The Necessity of Simple Steps

Feeling the heat yet? We all are, really. According to NASA, 2013 was the 7th hottest year on record. And according to NOAA, last year was the 4th hottest on record. Whoever is closer to the truth here, it's undeniable that 2013 was one brutally hot year.

And already, the meteorological drama continues in 2014. Just next door, California has declared an emergency due to extreme drought. Meanwhile on the other end of the nation, Winter Storm Janus is dropping even more heavy snow in a region that's still trying to dig out of the last couple of massive snowstorms. And throughout the world, Dust-Bowl-ification may already be worsening food insecurity and political instability.

There's no denying the real danger of climate change. It's here, and it's already begun to wreak havoc around the world and here at home. And this is why calls to action are being made everywhere from Davos to DC.

When we look at climate change and examine ways to solve this growing crisis, we often discuss broad, global solutions. But today, we're thinking globally... And acting locally. And climate solutions can truly start with simple moves like changing light bulbs and improving home insulation.





This is what local Sierra Club organizers and volunteers were talking about last night as they were looking at the next steps to take to finally move Beyond Coal and into a cleaner & greener energy future. While solving climate change as a whole may seem like a daunting task ahead, taking simple steps to improve energy efficiency really isn't difficult. And if we're to ever start saving our own behinds, we must start with those simple steps.

Fortunately, Nevada made some major steps in that cleaner & greener direction last year when the Legislature and NV Energy agreed to SB 123. Finally, the infamous Reid-Gardner Coal Plant on Moapa Paiute tribal land would be retired while NV Energy invests in more locally produced renewable energy.

However, the twisted saga of Reid-Gardner isn't over quite yet. Last night, Moapa Paiute Tribal Council Member Vickie Simmons talked of the new challenge being posed by natural gas (power plant) developers.



As we've discussed before, natural gas is far from ideal. It isn't completely "clean". And it won't magically make all pollution and climate change go away.

This is why local Sierra Club organizer Elspeth DiMarzio moved on to explain the mechanics and the necessity of energy efficiency.



Again, these seem to be simple steps we can all make. However, they're more than just that. They're absolutely necessary for us to begin saving our communities and our planet.

Remember that the less energy we use, the less we need fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. And that means we will have an easier time turning to renewables to fulfill more of our needs.

And no, efficiency doesn't mean we all have to live in the dark. It means we can be smarter about how much energy we use to enjoy 21st century living.







After the speakers wrapped up, the volunteers broke into groups to strategize. Somehow, the media group managed to attract a paleontologist who really wanted to dig deep into the specifics of energy policy. There were also a couple of architectural design students on hand to offer their know-how as well. Meanwhile just a few feet away, the community outreach group was brainstorming partnerships... And found someone who's interested in making a short film on Reid-Gardner, SB 123, and the future of energy in Nevada.

This will probably all be necessary in the days ahead. The Nevada Legislature now has a Interim Energy Committee, and they'll soon be looking for citizen input on SB 123 implementation and more. And when it comes to more, the state can use more of a clear path forward on efficiency. This state's energy usage has skyrocketed in recent years, so we need to set guidelines on track to meet our goal of building cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable communities.

Last year, we saw a breakthrough in Carson City in moving beyond coal and in a greener direction. However, last year was nonetheless one of the hottest on record. There's still more to do to step up to the challenge of climate change. And believe it or not, it all starts with a few simple steps.

New Twists in Saga Over Fracking in Nevada

Well, this is interesting. Earlier this morning, CREDO Action dropped an email for a petition created by activist Christian Gerlach demanding a ban on fracking. Last December, plans were announced for fracking in Elko County. Since then, we've learned that Noble Energy wants fracking rights for 40,000 acres of publicly owned land in Elko County... As Nye County has also started to flirt with allowing fracking.

Keep in mind that this is what officials in Elko and Nye Counties are considering.



And because the fossil fuel industry secured fracking exemptions from federal environmental safeguards in 2005, companies have been allowed to get away with this wherever fracking has been allowed. Already, there have been horrifying reports of illness and toxic chemical contamination in Pennsylvania and North Dakota, two states that were early in jumping into the fracking rush. Since then, many communities throughout the country (and around the world) have been running in the other direction in adopting fracking bans.



Unfortunately for Christian Gerlach and CREDO, there's currently no fracking ban pending in the Nevada Legislature. However, Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) has proposed SB 390 to have the State of Nevada fill the regulatory gap left wide open by the federal government. It passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee with a friendly amendment, and now awaits action by the full Senate.

However, there's been another twist to this story. Early this month, NV Energy announced its NVision plan to swallow up a proposed update to Nevada's renewable energy standards invest in more home grown renewable energy while shutting down the last of its coal fired power plants. Yet hidden in depths of NVision was also a proposal for more natural gas power plants. NV Energy officials have not said yet whether they intend to rely on fracking to access the natural gas they seek for their proposed new power plants.

Last Friday, NV Energy seemed to get its way as SB 123 was stripped of its original soul and implanted with NVision. Yet since then, there's been a surprising backlash as several people and companies throughout Nevada have expressed concerns over NVision's cost to consumers. Even though R&R power player Pete Ernaut was able to secure his BFF Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-GML) support, he couldn't quell the growing protests from the state's biggest power players: the gaming industry. Earlier today, Las Vegas Sun reporter Anjeanette Damon went on KNPR's "State of Nevada" to explain the increasingly complicated politics surrounding NV Energy's big policy move.

