Bill Richardson just released this video on his energy plan. Read the previous entry about Gov. Richardson as well.
If you have not given Bill Richardson your attention yet, now is the time to give him a look. Jay Leno introduced him on the Tonight Show recently,
He spent 14 years in Congress, was the US Ambassador to the UN, served as the US Secretary of Energy, has negotiated with the harshest dictators around the world, is the current Governor of New Mexico and a four–time Nobel Peace Prize nominee... please welcome Democratic candidate for President, Gov. Bill Richardson!WOW! By most metrics, he is the most qualified of all the presidential candidates. Take a look at this popular video.
Government’s role – indeed its obligation-- is to provide a clear vision, strategic investment in technology development, incentives to move forward – and most importantly, legal and regulatory certainty.Other bold energy comments by Richardson:
You are responsible for managing incredible risk and high-dollar portfolios – you have every right to know the federal “rules of the road” as you make key investments in our energy future.
Government investment in new technologies can serve as a sparkplug for energy “invention” but it is the role of the investment community to transform those inventions to marketplace “innovations” -- and the role of the business community to move innovations from the business plan stage to true technology diffusion.
Only when government and industry work together as partners can we successfully link together all these pieces of the energy innovation chain -- pushing the nation beyond the tired divisions of “good jobs OR the environment” and moving to “even better jobs AND a clean environment.
1. Our ability to drain the swamps of terrorism depends in part on our political will to change how we produce, distribute and consume energy.Diplomacy
2. A significant portion of the $450 billion petrodollars we export each year is most certainly funneled to fund our Jihadist enemies
3. We should not lose sight of the following: Forty-five percent of the world’s proved gas reserves are in just two countries – Russia and Iran.
You may have heard about the Global Climate Change Summit where local government leaders from over 30 large cities worldwide are meeting to discuss climate change. The summit is sponsored by C40 Cities and the Clinton Foundation among others.
This morning, I jumped to the sight after hearing about it on NPR and wondering if Charlotte representatives were attending. They aren't.
Los Angeles, U.S.– Renewable Energy Credits
I did find a list of exciting initiatives in the attending cities that can easily be replicated in the U.S. The first is the renewable energy option LA offers consumers on their electric bills. Citizens can pay an additional 20% per kilowatt to use electricity generated from renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. For a bill of $58, this would mean a $3.30 additional charge–a small fee with historic implications. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) gives each participant 2 compact florescent light bulbs (CFL). Using just 2 CFLs
saves approximately $1.39 a month in energy usage. That leaves the net cost of using green power at $1.91. $1.91 a month for using renewable energy! Every city in the US should offer this green option.
Woking, United Kingdom – De-Regulated Energy Generation
For a post fossil fuels world, we should de-centralize energy generation so that U.S. energy is created by tens of thousands of small energy generating stations rather than large power plants. Solar pannels on top of my house would constitute one such energy generating station. In the second case study, Woking, UK has created 18 small-scale renewable energy "plants," which create 524.42 kWp of photovoltaic capacity. These sites have reduced CO2 emissions by 82% and energy consumption by 52%. Moreover, Woking have saved 5.4 million pounds (English money) up to 2005. This project foreshadows a revolutionary change in energy distribution and offers a model other cities can mimic now.
Melbourne, Australia
There are many more case studies on the site, but I have to mention the solar energy project in Melbourne. The roof of Queen Victoria Market supports the largest urban solar installation in the Southern Hemisphere. With more than 1,300 photovoltaic panels, which will last for at least 30 years, the QVM will save 369 tons of greenhouse gas a year. That is equivalent to energy usage of 46 houses or 82 cars a year. While this is a small dent, I think solar energy is the real future of renewable energy.
To start, there is unlimited solar energy. The main problems with solar are our ability to capture and store the energy with sufficient efficiency and to sell panels at an affordable price. In the early days of cars, on one would have thought 45 mpg was possible. Over time, technology improved. Solar energy is not a single source solution, but putting research money and government subsidies into solar energy, just as we have put hundreds of billions of dollars in to the car industry and wars to secure oil, will drastically increase our ability to use solar energy.
Consumers take out loans for cars and spend thousands of dollars a year for gas and maintenance. Electric cars require no gas and very little maintenance (because they have few moving parts), so we can all transfer that savings into home solar panels or paying more or green tags or Renewable Energy Credits on our electric bills. Remember that your electric car can be "fueled" by energy from solar panels. Technology alone will not save us from our dependence on fossil fuels, but a Manhattan Project or Man on the Moon initiative for Green Energy is long overdue.
I hope you will take a couple of minutes to click through the Global Climate Change Summit website. It will connect you with the current green movement and give you a glimpse into your renewable future.
Can you believe the gall of Iraqi leaders to take a two-month vacation in the middle of a civil war and escalating voilence?
