White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: June 25, 2008

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week’s review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (www.climatescience.gov).

But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available” in its documents.

The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency’s administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 — a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a “train wreck” would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.’s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because “no more constructive work could be done” on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court.

He added, “The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

After reading it last week, Mr. Markey’s office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, “E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur.”

Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman’s committee is weighing its response to the White House’s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.’s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. “There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,” Mr. Fratto said.

6.20.2008 9:02 AM

And Why the United Steelworkers Joined In, Too

By Dan Shapley

Just days after Al Gore endorsed Sen. Barack Obama’s presidency, another major force in the world of the environment has thrown its weight behind the Democrat.

The Sierra Club, which calls itself America’s largest grassroots environmental organization, has endorsed Barack Obama. (It also endorsed Obama in the Democratic primaries.)

In an election when his rival, Sen. John McCain, has sought to distinguish his credentials on fighting global warming as a defining feature of his campaign, Obama’s detailed energy agenda seems to have won over the group. While both candidates endorse a cap-and-trade system for reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions, McCain’s goal falls short of the benchmark set by United Nations scientists for staving off the worst consequences of global warming. (Incidentally, even those targets are increasingly seen as weak, given the rapidity of climate-induced changes occurring around the world, and the increase in carbon pollution.)

Here are the facets of Obama’s agenda the Sierra Club highlighted:

• The central “cap and auction” system that would cut our carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 requires polluters to pay for their emissions and invests money into clean energy technology and jobs, and aid for low-income Americans affected by higher energy costs.
• A requirement that 25% of U.S. electricity come from renewable sources by 2025, along with a plan for improving energy efficiency in the U.S. 50 percent by 2030.
• Retention of bans on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off-shore oil and gas exploration.
• Opposition to the storage of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain repository being built in southern Nevada.
• Restoration of environmental programs undercut by Bush Administration executive orders.
• Increased regulation of factory farms.
• Support of the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, which aims to protect children from toxic lead poisoning.

“We believe Senator Obama is the change our nation needs - he is the change we need, the leader who will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create and keep millions of jobs, spur innovation and opportunity, make us a more secure nation, and help us solve global warming,” said Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club.

Interestingly, the Sierra Club endorsement came alongside that of the United Steelworkers, which sees the promise of new jobs in Obama’s clean energy agenda.

Environmental Lovins

Rethinking the cost of hybrid cars

By Noah Buhayar and Bryan Palmintier Posted Fri May 30, 2008 3:07pm PDT

A lot of people get sticker shock when they look at the price of a new hybrid. They figure that the added expense won’t pay itself back very quickly on fuel savings alone.

And in some cases they’re right. Even with $4 gas, someone who drives 15,000 miles per year won’t necessarily recoup those added costs in the first year of ownership. Depending on the non-hybrid car used for comparison, it may take two or more years before the gas savings alone equals the up-front premium for the hybrid.

But this quick analysis misses a number of hybrids’ other economic benefits.

For starters, hybrids are holding their value better than non-hybrid cars. This means that, even if you don’t recoup the extra cost of the hybrid in gas savings, you’re likely to get more money out of the car when you decide to sell it.

In addition to resale, some lenders — typically credit unions — offer discounted loan rates for hybrids. And some insurance companies — including Geico, the Travelers, and Farmers — offer discounted premiums.

The federal government is also offering tax credits of up to $3,400 for hybrids — but only for the first 60,000 vehicles, which means that Toyota and Honda models are no longer eligible. Some employers offer incentives for hybrid vehicles as well.

Testing the idea
Recently, Bryan put together a quick spreadsheet to calculate the “real” cost of owning a new hybrid versus another car.

In his calculations, he stacked up the Prius against the non-hybrid versions of Honda Accord and Civic, the cars he and his wife were looking at.

As you can see from the screen shot below, the Prius came out a winner.

Crunching the numbers
You can build a similar spreadsheet yourself by consulting a few resources and making a few assumptions.

Bryan, for instance, estimated the minimum number of years an person usually owns a vehicle (three), the average cost of gas (~$4.00), the number of miles someone might drive per year (12,500), standard maintenance costs, and how the purchase was financed.

