Investors have given the needed boost Thames Estuary’s, “London Array,” a plan to build 175 wind turbines offshore in its first phase, according to The Guardian.

From the story:

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, described the London Array as a “flagship project” in the drive to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Environmental groups also broadly welcomed the project although they warned that much more needs to be done to encourage the growth of the offshore wind industry. Nick Rau at Friends of the Earth said the decision to go ahead with the project showed that renewables were becoming “major league”.

Major league, indeed!  Britain is apparently thinking on a grand scale for wind projects:

The scheme is part of the second round of offshore wind farms that have been given consent, which together with the first phase would generate 8GW of power when they are fully built, although many of the projects have stalled because of the economic climate. Bids are in for a third round of nine sites off the coast of Britain, which would add an additional 25GW. If all the proposed wind farms were built, they would together generate 33GW, meeting 25% of the electricity demand in Britain.

That’s right: 25%!  Britain has about 60 million people, which is approximately 20% of that of the U.S.  But that’s no excuse for dragging our heals over here in the States — we have a lot more available coastline for projects and should take advantage of the technology that is available here and now.  

Still, some say that the British are not coming fast enough:

I have mentioned The Huffington Post’s Green News and Opinion Page when I recommended you begin following a green blog or two in the Green Life Project.

I follow this page pretty much everyday. Rarely do I not visit to hear what their broad array of writers has to say. At the very least, I usually leave having read or learned something new.

So as we finished up, “Earth Month,” (yes, whatever that means), I actually started feeling a little down on the Huffington Post’s Green Page. Why?

I don’t know. It could have been one too many posts about Michele Obama’s Garden (not that I don’t love that the Obamas are gardening outside of the White House). It only lasted a day, but the page seemed stale at about the middle of this past week. Admittedly, I visit back too often and really, they do a great job all the time.

Regardless, their page actually seemed to follow this “down period” with some grade A awesome content. Because I can’t write a full response to each of these but wanted our readers to see these gems, I’ll link to some of their articles here:

Joseph Romm: The Green FDR: Obama’s First 100 Days Make — And May Remake — History

Adjust your environ|mentality to banish your eco-doubt!

Am I green enough?  Do my greener purchases really make a difference?  Are we collectively saving the earth or just making ourselves feel better about our consumption?

Okay, so you may be going through some eco-doubt.  Everyone does and I’ll help you get over it.  I’ll show you the environ|mentality to see your more sustainable living choices really make a difference and that you can get over your eco-doubt.

Sources of Eco-Doubt

Sure, you see it everyday on the news: the latest oil spill, mountaintop mining, chemical dump leaching into drinking water, or a coal’s toxic sludge flooding a town.  We see pollution in so many forms everyday.

And you likely have thought to yourself something along the lines of, “I’m using a somewhat greener laundry detergent (and paying a little more money for it) and the world around me is being polluted millions of times more than I ever have.  What’s the difference?”

Making A Difference

I was discussing just this issue today during a phone call with my older brother.  He’s relatively eco-conscious, using a reusable water bottle, recycled paper toilet paper, and generally trying to do some of the little greener, more sustainable things you or I may be employing in our daily lives.  So, he’s not your typical eco-doubter.

We ran a story earlier this weekend that featured a video of various diapers decomposing over the course of one year.  While the regular plastic-based diapers looked virtually identical after one year compared to when they started, one diaper had completely disappeared!

That magical, disappearing diaper was the gDiaper!  Demand for more information on this super-diaper quickly led to us posting a follow-up article that solely focused on the gDiaper so here it is!

First, I found out about gDiapers through my wife who is a neo-natal intensive care nurse at one of the premiere children’s hospitals in the United States.  While we don’t have any children yet, she works with babies on a daily basis — changing diapers, feeding, cleaning, and other care — many on premature babies.

She comes home and says “Hey have you heard about gDiapers?  They’re an earth-friendly, disposable diaper that fits into these really cute, cloth exteriors.”

I want to call readers’ attention to this story published a few days ago in the New York Times regarding a method of enticing homeowners to install solar panels.

From Europe’s Way of Encouraging Solar Arrives in the U.S.:

Put simply, the idea is to pay homeowners and businesses top dollar for producing green energy. In Germany, for example, a homeowner with a rooftop solar system may be paid four times more to produce electricity than the rate paid to a coal-fired power plant.

This month Gainesville, Fla., became the first city in the United States to introduce higher payments for solar power, which is otherwise too expensive for many families or businesses to install. City leaders, who control their electric utility, unanimously approved the policy after studying Germany’s solar-power expansion.