At first glance, it seems like the fight over fracking is being lost in the shuffle of the new brawl over SB 123. That probably couldn't be further from the truth. NV Energy has the chance to come out and say it's not pursuing fracking. NV Energy can simply say it won't try to trade in one major health hazard (in the Reid-Gardner coal plant) for another (in natural gas fracking).

But because it's not (yet?) done that, this just adds to the many concerns over SB 123-turned-NVision. Will it truly be a chance for Nevada to declare independence from fossil fuels? Or is this just a backdoor attempt to pursue even more fossil fuels... And do so in a way that risks the health of many in this state?

Until these questions are answered, legislators should pause and review what's actually in SB 123-turned-NVision. And they should keep asking these questions. And they should at least pass SB 390 as more information is unearthed on fracking.

Perhaps this isn't what CREDO had in mind when sending out the email for Christian Gerlach's fracking ban petition, but it may very well add fuel to the fire of the latest controversy to turn the Nevada Legislature upside down.

Climate Change: It's Still Here. & We Can't Ignore It.

Something amazing happened last night. It was long overdue, yet it's been dismissed as "impossible". During last night's State of the Union Address, President Obama vowed action on climate change.

But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods –all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science –and act before it’s too late.

Now the good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

This is especially a big deal here in Nevada, where we have already begun reaping the rewards of renewable energy investment. In fact, President Obama has talked about it before right here in Nevada.



Already, we've seen the benefits of developing a greener economy. However, we've also seen the dangers of insufficient action on climate change. Without a comprehensive national action plan to reduce carbon emissions, increase energy efficiency, and invest in our green energy future, we can only expect more of the natural disasters that have already begun to wreak havoc on our state, our nation, and our planet.

Last night, President Obama asked Congress to take action. And already, at least a few on Capitol Hill are heeding his call.

Only an hour before President Obama is expected to deliver his State of the Union address—in which he might “go big” on the issue of combating climate change—two Senators announced they will introduce comprehensive climate change legislation this week, presenting a possible vehicle in the Senate for Obama’s ambitions. Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will outline the legislation on Thursday morning. Details are scant, though it’s being billed as “major” and “comprehensive” legislation, and will have a carbon tax, per a statement from Sanders’s office:

"Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices."

So can it be done? Will Congress finally act on the greatest global security threat of our time? Will Congress finally act on the greatest economic opportunity of our time?

We'll see. On one hand, even some conservatives have embraced not just the scientific consensus on climate change, but also an ambitious carbon tax policy to solve it. As President Obama noted last night, it wasn't too long ago when one-time rival (Senator) John McCain (R-Arizona) led a bloc of Republicans working on climate solutions. And Nevada's own Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Mean, Green, Clean Energy Machine), has already promised to pursue climate and clean energy solutions.



It just remains to be seen what the Republicans in Nevada's Congressional Delegation are willing to do. Dean Heller (R-46%) has had a mixed record at best on climate policy so far in Congress. And already, Joe Heck (R-"TEA" Curious) is taking queues from the "tea party" on fossil fuel madness.

“If they are truly concerned about investing in energy, approve the Keystone pipeline,” Heck said, referring to a pipeline that, if permits are approved by the Obama administration, would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. “The energy part of his speech I think was just new variations on an old theme.”

Oh, yes. That's right. Heck continues to pretend that a dangerous, reckless scheme to further enrich a Canadian fossil fuel conglomerate is somehow a "serious energy solution". If anything, that would only exacerbate the climate crisis if approved. And on top of that, it likely wouldn't even produce any net job gains.

Yet again, the "tea party" is digging in its heels on climate denial and fossil fuel worship. Yet look at where that's brought us. We can't afford any more. Congress must act. This should really be a no-brainer. Will enough Republicans actually use their brains, further progress on creating green jobs, and move the nation forward on climate change?

Wherein Nevada Is Positioned to Remain a "Blue State" in 2012, Part VII

This week, Republicans have been pinning their hopes of a "Great Red Tide" this year on health care being challenged in court and high gas prices driving voters batty. I guess the former explains Joe Heck's recent showboating on his bill to repeal health care reform, and I guess the latter explains Dean Heller's latest stunt on energy.

So how bad is it? I'll let Desert Beacon explain.

What was that definition of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? There is nothing new in Heller’s proposal. It’s the same Drill Now, Drill Everywhere scheme the oil companies have been promoting for the last several years, always being careful to avoid telling us that the oil is sold on the GLOBAL MARKET, and no matter how much we pump into the market if the Saudi’s cut production, or the Iranians and Israelis get into a fight, or there’s increased demand in India, or whatever moves the speculators — the price of oil won’t necessarily get any cheaper in the United States of America. Oil is a global game.

And about the losses to the Highway Trust Fund created by the reduction in the gasoline and fuel taxes? Senator Heller assures us that these will be replenished from the proceeds of the closure of the tax loopholes. The CBO doesn’t seem to have scored the bill in this regard.