If you’re really particular, you may want to tack on extra cost such as the insurance premiums of owning a particular make and model car. You may also want to check and see if there are tax incentives from your state or the federal government for purchasing your particular model of hybrid.

For the parts of the calculation you don’t assume, here are a couple of links to get you on your way:

• Kelly Blue Book has average new car prices and resale values in your area. Models do tend to change from year to year, but assuming most features stay the same, you can estimate an average resale value for a car by looking at how old models are reselling. My colleague assumed he’d hold onto the new 2008 Prius, Accord, or Civic for at least three years, so he looked at resale values for 2005 models.
• Fueleconomy.gov has tons of data on average MPG of most cars. Your actual MPG will depend somewhat on driving habits, but the EPA stats will at least get you in the ballpark.
• E-loan should give you an idea about how much interest you’d have to pay to finance the purchase. Though, be sure to look around at your bank and local credit unions that may offer discounts for hybrids.

Noah Buhayar and Bryan Palmintier are fellows at Rocky Mountain Institute.

Driving Green

Buying green is just the first step in reducing the environmental impacts of automobile use. Your choice of vehicle is most important, but how you drive and how well you maintain your car, van, or light truck will also make a difference.

• Avoid “jack rabbit” starts and aggressive driving. Flooring the gas pedal not only wastes gas, it leads to drastically higher pollution rates. One second of high-powered driving can produce nearly the same volume of carbon monoxide emissions as a half hour of normal driving.
• Think ahead. Try to anticipate stops and let your vehicle coast down as much as possible. Avoid the increased pollution, wasted gas, and wear on your brakes created by accelerating hard and braking hard.
• Follow the speed limit! Driving 75 mph instead of 65 mph will lower your fuel economy by about 10 percent, and can dramatically increase tailpipe pollution in many vehicles.
• When possible, plan your trips to avoid rush hour. Stop-and-go driving burns gas and increases emissions of smog-forming pollutants.
• Combine trips. Warmed-up engines and catalysts generate much less air pollution, so combining several short trips into one can make a big difference.
• Take a load off. Carrying around an extra 100 pounds reduces fuel economy by about 1 percent. Take a few moments to unload your cargo area.
• If your vehicle has it, use overdrive gear at cruising speeds. When driving a manual transmission, shift up as soon as possible. Running in a higher gear decreases the rpm and will decrease fuel use and engine wear.
• Try using the vents and opening windows to cool off before you turn on the air conditioner. Air conditioner use increases fuel consumption, increases NOx emissions in some vehicles, and involves environmentally damaging fluids.
• Unlike many older cars and trucks, modern vehicles don’t need to warm up and they have automatic chokes, so you don’t need to step on the gas pedal before starting the engine.

Maintenance Tips

• Keep your tires properly inflated. Tires should be inflated to the pressure recommended for your vehicle; this information is often printed inside the door frame or in your owner’s manual. For every 3 pounds below recommended pressure, fuel economy goes down by about 1 percent. Tires can lose about 1 pound of pressure in a month, so check the air pressure regularly and always before going on a long trip or carrying heavy loads. Underinflated tires can also detract from handling, safety, and how long the tires will last.
• Buy low-rolling-resistance (LRR) replacement tires. Switching to a typical set of replacement tires lowers a vehicle’s fuel economy as much as 4 percent. LRR tires, on the other hand, are specially designed to improve a vehicle’s fuel economy. Most major tire manufacturers now produce LRR models, so when it comes time to replace your tires, seek out a set of LRRs.
• Check your own fuel economy every few weeks. If you notice it slipping, that could mean you have a minor problem with the engine or your brakes. Using this advance warning, you can fix problems before you have a breakdown on the road.
• Get a tune-up. Whether you do it yourself or go to a mechanic, a tune-up can increase your fuel economy. Follow owner’s manual guidelines. Be sure to check for worn spark plugs, dragging brakes, and low transmission fluid; have your wheels aligned and tires rotated; and replace the air filter if needed. Make sure all used vehicle fluids are recycled or disposed of safely.
• Change the oil. In addition to making your car or truck last longer, replacing the oil and oil filter regularly will also help fuel economy. Check your owner’s manual for specific recommendations about how often to change. Ask the service station if they recycle used oil, or if you do it yourself, take your old oil to someplace that does recycle. Ask for recycled oil as a replacement.
• Have your vehicle’s emission control system checked periodically. Take it in for service if an instrument panel warning light comes on.