Now, let’s get political

I’m sure many will rail against this type of, “socialism,” because they feel (I no longer consider it to be rational thinking, but rather a “feeling”) that the, “free market,” if allowed to work, will provide us with such necessities.

The, “free market,” hasn’t brought us widespread green energy use.

Likewise, the, “free market,” didn’t bring us:

• The current, now-antiquated, once state-of-the-art energy grid
• The current, now-antiquated, once state-of-the-art railway system
• The U.S. Interstate Highway system

How will regulating carbon dioxide affect the cost of burning fossil fuels?

The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration’s EPA is expected to begin regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

The story begins:

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The story also stated that the change could have far-reaching implications

No, I don’t mean a weapons arsenal, but rather an arsenal of nuclear power plants the Republican Presidential candidate (John McCain) says he would like to spend $315 Billion of taxpayers’ money on new nuclear power plants.

This has gotten very little attention, and it’s understandable why, “drill here, drill now” gets more attention — it hits closer to home for most.  But as (the Bush run) Energy Department has said, there would be very little impact on gas prices from, “drilling here, drilling now,” and in about a decade.

So it makes sense for the U.S. to shift over to clean, renewable sources of fuel.  Unfortunately, nuclear power is neither clean nor renewable.

Sure, some will say that

This is a classic case of an envirohuman impact: humans use fossil fuels, such as petroleum, which upsets the delicate balances in nature that allow the weather patterns we are used to having and the earth then, “upset” by the changes, has more drastic weather patterns, and a general trend toward a warmer climate, worldwide.

Beside more frequent major storms, like Hurricane Ike, we can expect, the scientific communty’s consensus says, rising sea levels (leading to floods of densely populated areas worldwide), droughts and drinking water shortages in other areas, and mass extinctions of thousands of species.

So the pathway is:

It’s about two months until the presidential election, and there is a lot of wasted breath from pundits and politicians alike regarding offenses from the other side, really bad campaign ads that outright lie (I won’t go into specifically which ones, but let’s just say they’re perverted ads saying that the other candidate, whose legislation tried to help protect youngsters from pedofiles is being accused , if not insinuated of being perverted).

Enough is enough!  If they are not discussing pork barrel spending, then they’re discussing how if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig — an old adage.  But John McCain’s own campaign manager has said, this campaign is not about the issues.  But we all know it should be.  

This, “lipstick on a pig,” phrase offers rhetorical message, just to say that people will try to dress up to distort who they really are, but that the identity still shows through and the true identity persists.  John McCain said it months ago about Hillary Clinton.  This week, Barack Obama said it about McCain and has since been pounced on by McCain and others that he was saying it about McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin.  Oh the irony of McCain calling Obama sexist; but they know it’s not true, it’s feigned outrage just to distract from the issues.

Sorry, my slant is coming out and you did not come here to see me grind a political axe (though I must say, these apologies that Obama could offer McCain are pretty funny!).   But I have a tie-in to all of the pork being talked about.  Though they’ve had no trouble being in favor of pork in the past (Palin was for  the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” before she was against it), McCain-Palin now say they’re against porkbarrel spending.  McCain will refer to the his plan of cutting approximately $50 billion in pork barrel spending as a way to balance the budget.  Yeah, because the other hundreds of billions will materialize when he further cuts taxes for the rich?  Whatever you feel about the Iraq War, Bush and the Iraqi government (and the people of Iraq) have all said it’s time to set and follow a timetable for withdrawal (read: an end to the war).  That’s $10 billion per month right there — or $120 billion per year — saved.  So how about ending that before we cut the pork?

That’s right, I’m in favor of pork barrel spending.  We ought to be spending five to ten times as much as we are now on pork barrel spending.  And we’ll generate the tax revenue by having a truly progressive tax system, where those who make the most money pay the highest percentage of their income compared to other taxpayers.  After all, they’re the group that benefits the most from the systems, the security, government provides (their right to make so much money is protected because of such government functions as the military and transportation, which are subsidized by the government).  They should therefore pay for it.

We’re in both an energy crisis and climate crisis.  Our energy crisis is exacerbated by our main sources of energy being controlled in large part by rogue states, forcing our military to cowtow (let’s bring another farm animal reference into the mix!) to regimes that treat their citizens horribly (think how our government treats Guantanamo Bay prisoners — on a larger scale).  We need pork barrel projects not only to keep levees and bridges functioning well (as well as all of our other essential infrastructure) but also for green projects.