In short, Heller’s “Gas Price Relief Act” seems to be about everything BUT gas price relief. It’s more like the American Petroleum Institute Relief Act of 2012.

Long story short, Heller's mad that Democrats appear to be gaining traction with the "Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act", so he's trying to shoot that down with his own "Gas Price Relief Act". However, all Heller's bill does is push more "Drill, Baby, Drill!!!" nonsense that would do nothing to lower gas prices for consumers. Since we only have a small amount of the world's oil reserves, all the drilling we do offshore and on would do very little to affect gas prices. And despite all the G-O-TEA efforts to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, gas prices keep fluctuating. Seriously, Big Oil isn't hurting here.



And yet again, Dean Heller refuses to do anything to acknowledge the real problem here, which is our over-reliance on oil and other fossil fuels. As we discussed last week, Nevada gains good jobs, America gains energy independence, and the world gains a healthier climate when we invest in renewable energy. Clean energy investment is really a "win-win" for everyone, yet Heller refuses to support further investment. So Dean Heller whines about the problem of high gas prices, yet he refuses to work on any real solutions to wean us off fossil fuels while creating more jobs in this state. Who does he think he is, Mitt Romney?

FAIL.

And in case that wasn't ridiculous enough, Joe Heck continues to ignore reality and push his bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He claims the ACA is some abominable "attack on FREEDOM!!!", yet he fails to mention where the individual mandate that holds together the ACA originally came from.



Yes, that's right. Joe Heck has his BFF Willard "Mr. 1%" Romney to thank for that! MIT Professor Jon Gruber, who advised both Mitt Romney and President Obama on health care reform, has this to say on the commonality of "Romneycare" and "Obamacare".

"The problem is there is no way to say that [the programs are radically different]," Gruber said. "Because they're the same fucking bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying. The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."

To Gruber, the stakes for the court's decision couldn't be higher.

"Basically, this is the last hope for a free-market solution for covering the uninsured. If this fails, then you either give up on the uninsured or you go to single-payer. Those are the only two options left. And the Republicans, if they're willing to stand up and say, 'We give up on the uninsured,' then great, let them say that and let the voters come to the polls and decide, but they won't say that.

So there you have it. A mandate is absolutely necessary to any kind of health care reform that actually works and is actually universal. And the only realistic options are the kind of individual mandate that's present in both the Massachusetts health care plan and the Affordable Care Act, or a direct government mandate to provide care that's present in our Medicare and in single-payer health care programs like Canada's and Britain's.

So do Republicans actually want real life "socialized medicine"? Or do they prefer we do absolutely nothing on health care? Which is it, Joe Heck?

FAIL.

While we've already discussed why media pundits are wrong to make assumptions about how The Supreme Court will rule on ACA, conservative pundit David Frum actually points out why Republicans should NOT get too giddy about any ruling that strikes down ACA.

"Repeal" may excite a Republican primary electorate that doesn't need to worry about health insurance because it's overwhelmingly over 65 and happily enjoying its government-mandated and taxpayer-subsidized single-payer Medicare system. But the general-election electorate doesn't have the benefit of government medicine. It relies on the collapsing system of employer-directed care. It's frightened, and it wants answers. [...]

In that case, Republicans will need a Plan B. Unfortunately, they wasted the past three years that might have developed one. If the Supreme Court doesn't rescue them from themselves, they'll be heading into this election season arguing, in effect, Our plan is to take away the government-mandated insurance of millions of people under age 65, and replace it with nothing. And we're doing this so as to better protect the government-mandated insurance of people over 65—until we begin to phase out that insurance, too, for everybody now under 55.

So what's the G-O-TEA alternative to "ObamaCare" that would pass constitutional muster if the court strikes it down? Again, remember that the individual mandate was originally a CONSERVATIVE idea for health care reform. The only options left would be implementing single-payer health care or doing nothing. And since I don't envision the likes of Mitt Romney, Dean Heller, and Joe Heck embracing single-payer any time soon, they seem to prefer that we do nothing and let sick Americans die for lack of health care.

So really, Heck, Heller, and Romney should be careful what they wish for.

Perhaps they just need to do something to change the trajectory? Perhaps the latest CNN poll is what's scaring them to pull these stunts?

A new national poll from CNN shows President Obama with an eleven point lead on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 54 - 43. The lead seems to based in the fact that the candidates' favorability ratings are going in the opposite direction, Obama with a positive 56 - 42 split while Romney is down twelve at 37 - 49.

"President Obama currently wins majority support among groups that have been problematic for him in the past, including men, older voters, and suburbanites," says CNN Poling Director Keating Holland told their website. "He has a solid lead among independents as well."

And apparently, the new ABC-Washington Post poll is also set to show Romney's favorability numbers cratering. I guess Americans aren't all that into "Etch-A-Sketch". And I guess this is what has Nevada Republicans running scared and deciding to pull all sorts of crazy stunts.

Dean Heller Can Run "Green", But Can He Hide from His Own Dirty Record?

So now Dean Heller is claiming "independence" on energy policy.

With the economy as the leading issue in every campaign, Heller and other Republicans who back federal support for renewables have so far couched it as an important part of recovery efforts.