Careful Fill-Ups

Americans too often take gasoline for granted, forgetting that it is quite a hazardous substance. Gasoline fumes are toxic and carcinogenic; they cause smog; and spilled gasoline can pollute the water and poison wildlife. And it’s very flammable, too.

• Use regular gasoline unless your owner’s manual says otherwise. Unless your car requires premium, high-octane fuels improve neither fuel economy nor performance and will just waste your money.
• Don’t overfill the gas tank or try to top it off beyond where the automatic nozzle clicks off. Spilled gasoline evaporates to aggravate smog formation and can leak into groundwater.
• Patronize gas stations that have vapor-recovery nozzles (those black, accordion-looking plastic devices attached to the nozzle) whenever you can.

Prudent Parking

• Park in the shade in summer to keep your car cool and minimize evaporation of fuel.
• If you have a garage, use it as much as possible to keep your car warm in winter and cool in summer.
• If you have to park outdoors, windshield shades can cut down on summer heat and help keep the frost off in the winter.

Take Advantage of “Commuter Choice” Programs

Most Americans commute to work, and now there are special programs that provide incentives for both employees and employers to “Get There With Clean Air.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation are teaming up with businesses and others to set up “Commuter Choice” programs. These employer-sponsored initiatives can make you eligible for cash and other benefits for greener commuting. Examples include:

• One company gives its workers free walking shoes, with the promotion “we’ll even buy your walking shoes if you hoof it to work!”
• Another company offers participating employees monthly drawings for prizes that might include extra time off, mountain bikes, and other goodies.
• A municipality gives its employees an extra hour of time-off for every 5 days they use carpool or vanpool to get to work, plus permission to dress casually at the office.

Companies and communities that make use of Commuter Choice benefits often save money. For example, by cutting down on car commuting, they can avoid the need to build large parking lots that are both expensive and use up green space. These programs take advantage of recent fringe benefits rules, such as offering workers tax-free transit or vanpool benefits of up to $100 per month. Employers can also allow employees to “cash-out” their parking space, receiving additional income of up to $175 per month (taxed like added salary for the employee, but still a deductible business expense for the employer). Employees can use this cash to commute as they wish, including carpooling, telecommuting, bicycling, or walking. Employers benefit through lowered taxes, lowered costs, and new ways to recruit and keep employees.

Commuter Choice cuts pollution, reduces traffic congestion, and conserves energy. Ask your employer if they have a Commuter Choice program. If not, ask them to start one. For more information, check out the Commuter Choice website.

Download Green Driving Tips (PDF)

OK, folks.  This is the Moment we’ve been waiting for. 
 
It looks like all the pieces are in place for a big push on the Solar Investment Tax Credit extensions.  Here’s what’s up:
 
+   You may recall that the Senate passed –by 88 to 8!- an extension bill titled S. 2821 “Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008″ 
+   Last Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee passed H. R. 6049 “Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008″.
 
Both measures extend the tax credits.  The Senate’s bill has already passed.  With passage of HR 6049 in the House, the only remaining barriers will be reconciliation of the two measures.  So, Let’s Get these measures PASSED!
 
Tomorrow, May 20, has been designated as a Day of Action for the solar industry and all its friends and supporters.  This is the time for all those e-mail blasts that you have been preparing.  Time to hit the GO button. 
 
What you say comes from you.  Show your sense of what’s important and why.  This is my version- use it or write your own.  The basics are enough: 
 
“Dear Senator/ Representative [ name ]:  This country has been addicted to oil for too long.  It is time to change course.  If we want a strong economy in this country in the future when oil is more constrained and more expensive than it is today, we simply must invest in the cleanest, most available energy source available - solar technology.
 
The solar energy industry has been growing but that growth is at risk.  The solar investment tax credits are crucial to continuing the current rate of investment by both large and small investors.  Already investors are slowing their plans — new companies and expansion of existing companies, and all the jobs that accompany those expansions, all this is at risk now, as investors see the pending end of the ITC. 
 
