But “we do, sometimes, but it’s not our fault.“

“Will there be abuses of policy? That’s entirely possible,” [Condi Rice] said on a visit to NATO headquarters. “Just because you’re a democracy it doesn’t mean that you’re perfect.”

or this charming tidbit:

The US has admitted for the first time that it has not given the Red Cross access to all detainees in its custody.
The state department’s top legal adviser, John Bellinger, made the admission but gave no details about where such prisoners were held.

And the most recent whopper, via the NYT

The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

A good summary of the case for Bush was provided as follows by an editorialist form Le Monde (sorry , no link, this is sub. only):

Peut-on redéfinir le mot torture afin de pouvoir la pratiquer ? Bien sûr, et c’est même digne d’une démocratie, à condition de redéfinir aussi le mot démocratie.

Can we redefine the word torture so as to practise it. Sure, and it is compatible with democracy, provided of course that we also redefine the word democracy.

Good, title-winning stuff, especially coming as it does after a dubious election, starting an unnecessary war, losing it, betraying secret agents, blowing several hundred billion dollars, and going 2 out of 3 already on his watch on the worst disasters that can hit the USA (and all the rest you can fill in).

But, as I said, these is competition.

First, Chirac. The case is made by Philip Stephens, one of the political editorialists of the Financial Times:

Philip Stephens: Chirac puts up the barriers

We should reserve our pity for Jacques Chirac.

(…)

France alone, of course, is not responsible for Europe’s ills. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall, German reunification, enlargement and globalisation were always going to disturb the comfortable assumptions of the Union’s first decades. Yet, Mr Chirac’s stubbornly defensive response to every upheaval does provide much of the explanation for the present disarray.

(…) look back over the past decade and Mr Chirac has misjudged and miscalculated at every turn. Each new challenge has been treated as a threat. Stubbornness has replaced confidence. EU enlargement, globalisation, international trade talks: all have been seen as part of a global conspiracy against the fifth republic. Every change has somehow been a betrayal; modernity itself is cast as a plot to diminish France’s standing in the world. Mr Chirac has thus swapped his country’s identity as a leader for that of victim.

(…) The decline of French influence has thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(…) The French social model has much to recommend it. A confident leader would have shown how the model could be adapted and updated to meet the new insecurities of the age. Instead, Mr Chirac has built another Maginot Line.

For a time, the controversy over the Iraq war fed Mr Chirac’s foreign policy delusions. The argument about whether the US should have gone to war was entirely legitimate. Most Europeans would say Mr Chirac was on the right side. Yet in pirouetting alongside Russia’s Vladimir Putin in search of a multipolar world, he diminished France.

(…)

Mr Chirac has reached the twilight of his presidency. France and Europe can only wait now for his departure.

And, like Bush, Chirac has a lot under his belt from the past. He has been implicated in so many judicial procedures that everybody has lost count (and at least two indictments await him as soon as he steps out of the Elysée Palace, one on a file where his former right hand man and former Prime Minister, Alain Juppé, was sentenced to jail). He does not have a single policy success, major law or reform to his name, he has let inequalities and unemployment increase in France, he has destroyed the country’s standing in Europe by abusing its (large) capacity for nuisance, he has destroyed the career of every half-decent politician on the right, leaving only the fascists, the opportunists and the crooks.

His performance may not be as spectacular as that of Bush, but he has the considerable achievement under his belt of making France irrelevant and its (sometimes needed) arguments unconvincing or unheard. Not wholesale destruction, but steady decline. A consistent performance over 40 years of political life.

Finally, we have the new kid on the block. He burst on the international scene a few weeks back, with his comment that Israel should be “wiped off the map”, and is now establishing his credentials with the following:

Dawn

“Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail,” IRNA quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying.

“Although we don’t accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?” he said.

“If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe — like in Germany, Austria or other countries — to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it.”

“Why do they insist on imposing themselves on other powers and creating a tumour so there is always tension and conflict?”

Pretty impressive stuff. A negationist Head of State? Using words certain to provoke the ire of Israel and the USA, two countries who currently seem to be itching for any pretext to go to war with his country – and to lose him the support of everybody else? At a time when the stakes are nuclear weapons?

But that’s not all. The man is not only an obvious agent provocateur, he is an incompetent one, unable to control the most strategic thing in his country:

Iranian MPs reject oil minister

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has suffered further embarrassment as his third nominee for the key post of oil minister was rejected by MPs.

Mohsen Tasalloti, the director of a petrochemical development zone in southern Iran, was dogged by rumours about his personal life and fortune.

The Majlis rejected the president’s first two nominees for lacking experience in the oil sector.

Iran is the world’s fourth biggest producer of crude oil.

Nearly two-thirds of the MPs present voted against the president’s candidate in a session.

The BBC’s Tehran correspondent, Frances Harrison, says parliament’s rejection of three candidates over the past few months is an unprecedented challenge and a huge embarrassment to the new president.

So, who’s the worst?

• the man who is spectacularly blowing off your treasury, your reputation and your democracy?
• the man who’s made a loser of his country?
• the man who wants to go to war with the variously sized “Satans”?

Or do you have other names to nominate for “Worst President Ever”?

The CIA is recruiting, as this ad in this week’s Economist (p.17 of the European edition) shows (click on the pic for bigger version):

We are all over the story over at the European Tribune:

Torture, Deportation: What Did the German Government Know? by Saturday

CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Torture & Murder Ignored by Chris Kulczycki

CIA Black Prison on British Territory by Londonbear

And the European Breakfast (prepared by Fran) has an extensive cross section of press coverage in the English language.

So, do you have the required strong interpersonal skills to try “waterboarding” and have a high impact? Will you have the high degree of integrity required to send off pesky reporters, Europeans and other assorted enemies of freedom while maintaining ‘friendly’ relations with them?