“Renewable-energy development could lead to thousands of new jobs in Nevada at a time when the state leads the nation in unemployment,” Heller campaign spokeswoman Chandler Smith told Politico.

That’s a tack voters will respond to and reward, said Rocky Fernandez, the communications director at the Clean Energy Project, a statewide advocacy group.

“The candidates who want to do things and step up and make these industries thrive in Nevada, they’re the ones who are going to be successful in these upcoming elections,” Fernandez said. “If we don’t do it, other states are going to take it and we’ll have missed a huge opportunity.”

However, not everyone is buying it.

“Voters aren’t buying appointed Sen. Dean Heller’s election year scramble to paper over his pro-Big Oil, abysmal record on renewable-energy jobs,” Berkley campaign spokesman Eric Koch said. “Instead of making clean-energy job creation in Nevada a priority, Heller has spent his Washington career voting to protect taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil companies already making record profits.”

Berkley’s campaign has a stockpile of ammo countering Heller’s claim to be a leader in clean energy, from votes in Congress against certain renewable-energy and energy-efficiency measures to a 2008 letter questioning the cost-effectiveness of alternative sources of energy.

But hey, don't just buy what Shelley Berkley's campaign is saying. Take a look at Desert Beacon's scoreboard of actual House votes taken.

For example, Heller had two shots at voting in favor of H.R. 6 (the Energy Act) in 2007, and voted “nay” both times. He also voted against H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. Representative Berkley voted in favor of these bills. He voted against H.R. 5351 (Energy Law Amendments) on February 27, 2008, and against H.R. 6049 (Alternative Energy Tax Incentives) on May 21, 2008. Representative Berkley voted in favor of these measures.

On July 23, 2008 he did vote “yes” on H.R. 3221 (Housing Bill with Energy Tax Credit Extensions) and then voted “no” on H.R. 7060 (Renewable Energy Credits & other business and individual credits) on September 26, 2008. Congresswoman Berkley voted in favor of H.R. 7060. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) which contained green energy and energy conservation programs got no support from then-Representative Heller in 2009. Nor did Representative Heller support the “Cash for Clunkers” bill to incentivize consumers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (H.R. 2751) on June 9, 2009.

On September 16, 2010, Heller voted against H.R. 4785 which would have authorized loans for energy efficiency purposes. Representative Berkley voted in favor of H.R. 4785.

Given this voting record it is difficult to place Senator Heller among the choir of voices calling for energy conservation, energy technology, and alternative energy source development.

You see, Dean Heller's actual record not as "green" as he wants us to believe. Rather, he and his BFFs in the fossil fuel industry are "green-washing" his record. In fact, Heller has voted consistently for taxpayer funded bailouts for Big Oil while rejecting investment in renewable energy jobs that can help Nevada's economy while also helping our nation conquer the climate crisis. Dean Heller may tell one story to the media, but his actual record tells an entirely different story.

Sure, Heller is now trying to distance himself from the national G-O-TEA leadership. He has to. His BFF Willard "Mr. 1%" Romney is sounding increasingly insane and delusional when he bashes clean energy, along with Romney's BFF Rush Limbaugh. Heller realizes that the Romney-Limbaugh-"Tea Party" agenda of funneling more taxpayer dollars at the fossil fuel industry while passing up clean energy opportunities just doesn't fly here in Nevada.

But as much as Dean Heller tries to run from his own record, he can't really hide. It's still there for all of us to see. And his long time G-O-TEA buddies on Capitol Hill are making sure that we don't forget who Heller & Co. really serve. Nevadans aren't about to be fooled by a quick "green-washing".

Obama's Back in Vegas

So the President is here. Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman (I) greeted him at McCarran Airport last night. And despite her husband not always giving President Obama a warm welcome, she obviously displayed far better manners than Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R-WTF??!!).

Goodman briefly discussed housing with Obama last night after HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan came to town to discuss new relief efforts for distressed homeowners that the President announced in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday. Apparently, more details will be coming soon... And local officials can hardly wait for that.

Later today, President Obama will be pivoting to matters of energy security and efficiency when he visits UPS' Las Vegas hub near McCarran this afternoon.

The president’s energy plan, which he introduced in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, has three core components: the safe and responsible development of oil and gas, the creation of clean-energy jobs in the U.S., and increasing energy efficiency, with a special focus on the industrial sector.

That begins at the UPS facility in Las Vegas. The company, in cooperation with local governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, won a $5.6 million cost-share investment through the stimulus bill to purchase a fleet of trucks that could run on liquefied natural gas (LNG is a cleaner-burning fuel than regular gas or diesel) and construct a publicly accessible LNG refueling station — the first of its kind in the country.

The natural gas-fueled corridor allows UPS to move merchandise through more energy-efficient engines from Long Beach, Calif., to Salt Lake City, according to senior White House advisers.

It’s a model the president wants to replicate in other areas of the country as well, primarily by upping the incentives to get the country’s transport vehicles off gasoline.

Natural gas has become a focus of this administration, as well as lawmakers and energy advocates of all political stripes, not only because it burns about 30 percent cleaner than petroleum products, but also because it’s far more plentiful than oil in the United States. And, it’s cheaper.