I work with an innovative startup company that hopes to be part of the new solar economy.  If the solar investment tax credits are allowed to expire, our company –like many others–will be forced to grow much more slowly.  New jobs will be delayed if not canceled outright.  So will all the energy benefits that could otherwise be captured by solar customers: the benefits of replacing expensive oil and fossil fuel with clean, fixed-price solar energy. 
 
These investments in solar are small compared to the enormous benefits they bring.  Please vote now to pass the extension of the Solar Investment Tax Credits.  Thank you, [   your name  ].  ”
 
 
 When you write is critical.  Please send something tomorrow if you can.  Please circulate this call to action through your lists
 
Here are some resources.  Use what you need, but don’t get buried in detail or reinvent the wheel.  Keep the message simple, short and direct. 
 
+  Call to Action from the three lead groups: SEIA, VoteSolar and Sierra Club.  This resource guide contains sample call scripts and e-mails –  http://www.seia.org/Resource%20Guide_National%20Action%20Day_May20.pdf  Feel free to modify any of these to fit your situation. 
+  List of all the tools and support letters and fact sheets anyone could possibly need — http://www.seia.org/itc.php

Thanks Team

Tim Padden

www.houseofsolar.com

LINK

Editor’s note: This is a guest post from Glen Stansberry of LifeDev (feed).

Focus is something of a novelty these days. We’ve got cellphones for texting and calls, IM, Twitter, Email, RSS feeds, Facebook, Myspace… the list goes on and on. If you don’t have ADD before you start working online, it seems it’s almost inevitable thanks to these inputs. If you’re a web worker who uses the Internet for the majority of the day, you’re especially at risk for losing focus.

Focus is something that must be fought for. It’s not something that automatically switches on when you want to. You have to make sure your surroundings are perfect for working if you want to be focused. Here’s a few ways I’ve found this to work:

1. Use offline tools. Paper products, pens, and other physical tools are a Godsend for those of us who have a hard time focusing throughout the work day. They’re so simple that we can use them quickly, without having to worry about becoming distracted.
2. Take more breaks. More breaks = More productivity. It may sound wrong, but it’s true. Breaks allow us to re-group our thoughts and focus for the task at hand. They also keep us fresh so that we don’t end up burning out after only a few hours work.
3. Smaller tasks to check off. When you’re planning your day, make sure that your “action steps” (aka items in the checklist) are small actions. Instead of “Paint living room”, try breaking it down into many tasks, like “buy paint, buy rollers, pick colors” etc.
4. Keep a steady pace. Don’t try to do to much. Keeping the pace manageable allows you to keep your focus. Unfortunately, people can confuse this with “Work till you drop without breaks”. See number 2.
5. Keep a daily “purpose” card. It’s pretty easy to get lost staring at the computer all day long. We’ll find rabbit holes to wonder down (ie. Youtube, Myspace, etc.) if we’re not careful. Having your daily purpose card gives you clarity and a reminder as to what you’re doing today.
6. Develop the mindset that the computer is only a tool. It’s easy to try and use the computer for too much. At its core, the computer is merely a tool (albeit a freakin’ awesome one) that allows to do work more efficiently. If we’re using it as something more than that, (like as a solution for your life), you’ll ultimately fail. It’s like trying to eat a steak dinner with only a spoon.
7. Plan your day to the T. If you’re finding sporadic periods of laziness throughout the day, it could be because you don’t take enough breaks (see #2), and you don’t have the day mapped out as efficiently as you could. Make sure your list of todos has lots of small, actionable steps that can be done quickly. This will gives a really satisfying feeling when you’re crossing things off your list like crazy.
8. Notice your lazy routines. Everyone has recurring lazy spots throughout the day. Plan to have your breaks for those times. You’re going to be lazy then anyway, right?
9. Plan the night before. Planning the night before is a great way to really get focused on the next day. “Sleeping” on your tasks and goals for the following day can really help your mind expect what’s going to happen the next day. Essentially, you’re preparing your mind for the following day. Advanced focus.
10. Turn off extra inputs. These are IM and email for me, but we all have our Achilles heel. Completely turn off any distracting piece of technology that you own. Every one of these inputs tries to steal bits of your focus. And they won’t rest until they do.
11. Set time limits for tasks. There’s no motivation like a deadline. Giving yourself real deadlines is a great way to stay motivated and focused on the task. Given the fact that we human are natural procrastinators, it’s no surprise that we’ll take as long as we’re allowed to finish something. Setting real but attainable limits is a great way to keep the project humming, so to speak.
12. Keep a journal of what you did throughout the day. I like to use a moleskine notebook for my lists just so I can go back and review it every now and again, to see what I’ve done. Knowing how far you’ve come can keep you sharp and motivated to finish.
13. Use programs to track where you spend your time. This is a real eye-opener. Knowing just how much time you spend every day/week/month on a certain site or with a certain program can quickly show you where your priorities lie. I recommend Rescue Time, but there are many others.
14. Visualize the day in the morning, before it starts. A little pre-work meditation on the day’s events is a great way to start the day off focused and productive. Don’t worry about a full 30 minute session, a quick review before you start the day is fine.
15. Start the day right. Starting the day with a good breakfast, some quiet time and/or exercise is a great way to set your day up for success. Sounds like a cliche, but it really works.
16. Clean yourself up. It’s why my track coach in high school made us dress up for big races: you perform the way you feel. And if you feel polished, groomed and ready, you’ll be more likely to be productive. For me this is just taking a shower, brushing my teeth and putting on casual clothing. I used to work all day without taking a shower in my PJ’s, but I never got much stuff done. Let’s be honest here… if you’re dressed really casually, odds are you’ll be working really casually. Just taking the time to clean up a bit before you buckle down for the day is never a bad idea.