Meanwhile, US troupes and Iraqi civilians continue to die as both countries wait for Iraq's sectarian leaders to resolve power sharing issues. We all know political agreements, not military power, are the only method of stabilizing Iraqi, yet the leaders who would make those decisions are on vacation.
So American families have Bush telling us to give his "surge" (which is more like a tide pool ripple) a chance, while Iraqi leaders take a break. We are supposed to wait until September––when the US Congress reconvenes and Petraeus will have time to evaluate the surge––and then decide how the US change in strategy is going?
I can understand that government official need rest just like other workers, but when you are the only ones who can stabilize your country, the middle of civil war is not the time to take a nap.
After my previous post today, I serendipitously found this news that the White House and Democrats have reached agreements regarding future trade deals. These new agreements will be attached to future deals to protect labor rights and environmental right, thus making the approval by Congress easier. The following is from today's New York Times:
WASHINGTON, May 10 — The Bush administration reached agreement on Thursday with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats to attach environmental and worker protections in several pending trade accords, clearing the way for early passage of some pacts and improving prospects for others.
The unusual agreement, which came after weeks of negotiations, would guarantee workers the right to organize, ban child labor and prohibit forced labor in trading-partner countries. It would also require trading partners to enforce environmental laws already on their books and comply with several international environmental agreements.
While the understanding was a victory for Democrats, it also represented a shrewd compromise by the White House. The agreement is the first major bipartisan economic deal to emerge since Democrats took control of Congress in January. It has immediate importance for four countries — Colombia, Panama, Peru and South Korea — that are seeking to enter into trade pacts with the United States.
But officials in Washington predicted that the agreement’s effect would go beyond those countries and could be a template for all trade deals, including a possible worldwide accord.
Administration officials are hoping that the agreement will cause many Democrats to support future trade deals. They hope that enough Democrats will join with Republicans, who generally support such measures, to make passage of the agreements probable, if only narrowly. read more
Wednesday evening was pretty exciting due to two long conversations about illegal immigration in the U.S. Look for my opinion on the issue in the near future, but for now, I want to share a very interesting article I found this morning.
We all know that immigration issues involve economic policy, human rights, national security priorities, and domestic public opinion. This article does a good job of discussing the U.S.'s history of immigration and refugee policy, major factors regarding immigration, and possible solutions to salient issues.
It's pretty long, but take a look. Also, scroll to the end to read some of McBride's suggestions. It deals with immigration and asylum issues. I am also interested in how NAFTA has impacted Mexican farmers and U.S. immigration. If you can give me some insight into these issues, please comment.
The evolution of US immigration and refugee policy: public opinion, domestic politics and UNHCR by Michael J. McBride (download pdf)
Follow this link to an article by The Nation's Bonnie Goldstein. In it, Michael Schueler, the founder and former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, defends the Rendition Program in no uncertain terms. It's worth the time to read his opening statement at the bottom of the page. Denfending "Extraordinary Renditions."
I just read about this on The Nation's website.
In the United States, Mother's Day was originally suggested by poet and social activist Julia Ward Howe. In 1870, after witnessing the carnage of the American Civil War and the start of the Franco-Prussian War, she wrote the original Mother's Day Proclamation calling upon the women of the world to unite for peace. This "Mother's Day Proclamation" would plant the seed for what would eventually become a national holiday.
After writing the proclamation, Howe had it translated into many languages and spent the next two years of her life distributing it and speaking to women leaders all over the world. In her book Reminiscences, Howe wrote, "Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone bear and know the cost?" She devoted much of the next two years to this cause, and began holding annual "Mother's Day" gatherings in Boston, Massachusetts and elsewhere.
In 1907, thirty-seven years after the proclamation was written, women's rights activist Anna Jarvis began campaigning for the establishment of a nationally observed Mother's Day holiday. And in 1914, four years after Howe's death, President Woodrow Wilson declared Mother's Day as a national holiday.
To my swarms of fans, I apologize for withholding my satiating snacks of wisdom for almost two weeks. On to Obama...
The only thing I can compare to the hype around Obama is the energy and passion surrounding Kennedy and Dr. King. I am too young to have lived with them, but they are the only public figures that have touched people so deeply and elicited such excitement? Obama has not reached this status, but he has also not reached his apogee.
While Obama could stand beside King and Kennedy one day, I hope he does not share their fate: assassination. I am glad he has received Secret Service protection and I hope this makes him more, not less, safe. If I were his wife, I'd be very concerned about his safety as a transformative public figure. Encouraging the power of each individual by redounding the attention one receives from the public back to the public
creates uncontrollable momentum. At the same time, I see Obama and is wife as part of a larger movement–bringing government back to the people–which requires them to surrender to life.
I try to remain openminded, but why do I find myself always coming back to Obama? I think it's because I don't see any of the other candidates trying to change the system, and that purpose trumps disagreements I have with Obama on some issues. Along with energy and health care, the public's loss of faith in government–national and local–is one of our biggest problems. Obama is the only candidate doing anything about it.