The president aims to begin raising consumption of natural gas by encouraging companies to invest in trucks that run on natural gas with a tax credit, equivalent to about 50 percent of the cost difference between trucks that have engines that run on natural gas versus the standard diesel engine. Implementing such tax credits, senior White House advisers admitted, would require an act of Congress.

As we discussed on Tuesday, natural gas offers opportunities for cheaper, cleaner, and more domestically sourced fuel. Again, natural gas isn't without its own set of problems. But considering its availability and it not being as dirty as traditional oil or coal, it can be useful as a "transition tool" while we're still finding more ways to use renewables.

And of course, there's the possibility of more job creation out of this. And along with housing, jobs is the other big issue Nevadans want to hear about. We'll have to see how Obama threads it all together in his speech this afternoon.

Why Aren't We on This?

This morning, The Sun published a poignant editorial on what happened today (70 years ago) and why it still matters.

As we look back and remember Pearl Harbor and honor the sacrifices of those who died, were wounded and fought on that day — as well as those who fought in World War II — we can’t forget the sacrifices of the entire nation.

After Pearl Harbor, the country staged a unified and prolonged war effort. Everyone sacrificed. Food, fuel and goods were rationed to support the war. People planted “victory gardens” to increase the food supply.

Such an effort hasn’t been matched, and it arguably hasn’t been needed, since then. But what’s noticeably absent today is any larger sense of sacrifice.

A decade ago, the 9/11 attacks seared current generations of Americans, rallying the nation together. Like Pearl Harbor, America embarked on a war. Although it is a very different type of war — it blurs national lines and runs along ideology — it is arguably far more dangerous because there aren’t clear battle lines, nor are there clearly defined enemies.

However, Americans have far less direct involvement in the war effort than they did during World War II. In World War II, there was a military draft. Today, the military is an all-volunteer force, and only a tiny percentage of Americans have actually fought overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less been in the service.

And the sacrifices of scrimping and saving to pay for the war effort? Americans haven’t been asked to sacrifice this time. Instead, the war on terrorism has been added to the nation’s debt.

Unfortunately, this rings very true today. After 9/11, we were just told to go shopping. And when the Iraq War began, Americans were told to be "patriotic" by slapping yellow ribbon magnets on the backs of their SUVs (and remember not to say anything derogatory about George W. Bush... Or else...).

But today, we have an opportunity to invest in a brighter future. And this time, all we have to sacrifice are pollution and an addiction to a certain black substance we import from abroad. And believe it or not, Warren Buffett is ready to take action on it!

Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings company has agreed to buy a giant, 550-megawatt photovoltaic farm currently under construction in San Luis Obispo County for $2 billion, giving a huge boost to the solar industry that could spur investment by other major players.

The "utility-scale" facility MidAmerican is purchasing is being built by First Solar Inc. of Tempe, Ariz. A spokesman for First Solar, Alan Bernheimer, said the farm would produce enough power to provide for the energy needs of 160,000 California homes. But the investment had deeper meaning for an industry that still has only a small footprint in the nation's energy mix and has been battered by recent bankruptcies.

"In a lot of ways, this is classic Warren Buffett," said Bruce Bullock, executive director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University. "He comes in to an industry that is starving for capital investment. At the same time, this is something that also tells people it's time to take solar power seriously."

Solar power currently provides just 1% of the nation's renewable power generation, according to the Energy Department. But it is also the nation's fastest-growing energy generation platform, said Michelle Kinman, a clean-energy advocate for Environment California.

"Solar is a sound investment," Kinman said, "a fact bolstered by MidAmerican's announcement today."

Before Buffett's big announcement, global investment in renewable energy already surpassed $1 trillion. And now that Buffett is in, that number only stands to increase. Yet as many in the private sector realize the fortune to be made in the green economy, we see continued inaction in the public arena.

Why?

Remember when this ad was on the air?



Now, Newt Gingrich tries to act like it didn't happen. And Jon Huntsman keeps flipping on his climate flop. All of a sudden, climate science has become total "taboo".

And as the G-O-TEA continues its war on science, our country continues to fall behind in the race for a greener future. Republicans in Congress are fighting renewable energy tax credits and overall investment in clean technology. Even as millions of Americans are still looking for work, the G-O-TEA is out to kill more jobs and further hurt our economy.



We know the problem. And we know the solutions we need to implement. And we know that the solutions won't just help us escape the climate crisis, but also help us kick our addiction to the fossil fuels swirling at the center of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, as well as many more of our foreign policy challenges.

Just as "The Greatest Generation" had unique challenges to rise above with The Great Depression and World War II, we have our challenges to face with the current global economy and the worsening climate crisis. We need to take action, and do so soon. Are we up for it?

NV-03: Public Kicked Out of "Public Event" with Joe Heck

(Also at Daily Kos)







Wow. So much for Joe Heck wanting to "meet with the public". In the first "public event" since Congress started August Recess, Joe Heck sat for a "discussion" with Nevada Energy Forum... Which is really part of American Petroleum Institute, which is really a front group that the oil industry uses to promote destructive extraction efforts and deny the reality of the climate crisis. Oh yes, "man of the people" Joe Heck took part in an oil industry funded event that turned away working people looking for answers. And not only that, but the organizers even kicked out someone who RSVPed simply because she wore a Sierra Club t-shirt. (And worse, she wasn't even taking in a sign or being confrontational at all!)