For more from Glen, check out his great productivity blog, LifeDev. He’s also the co-owner of the LifeRemix blog network.

Wonder why we don’t have a national energy policy or a serious push toward alternatives?

Follow the money that oil and gas companies send to Congress.

By Jim JubakThink it’s a matter of chance that we don’t have a meaningful national energy policy? Wondering why oil and gas companies don’t pay higher royalties to the Treasury now that oil is over $55 a barrel? Amazed that Washington loves to talk about energy research with promise 15 years down the road, but won’t put significant money into alternative technologies that could reduce energy consumption now?

For answers to all those questions and more, just follow the money. Nothing about U.S. energy policy should be a surprise if you know where the money’s been going and which legislators have taken the biggest payouts from the energy industry. So don’t miss your only chance in the next two years — the Nov. 7 election — to tell Congress what you think of its sellout to the energy companies.

It has become increasingly expensive to run for national office, and any politician who wants to win has to raise big bucks these days. In the 2006 election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission, as of Oct. 20, challengers and incumbents running for the House of Representatives had raised $713 million for their campaigns. Those for Senate had raised $452 million. And these figures don’t include any of the money raised by “independent” organizations, so-called 527 groups such as Emily’s List on the left ($9.6 million raised) or Club for Growth on the right ($6.2 million raised).

Lawyers top contributor list

Corporations and affiliated individuals have coughed up a big chunk of that money. By industry, the top honor on the giving roll goes to lawyers and law firms, with $89 million contributed, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which describes itself as nonpartisan and nonprofit. As the Republicans have said in campaign after campaign, the bulk of that — 69% to 30% — has gone to Democrats. But the Republicans don’t need to worry; there’s plenty of money coming into their till from other industries. Second place goes to the retirement industry with $86 million (54% goes to Republicans). Third place? The real estate industry with $53 million (57% goes to Republicans.)The oil and gas industry comes in at No. 15 with $14 million in contributions.

The top five contributors were Koch Industries, ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), Valero Energy (VLO, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and Occidental Petroleum (OXY, news, msgs), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

That $14 million puts the oil and gas industry in the company of such heavyweights as electric utilities (at $12 million) and the pharmaceutical industry (at $14 million).