Will you be experienced enough to know when to stop?

Independent: The torture files

At least one death has been reported elsewhere, however. In a CIA facility in Kabul known as the “Salt Pit”, an officer, described as young and inexperienced, used the “cold treatment” on a detainee, who was left outdoors, naked, throughout a freezing Afghan night. He died of hypothermia. The case is being investigated, along with several others in Afghanistan and Iraq where interrogators – CIA officers, civilian contractors or members of the special forces – went well beyond the guidelines and suspects died as a result.

Do you have the competence to obfuscate?:

US does not send suspects abroad for torture: Hadley
In an interview with CNN, Hadley said there are certain kinds of operations “one cannot talk about.”
“The terrorists threaten all of us,” he said. “You’ve seen terror attacks in Britain, in Spain, in Italy, in Turkey, in Russia, in Egypt in Jordan, in Saudi Arabia. This is a threat, really, to the civilized world.

“We need to cooperate together to deal with this terrorist threat that threatens all of us. We’re cooperating with a number of countries.

“That cooperation though is characterized by three things: One, we comply with the US Constitution. US laws and US treaty obligations. Secondly, we respect the sovereignty of those countries with whom we cooperate. And three, we do not move people around the world so that they can be tortured.”

Asked specifically whether Washington operates secret prisons in Europe, he repeated that Rice will address the issue.

But if such operations were going on “they’re the kinds of things that one cannot talk about. “Why? Because the information would help the enemy. It would compromise the operations and it would put countries who are cooperating with us at risk,” he said, stressing that it should not be inferred from his remarks that secret CIA prisons exist.

Are you able to play hard ball?

Independent: CIA ‘covert flights’ mar Rice’s German visit

Ms Rice has said that she will provide an answer to an EU letter of complaint on the issue complied by Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary. However, reports ahead of her visit suggested that she was in no mood to dwell on the issue.

One official involved in drafting her response in Washington was quoted in the Washington Post as saying: “The key point will be ‘We’re all in this together and you need to look at yourselves as much as us’. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.“

(Although I am not sure that such a frank admission that you are guilty is such a smart thing to do?)

Or will you do the right thing?

Independent: The torture files

CIA agents have broken ranks to reveal the ‘cruel and inhuman’ interrogation techniques they are ordered to use at secret prisons around the world, including freezing and near-drowning.

Details of the secret prisons and the methods used in them have emerged mainly from CIA officers themselves, who said the public needed to know “the direction their agency has chosen”. They broke ranks amid a furore in Washington over an amendment to the White House military spending package going through Congress. Senator John McCain (Republican), a former US navy pilot who was captured and tortured in Vietnam, wants an unequivocal ban on all “cruel and inhuman” treatment of prisoners in US custody, including those held by the CIA.

(btw, if I get the latest rightwing talking points, the fact that John McCain broke under torture is proof that it works…).

OK. Enough for the sarcasm. Here’s what we need to do:

BBC: CIA jail claim dogs Rice’s Europe tour

Tom Malinowski, Washington-based Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch, says Ms Rice is in an impossible position.

Mr Malinowski says she cannot confirm the allegations because they are true, and she cannot deny them because that would put European allies in an extremely difficult position.

This is a very interesting sentence, because you’d expect it to be the other way around : “she cannot deny the allegations because they are true, and she cannot confirm them because that would put European allies in an extremely difficult position.”

But it is right:

• She cannot confirm them, because they are illegal, and she would thus be guilty of a crime if she admitted to (knowing about) it.

• She cannot deny it because it would prove to us Europeans that the Americans can lie to our representatives without fear of consequences.

This is really what this is about. Legal fallout in the US, and political fallout in Europe. The legal fallout in Europe, unless a smoking gun is found, is unlikely to be conclusive. The political fallout in the USA seems, sadly, very limited so far.

You guys should of course make noise to make this a political issue, but the most promising option seems to be the legal route – so you should support the ACLU and other such organisations that are trying to build up legal cases.

Similarly, we should encourage the various institutions and judges in Europe that have started investigations, but the real battle is, for us, political – we have to make it clear to our politicians that they will lose more (from voters) by being nice to the USA than (from Condi’s blackmail) by pushing for information to come out.

From the Economist’s survey of Canada (in the article “Living with number one“):

I wonder what happened starting in 2002?

Update [2005-12-3 12:12:21 by Jerome a Paris]: Via Migeru at ET, from the48er, this great graph:

See also this:

click on picture to have large (450kb) version

The above map was published by Le Monde a couple of days ago. It shows the expected consequences of global warming by 2100.

See below for the translation and a few other pics.
The legend of the map:

• rising waters
  flooded coastlines
  submerged islands
  main coastal cities
• increasing temperatures
  less than 0.5°C (0.9°F)
  more than 3°C (5°F)
  more than 5°C (8°F)
• extension of deserts
  damaged land
  threatened land
• melting ice
  melting polar caps
  glaciers retreating
• flora and fauna
  displacement of biogeographic areas.

And a few local maps:

average cumulative loss in ice thickness of glaciers in Patagonia

hazel trees (on the basis of temperature increase of 3.6°C/6.5°F and doubling of CO2 levels)
red: current area, will have disappeared by 2080
light green:: current area, will still grow in 2080
dark green: new area of growth in 2080

robusta coffee: current area of growth (yellow), and area of growth if temperatures increase by 2°C (3°F) (red)

Bangladesh: areas flooded by a 50cm (20in) rise in water levels / a 100cm (40in) rise. Water is expected to rise by 40-50 cm by 2100. It went up by 1.8mm per year this century, but 3mm/y since 1993

If you have a subscription to Le Monde, here’s the link