So our Congressman is cozying up to Big Oil today at a fancy resort in his first week back in Southern Nevada and lets his Big Oil friends keep the "pesky public" out of a supposedly "public event".

Maybe this is why he and his dirty energy buddies were shaking in their boots today:



We know Heck has said some crazy things before, but he must especially be afraid of us catching onto his bait and switch on "creating jobs". He likes to talk about it an awful lot, but he actually opposes climate action that can save our planet while also creating many new good jobs here in Nevada!

This is what Joe Heck is defending:



And these are the real Nevadans that Joe Heck doesn't care about:







Nevada's future is in renewable energy, and so is our entire nation's. Harry Reid gets it, and so does Shelley Berkley. So why won't Joe Heck or Dean Heller work with the rest of Nevada's Congressional Delegation to create more jobs here in Nevada while also taking important action on climate change? Are they that beholden to Big Oil and the rest of the fossil fuel industry that they're willfully blinded to reality?

Oh wait, I can answer my own question. We were turned away by Joe Heck's dirty energy, dirty money BFFs. No wonder why he didn't actually want questions from the public.

NV-02: Why Are These Republicans Against JOBS & Energy Independence?

(Also at Daily Kos)

Last week, Reno News & Review had an interesting article on Nevada experiencing more of the dangerous effects of climate change without us previously realizing it.

A string of tornados. Major international floods. Record-breaking wildfires across the Southwest. And—far less destructive but more noticeable to Northern Nevada residents—a freakishly wet and chilly May, making it the spring that never was. It’s left many to scratch their heads and say, “Maybe there’s something to this climate change thing.” If climate change were happening in Nevada, what would it look like, and are we seeing it now?

To the second question, the Desert Research Institute’s Dr. Kelly Redmond, says, “Yes, I think we probably are.” Redmond is deputy director of the Western Regional Climate Center. He compares recognizing climate change to noticing signs of aging. Every once in awhile, we have some episode—we discover we can’t party as hard as we used to, or we have a wrinkle, a gray hair, an illness—and we realize that while we don’t see it every day, we are undoubtedly aging. We don’t notice global warming every day, either, but a vast amount of data shows the Earth is warming, and the effects of it are both subtle and blunt. Sometimes climate change looks like a raging wildfire, sometimes like a butterfly where it never was before. [...]

Redmond says everybody should be skeptical of data by itself. When he first saw temperatures on research thermometers rising, he thought something was wrong with the thermometers. But even with new thermometers and placement of them, evidence of warming remained. He’s also seen evidence of snowmelt occurring one to three weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago. Lilacs and honeysuckles are blooming earlier. The biggest fires in the history of the Western U.S. have been in the past 10 years. Pine beetles in Canada, previously kept in check by cold snaps, have jumped the continental divide and are headed down the East coast. Chipmunks, mice and voles have moved up in elevation from where they lived 100 years ago. Most butterflies are also slowly moving north.

“All these bits and pieces of evidence, all these compasses, are basically pointing in the same direction. Maybe one or two of the compasses are broken. But if they’re all pointing in the same direction, you pay attention. This is very much like solving a crime. There’s a standard of proof in criminology, and we should have some kind of standard of proof in our head for when we decide to believe something or not. And then, are you willing to change your mind based on the evidence you see? I think most people’s minds can be changed by what they see. If we listen to what the world’s telling us, we’ll get it. The question is, will we get it fast enough?”

It's becoming increasingly difficult to deny the sobering reality of the coming climate crisis... Except apparently if one wants the endorsement of the Nevada Republican Party. If we're to accept the "energy policy" prescriptions coming from the Republicans (including Nevada Republican Party endorsed candidate, Mark Amodei) running in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, we may actually never get it! Go ahead and listen for yourself as they refuse to even acknowledge the realities of climate change and deride "green energy" as "not responsible".

Face, meet palm. Well, at least I'm not alone. Mr. Spectator was also disgusted.

[...] The candidates differed in no appreciable way on issues. They predictably answered litmus questions from the party faithful on the gamut of right wing nut job topics, but I found their comments on “Green Energy” the most telling. Here is the exact question: “It is often touted that Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. Address the cost to the consumer and reconcile the political versus that cost.” What’s not well hidden in this poorly worded question is an inherent denial of human caused climate change. There is no reason to develop more expensive renewable energy if climate change is a myth concocted by left wing scientists. We want the cheapest energy source possible to be most economically competitive. Corporations can be trusted to not grossly pollute for profit, can’t they? [...]

If the scientific realty of human caused climate change is not front and center when setting energy policy and priorities, these are not the people we should be sending to Washington, at least to represent me. From their “green energy” responses we do not know how the candidates stand on climate change, but apparently these fellows need to pander to flat earth Nevada Republicans who are still in a tizzy President Obama was not actually born in this country. All three candidates seem to value science if it makes money or war, but not when science points out pollution and environmental destruction on a global scale.