Most energy money goes to GOP

The oil and gas industry’s giving is highly, highly focused. Oil and gas executives seem to feel that with the Republicans in solid control of Congress, there’s no need to give to anybody but Republicans, since they’re the folks that can get things done. There’s none of the fence straddling of the securities industry, which has divided its $46 million in contributions almost evenly between Republicans (47%) and Democrats (51%). A whopping 83% of oil and gas money has gone to Republicans in this election cycle. To find similar imbalance, you have to look at such Democratic bulwarks as the public-sector unions, 84% Democratic in their giving, and the building trades unions, at 83% Democratic.So who did this concentrated dose of cash go to? Here are the top 10 — all Republicans — as complied by the Center for Responsive Politics:

Data from the FEC as of Sept. 11, 2006. Compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

You’ve got to hand it to the oil and gas industry. They know how to support their favorite sons and daughters, of course: Texans Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn, after all, are both senators from a big oil state.

But the industry keeps its eye on the prize. If you want to keep oil and gas royalties low; if you’d like to drill in environmentally sensitive areas; if you want to keep the government from admitting that global warming might exist; if you want to make sure that money flows to research in alternative energy technologies for the future but not to commercialize alternative technologies today, then you give to the key people who can get those jobs done.

So you contribute to the campaign of California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee in charge of deciding how the oil and gas (and other industries) can use government land and how much they’ll pay for that use. Pombo has been a point man in the House in efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

(The committee’s jurisdiction also extends to gambling on Indian lands. Pombo and his personal political action committee, known as Rich PAC, reportedly are being investigated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Indian tribes paid Abramoff and his lobbying firm big fees in exchange for promises he would get favorable rulings from lawmakers and members of the executive branch on their casino plans.)

Pombo is also involved in my favorite bit of election-year irony. He has been criticized for lobbying then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton to suspend regulations opposed by the wind-power industry because his parents collect sizable royalties from windmills on their ranch. Pombo, his critics have noted, has a personal interest in the ranch. So who should Pombo face in the 2006 election? Democrat Jerry McNerney, a wind-power engineer and CEO of a start-up wind-turbine manufacturer.

The oil and gas industry also gives heavily to Texas Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; to Sens. James Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia, all of whom sit on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; to Illinois’ Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, who plays a huge role in deciding what legislation moves to the floor for a vote and what doesn’t; and to Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum, head of the Senate Republican Conference and announced candidate for Republican whip in 2006 if he wins re-election.

Control of Congress up in air

Among the top 10 recipients of oil and gas money, Pombo, Talent, Burns and Santorum face stiff races for re-election this year. That, plus the possibility of a shift in control of one or both houses of Congress from Republican to Democratic, creates some interesting angles for investors interested in playing potential changes in U.S. energy policy as the biases of Republican incumbents yield to the biases of Democratic replacements.Sometimes it’s hard to tell exactly what the effect might be. So for example, a shift in control of the House of Representatives would be likely to unseat Barton as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Barton is a lock in his re-election. The incumbent has raised $2.7 million to Democratic challenger David Harris’ $22,000. Harris had $932 in his campaign treasury as of Oct. 20.)

Barton has been one of the fiercest congressional critics of global-warming theories. At a recent congressional hearing, he said, “As long as I am chairman, (regulating the gases that produce global warming) is off the table indefinitely. I don’t want there to be any uncertainty about that.” But Barton’s likely replacement would be John Dingell, D-Mich., a fierce advocate for the U.S. automobile industry.

In other cases, the effect of the change is easier to extrapolate. Pombo’s likely replacement as chairman of the House Resources Committee would be Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. Can you say “coal,” boys and girls?

Money and politics go hand in hand

No matter how the elections turn out this year, of course, the connection between money and politicians will survive. Incumbents of both parties know that taking the money out of politics — I mean, really taking it out — would destroy one of most effective tools they have for assuring their own re-election. Taking the money out of campaigns is less likely than the Easter Bunny passing out eggs in January.So vote your convictions. Throw this year’s bums out. They certainly deserve it. Then watch to see which newly elected politicians start quickly to work to become next year’s bums.

And always remember the great American humorist Finley Peter Dunne’s advice: “Trust everybody, but cut the cards.”

Dumb as We Wanna Be

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

Erika Morgan brought this to my attention. It is good material outlining what the solar shift looked like in 2007.

Click the photo to open the PDF