Green on green crime

Green on Green

Daniel H. works in renewable energy development in the Houston area. He studied at Rice University and researched energy policy in Denmark as a Fulbright Scholar.

If you were driving from L.A. to Phoenix, and you happened to look left a few minutes after driving through Barstow, C.A., you would see an open expanse of Mojave Desert. In fact, you will see an open expanse of desert pretty much any time you look out of the window between L.A. and Phoenix. Thirty seven miles east of Barstow, though, just north of I-40, that desert would be the proposed location of the Calico Solar Project.

“Proposed” is the operative word here, and has been since at least 2005 when Calico’s former owner signed an agreement to sell the power to a Southern California utility company. There’s a litany of reasons why, almost seven years later, the project site remains empty. The proposed technology (Sterling Energy System’s SunCatchers) was flawed and is no longer cost competitive compared to photovoltaic panels. The project’s financial backer was a renewable energy investment firm from Ireland, a country that recently ran out of money. And, perhaps surprisingly, the project has been sued, repeatedly, by organizations that are usually strong advocates of renewable energy: the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Defenders of Wildlife. The groups want the project moved to a location that isn’t one of the few remaining habitats for the desert tortoise, burrowing owl and bighorn sheep.

Broke investors and too-good-to-be-true technology are risks in any industry, including the nascent renewables business. But should companies trying to build solar or wind farms need to worry about opposition from the same groups that push for laws mandating a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources, or a national tax on carbon?

The major fault line that seems to lead an organization like the Sierra Club to sue a solar plant owner is a difference in each group’s vision of a renewables-rich future. In the environmental NGO picture, most renewable energy comes from distributed sources, like rooftop solar panels or small facilities located in previously-disturbed areas. Developers and their close cousins, utility companies, prefer large-scale, remote facilities that generate more cheaply and offer more return on investment for their owners. There’s an argument that the resulting tension is a good thing: NGO lawsuits keep developers away from the most sensitive areas, and utility cost concerns keep us from breaking the bank to meet renewable energy targets. The truth is, however, that we don’t need a narrow middle ground, we need all of the above. If we have any hope at all of reigning in our greenhouse gas emissions before it’s too late, we need pricey rooftop panels and the habitat-encroaching Calico Solar Project. There is no doubt in my mind that, compared to either renewables future, unchecked climate change will be worse.

_____

Photo by lorenzemlicka

Hiatus

Before I begin, I want you to know that I hate these types of posts. You know, the ones where bloggers talk about why they haven’t been blogging, but I feel I owe you folks an explanation.

I’m burned out on politics!

The issues I’ve revisited time and time again on this blog – war, torture, civil liberties, and economic inequality – aren’t going away. Hell, they’re not even inching toward improvement.

War: Instead of ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ve doubled down and opened up a new war in Libya.

Torture: In the opening weeks of Obama’s presidency, he made an official move to ban torture, but apparently it didn’t stick. In the last few months, with Obama’s full knowledge, our government has been torturing whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Civil liberties: Obama, in the Bush/Cheney tradition, asserts the rights we’d associate with autocrats. He can indefinitely detain prisoners without trial and assassinate untried American citizens. This week will likely see Congress renew the Patriot Act with bipartisan support.

Economic inequality: Wall Street bankers still haven’t paid for dive bombing the world economy in 2008, their punishment was billions of dollars funneled from taxpayers to their wallets. Unemployment remains ridiculously high, and yet the debate in Washington is not about the best ways to create jobs, but over whether to further gut the safety net to pave the way for continued low taxes for the rich.

The conclusion I’ve come to is that America’s ruling class is just too disconnected from reality outside of Washington and their elite circles. They don’t see people devastated by their wars or economic policies.  Instead, they’re surrounded by people whose biggest problem is a half a percent increase in capital gains taxes. Their acquaintances, friends and family are all doing fine. No wonder they don’t think we need any fundamental changes.

Ultimately, I think I’ve written all I can about these problems, at least for now. I’m starting to feel like I’m an album stuck on repeat. And that’s no fun for me, and it can’t be much fun for you. So, until I get a chance to recharge, I won’t be posting anymore.

Whatever happens, I want to thank you for your years of loyal readership. Your time is valuable, and I sincerely thank you for spending a little of it on my writing.

-Chris

Class warfare

Republicans put their heads together and decided the biggest problem facing America is …

… Drumroll please …

Rich people don’t have enough money!:

The [the House Republican budget] plan would condemn millions to the ranks of the uninsured, raise health costs for seniors and renege on the obligation to keep poor children fed. It envisions lower taxes for the wealthy than even George W. Bush imagined: a permanent extension for his tax cuts, plus large permanent estate-tax cuts, a new business tax cut and a lower top income tax rate for the richest taxpayers.

Compared to current projections, spending on government programs would be cut by $4.3 trillion over 10 years, while tax revenues would go down by $4.2 trillion. So spending would be eviscerated, mainly to make room for continued tax cuts.

Under the new GOP plan, people that might need Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security should stop complaining and just die already.

“Defense” Department

From Twitter via John Cole:

It’s amusing that it’s okay to say “war on drugs” and “war on poverty” but once the military is involved it sure can’t be a war.

Link

Bob Herbert’s last column for the NY Times

Losing Our Way:

The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.

Link

Wildly inappropriate

Another reason Jeffrey Immelt, G.E.’s CEO, shouldn’t be the chairman of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness:

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.

Link

Not so quietly

Headline: Japan Quietly Evacuating a Wider Radius From Reactors

Correction: Japan was quietly evacuating…

I’ve heard this before

NY Times Headline: US Led Assault Nears Goals in Libya

Who wants to bet we’ll be reading similar headlines next year, and the year after, and the year after that…

Unanswered questions on Libya

From John Cole:

When do we know we have “won?” Who are we protecting? What do we do if Qaddafi survives? What do we do when we figure out the people we are “saving” hate us, just slightly less than they hated Qaddafi? What about civilian casualties? How much is this going to cost? How long is it going to take? Who is going to pay for it? Are we going to raise taxes, or do we just proceed with devastating cuts to the poor to finance another war. Are we going to have to stay and protect people after we “win?” Will we have to create bases to protect the war profiteers who are going to swoop in and start drilling and reconstructing what we just blew up? What is the reaction going to be in other Arab nations? What kind of blowback will there be from this?

Link

My bad

I went on vacation for 4 days, and the U.S. jumps into another war! Obama must have done this on purpose to escape a scathing blog post.

Sorry guys.