Clearly Mark Amodei, Kirk Lippold, and Greg Brower don't want to recognize real science. So instead, they run to the hocus pocus "magic" of dirty coal, oil, nuclear, and the rest of the failed fossil fuel industry. Lovely.

Here's the problem. One, we simply can't afford to give up the potential for much needed jobs.







Good jobs are already being created right here in Nevada, and even more will be created if we invest more in renewable energy development and energy efficiency.

And here's another big issue. Mark Amodei likes to complain about the "high cost" of renewable energy, but he failed to mention the real costs of dirty fossil fuels. Solar power is becoming more affordable and accessible as companies continue to innovate with new technology and solar becomes more widespread & mainstream. However as renewable energy costs have dropped over the last decade, fossil fuel energy costs continue to rise as supply becomes more limited and the many hidden costs of pollution are revealed.

Even our REPUBLICAN Governor and Lieutenant Governor recognize the need for Nevada to go green with renewables.



So even prominent Republicans here in Nevada recognize the need to go green. Why don't Mark Amodei and the other Republicans running in NV-02?

Best of 2009 #4: "Climate Bill By Copenhagen? Nope... And Will We Even Get One in 2010?"

For all the talk of 2009 being the year of major, real climate action in the US, President Obama still hasn't yet signed a climate bill into law... And ConservaDem Senators are now threatening to stop any more progress on the bill so we can ruin Planet Earth some more and hasten the death of humanity. Oh yes, polluters need more time to keep our economy mired in the 20th century when the rest of the world is already leaping into the "green future".

So this is what I'm thinking about as I remember this from July on the first announced delay of the Senate's climate bill shortly after the House passed its version. Will we ever take serious action on the national level on climate change? Or will Nevada need to "go rogue a la California" to make more progress here?

....

(Also at OC Progressive)

Late last week, we found out that Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wants to delay her committee's vote on the Senate climate & energy bill and move it to September. And furthermore, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supports this move as he'll have more time to round up votes. However, we don't really know if this is good news or bad news.

The delay bodes ill for passing a climate bill this year. It shows leaders are not confident they would have enough votes to pass the bill and want as much time as possible to rally support. Boxer also noted that many key senators with a role in crafting climate policy are also leading the debate over health care, another major congressional priority for this year.

[...] Several environmental groups have written in to say that they think today’s announcement is good news for climate legislation.

“We don’t think that this is a problem at all,” said Josh Dorner, spokesman for Sierra Club. “In fact, we think it’s a good thing. It’s a huge organizing opportunity, both here in D.C. and in the field. It also shows they are taking the time to make some meaningful, positive changes to the bill.”

Environmental Defense Fund was equally optimistic. “From our perspective, this is the right decision,” said Tony Kreindler, media director for climate at EDF. “It gives senators more time to review and understand the historic bill just passed by the House. It signals a serious intent to seek agreements on key issues going forward. And it gives Boxer and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle more time to reach those agreements. After all, the chairman has the ability to move forward today if the goal were simply to push any bill through.”

Honestly, I don't mind the delay that much... So long as this delay results in a stronger bill with more votes in time for the international climate change summit in Copenhagen this December. Let me explain my thoughts some more down below.

Last month, I explained why I feel we need to take serious action on the climate crisis.

New Orleans may sink into the sea by 2100. Much of Florida may also be underwater by then. Drought will likely become the norm out West, meaning California could no longer provide the food we depend upon. Las Vegas may become downright inhabitable.

No, I'm not fabricating any of this. These will be the consequences of inaction if we continue to delay implementing the solutions we need to solve the coming climate crisis. But for some reason, may of our supposedly wise lawmakers in Capitol Hill are either willfully ignorant of the facts or downright lying about our future.

Seriously, we can't allow any more of this.

However, the bill we ended up with in the House was badly weakened. And if the Senate passes an even weaker and more meaningless climate bill, then we might as well scrap "ACESA" and restart from scratch. After all if we were make a truly honest effort to prevent any more worsening of the climate crisis, we'd just implement a carbon tax.

Unfortunately, it seems that Democratic leadership is afraid of pushing for something as bold and effective as a simple carbon tax. But fortunately, there may still be a chance of at least strengthening the carbon caps and getting a better bill out of Senate EPW. Barbara Boxer has always been solid on environmental issues, and several more pro-environment Senators sit on EPW.

Still, we have challenges. Even though evidence has proven that renewable energy and energy conservation are our best and only hopes for a brighter energy future, Senate Republicans are already hinting that they will completely oppose ACESA if it isn't porked up with funding for dirty nuclear power. And of course, we'll again face the "clean coal" myth, the ridiculous opposition to efficiency measures that would actually save consumers money, and the typical "big government, big tax, big spending" crap that Republicans can't help but throw around.

This is why we must fight like hell to refute the "climate skeptics", point out the fallacies in the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign, convince the Blue Dog "ConservaDems" to stop stonewalling and start doing something good for a change, and encourage environmentalist leaders and Democratic leaders to fight for a better bill. Our future is at stake... Literally! We can not afford any more inaction, and we can not afford a bunch of half-measures that add up to a whole bunch of nothing.