Green Eggs and Ham

Need a catchy title?  Since, “green pork barrel spending” lacks pizazz, let’s go with, “green eggs and ham” for all of the increased spending in a smart grid that will allow transmission of green energy, followed by actually implenting green energy projects (the government does not have to wait for private companies here — green energy is about as important as the highways we subsidize) as well as recycling and composting programs nationwide (but let’s check with the owners of Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham for permission).  Start in urban areas to achieve scale and then move outward to cover every town in America.  

Failing to care for the environment is a moral issue. Failing to tend to the climate and energy crises is irresponsible.  I admit it, the “green eggs and ham” moniker needs some work; it’s obviously cheesy, but the point is that we need a heaping pile of green eggs and ham spending to get this jump-started before it’s too late.  Obama’s $150 billion over ten years in federal dollars is a good start, but The United States needs to lead on these issues and the world will take our cue.  We need a President who understands that and is willing to put the U.S. tax dollars money where his mouth is.  

I picked up this article from The Daily Green that outlines the situation regarding tax credits for renewable energy.  Now, I should say, I agree with much of what is said in the article, including the four main reasons to pass the credits: High oil prices, high U.S. unemployment, the melting Arctic, and Russia’s overwhelming of Georgia.  I have a bone to pick with The Daily Green regarding this article.

I disagree with that last point on a technicality because it zeros in on a territorial dispute in the headline and ties it into the crisis too much (IMHO — yes, I know, it’s humble for a reason), when the larger point, the one that is somewhat made in the paragraph in the article, is that petrodictatorships flourish in the current environment.  That should have been the main point with perhaps Russia’s influence and ability to ignore the international community as one example of many such countries awash in oil money.  They basically did that, but their bolding of that statement (and ignoring the other facts surrounding that debacle) is reason enough for me to point this out.

But that is not my main beef with this article; rather, the way in which this information is framed is problematic.  On this first point, I’m rather quibbling over what is a main point and what is a detail, mentioning it only because it is significant to me.  Let me explain my main problem with this article.

The main paragraph that troubles me reads thus:

Congress reconvenes today to discuss, among other things, energy policy. All they’ll really be doing is posturing for their respective candidates, however, and that means that the renewable energy tax credits — which both parties and their candidates support (emphasis mine) — may well be held hostage to this battle: Republicans entrenched in support of offshore drilling, and Democrats entrenched in support of taxing oil company profits to fund more renewable energy projects.

Sounds fair, but if you know what I know, meaning, if you have followed this issue, you know that John McCain, the Republican candidate for President, and his Republican colleagues, have passed by the opportunity to extend these valuable tax credits that help to make the renewable energy industry compete on a more equal playing field.  After all, we allow huge tax breaks on the oil industry (not to mention dirty nuclear energy — yes, dirty!).

From a Thomas Friedman column,

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

Yet, in this article, the author says that both parties and their candidates suppor the tax incentives for renewable energy.  Friedman notes that Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama, also missed some votes on this issue, but they were times when he was out campaigning, and he knows that they don’t have the votes on this issue — because of Republicans and John McCain stonewalling.  

We cannot act as if both parties are in favor of this when their actions have not shown that to be the case.  If McCain were truly in favor, he would have left his Senate office to go vote.  And if he were out campaigning, he would fly his wife’s private jet, of which he has rather unfettered use, back to Washington to cast an important vote in favor of these tax credits.  I am angered that such gross misrepresentations persist.  The Republicans are behind the oil industry all the way and that includes John McCain — Mr. Drill Here, Drill Now.

Maybe McCain should follow his own advice, “Tell them to come back and get to work!”  Senator, your “Drill here!  Drill now!” mantra is old hat.  Get back to work and go vote on this measure.  It’s time to get past all of that partisanship you say you are past and work toward a green energy future.  And Mr. Obama should get back to Washington every time and cast a symbolic vote every time, even if they know they don’t have enough votes to pass the measure.  No excuses — our country needs real leadership.

Offshore drilling cannot and will not address America’s energy or climate crises now, in three years, five years, or ten.  We have about 3% of the world’s reserves of oil and use about 25%.  Go ahead and argue with that reality.  Feel the wind and sun on your face and realize the solution is smacking you in the face every time you go outside.  Wind and solar are the energy of now.  Today.  Blow here!  Shine now!  

The Daily Green, thanks for highlighting this important issue.  But we have to call out those who are dragging their feet forward — or, in the Republicans’ case on this issue, pulling the country down into an almost dry oil well — and tell it like it is.  Don’t be afraid to call Regressives by name.  John McCain is a Regressive.  The Republicans are not even close to being on equal footing with Democrats on what is best for the country regarding this issue.  We gain nothing by throwing them a bone — and that’s the bone I’ve picked with you!