So if this delay in the Senate's consideration of ACESA can result in a stronger bill that will be passed by the end of this year, then I welcome the extra time for us to organize and mobilize. I'm not sure if this is exactly what President Obama and Senators Boxer & Reid have in mind, but this is what we need them to do. Let's remind Obama & Reid that we expect more than just bragging rights for Copenhagen.

Nope, The Teabaggers Can't Muck Up the Clean Energy Summit

(Image courtesy of Las Vegas Sun)

Oh, joy! The teabagger/birther brigade has finally come down to Vegas!

About 75 conservative activists waved signs and shouted at passing cars.

Shawn Moshos, a union carpenter and Ron Paul delegate to the Nevada state Republican Convention in Reno last year, said he was on hand to protest policies that he believes will edge America toward socialism. "This is about controlling America's prosperity, when we should be in charge of our prosperity." Recently passed legislation that would limit carbon emissions by insitituting a system for trading and selling emissions credits would destroy more jobs than it would create, he charged.

The conservative demonstrators were outnumbered by progressive activists who chanted, "What do we want? Clean energy! When do we want it? Now!"

Heh. And I really thought there would be more of them, as three of their most hated politicians (Harry Reid, Al Gore, and President Clinton) are here for the National Clean Energy Summit. Btw, I have the live stream upstairs if you'd like to watch it live (but can't be at the Thomas & Mack Center today).

Hopefully, people will look beyond the noise and actually listen to ideas on how we can combat the climate crisis, retool our economy for the 21st century, and finally put Nevada and the entire nation on a more sustainable path of smart growth.

Climate Bill By Copenhagen? I Hope So... I Think?

(Also at OC Progressive)

Late last week, we found out that Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wants to delay her committee's vote on the Senate climate & energy bill and move it to September. And furthermore, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supports this move as he'll have more time to round up votes. However, we don't really know if this is good news or bad news.

The delay bodes ill for passing a climate bill this year. It shows leaders are not confident they would have enough votes to pass the bill and want as much time as possible to rally support. Boxer also noted that many key senators with a role in crafting climate policy are also leading the debate over health care, another major congressional priority for this year.

[...] Several environmental groups have written in to say that they think today’s announcement is good news for climate legislation.

“We don’t think that this is a problem at all,” said Josh Dorner, spokesman for Sierra Club. “In fact, we think it’s a good thing. It’s a huge organizing opportunity, both here in D.C. and in the field. It also shows they are taking the time to make some meaningful, positive changes to the bill.”

Environmental Defense Fund was equally optimistic. “From our perspective, this is the right decision,” said Tony Kreindler, media director for climate at EDF. “It gives senators more time to review and understand the historic bill just passed by the House. It signals a serious intent to seek agreements on key issues going forward. And it gives Boxer and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle more time to reach those agreements. After all, the chairman has the ability to move forward today if the goal were simply to push any bill through.”

Honestly, I don't mind the delay that much... So long as this delay results in a stronger bill with more votes in time for the international climate change summit in Copenhagen this December. Let me explain my thoughts some more down below.

Last month, I explained why I feel we need to take serious action on the climate crisis.

New Orleans may sink into the sea by 2100. Much of Florida may also be underwater by then. Drought will likely become the norm out West, meaning California could no longer provide the food we depend upon. Las Vegas may become downright inhabitable.

No, I'm not fabricating any of this. These will be the consequences of inaction if we continue to delay implementing the solutions we need to solve the coming climate crisis. But for some reason, may of our supposedly wise lawmakers in Capitol Hill are either willfully ignorant of the facts or downright lying about our future.

Seriously, we can't allow any more of this.

However, the bill we ended up with in the House was badly weakened. And if the Senate passes an even weaker and more meaningless climate bill, then we might as well scrap "ACESA" and restart from scratch. After all if we were make a truly honest effort to prevent any more worsening of the climate crisis, we'd just implement a carbon tax.

Unfortunately, it seems that Democratic leadership is afraid of pushing for something as bold and effective as a simple carbon tax. But fortunately, there may still be a chance of at least strengthening the carbon caps and getting a better bill out of Senate EPW. Barbara Boxer has always been solid on environmental issues, and several more pro-environment Senators sit on EPW.

Still, we have challenges. Even though evidence has proven that renewable energy and energy conservation are our best and only hopes for a brighter energy future, Senate Republicans are already hinting that they will completely oppose ACESA if it isn't porked up with funding for dirty nuclear power. And of course, we'll again face the "clean coal" myth, the ridiculous opposition to efficiency measures that would actually save consumers money, and the typical "big government, big tax, big spending" crap that Republicans can't help but throw around.

This is why we must fight like hell to refute the "climate skeptics", point out the fallacies in the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign, convince the Blue Dog "ConservaDems" to stop stonewalling and start doing something good for a change, and encourage environmentalist leaders and Democratic leaders to fight for a better bill. Our future is at stake... Literally! We can not afford any more inaction, and we can not afford a bunch of half-measures that add up to a whole bunch of nothing.

So if this delay in the Senate's consideration of ACESA can result in a stronger bill that will be passed by the end of this year, then I welcome the extra time for us to organize and mobilize. I'm not sure if this is exactly what President Obama and Senators Boxer & Reid have in mind, but this is what we need them to do. Let's remind Obama & Reid that we expect more than just bragging rights for Copenhagen.