EPA: Recession Won't Stop Clean Energy Revolution

PARIS — The top U.S. environment official says it's time for the United States to shed its energy-wasting image and lead the world race for cleaner power sources instead.

After several years with a relatively low profile under President George W. Bush, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "is back on the job," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told The Associated Press on Thursday during a trip to Paris.

What the EPA does domestically this year will be watched closely overseas. Nations worldwide are working toward a major meeting in Copenhagen in December aimed at producing a new global climate pact. The U.S. position on curbing its own pollution and helping poor countries adapt to global warming is seen as key to any new pact.

Jackson was in Paris for international talks on how rich governments can include global climate concerns in overall development aid.

She dismissed worries that economic downturn was cutting into aid commitments or investment in new energy resources. She said the United States should take the lead on clean energy technology, recession or no.

"We have to get in the race now _ and win it," she said. "I don't expect a moving backwards because of recession."

At climate talks in Paris earlier this week, European environment ministers welcomed greater U.S. commitment to environmental issues under the Obama administration _ but said it still wasn't aiming high enough in its targets for cutting U.S. emissions.

Jackson said a shift in the American mindset is only beginning.

Talking about energy efficiency and saying companies should pay to pollute _ "that's a revolutionary message for our country," she said.

For a long time, she said, "People didn't even expect the EPA to show up" at events, much less set policies that could be seen as examples for the rest of the world.

"Now it seems like every day we're rolling back or reconsidering a Bush era policy on clean air," she said.

She said it was time for the United States to take a more active role in limiting chemical pollutants, after falling behind Europe in that domain.

The U.S. also has lessons to learn from countries such as the Netherlands, she said, after visiting its low-lying, flood-prone lands to study ways cities like her native New Orleans can better manage water.

Comments

[mioffe]

Dear valkyrie607
Let return to George Philander's book, Our Affair With El Niño, chapter 7:
1. Earth with no atmosphere-, the average surface temperature of earth would be -18�C (0�F), far colder than the average temperature of our earth, which is 15�C (59�F). Worse, the surface would cool down to around -160�C (-250�F) soon after the sun set.
2. Earth with a static atmosphere and no ocean. If the earth had a static atmosphere with the same gases it has now, but with little water vapor and no ocean, the average surface temperature of earth would be 67�C (153�F).
3. Earth with an atmosphere and ocean
Earth has an atmosphere and ocean, and the average surface temperature is a comfortable 15�C (59�F). Water evaporates from the ocean and land, cooling the surface. Winds carry the water vapor to other latitudes, and sometimes high up into the air, where heat is released when the vapor condenses to water. "
As you can see George Philander confirm that water vapor actually cool the air.
In #2 the average surface temperature of earth would be 67�C (153�F).
In #3 the average surface temperature is a comfortable 15�C (59�F).
George Philander confirms: “Water evaporates from the ocean and land, cooling the surface. Winds carry the water vapor to other latitudes, and sometimes high up into the air, where heat is released when the vapor condenses to water. "
Please let me now your opinion on this topic and we will follow up!

[mioffe]

Dear Mr. President, Al Gore as politician stopped discussion about GW in very begining, by slogan "DEBATE IS OVER". He is absolutely wrong in questions: "what is reason for GW", "What to do to slow impact of GW".
Please stop implementation of his very dangerous as for environment, as for economy advices.
In science opinion of one if he is disagree even with million of others more important till time when all his reasons will be completely discussed. "The earth is flat" not only for Tomas Friedman in science of GW.
We need as soon as possible to stop nonsense as Democrats, as Republican, as mass media opinion about GW.
Please invite me In White House or somewhere else and bring others 1000 scientists, who suport Al Gore(Democrat) or Senator Inhoffe (Republican) for discussion ASAP.
Michail Ioffe.

[valkyrie607]

I call BS and will continue to do so until you start backing up your outrageous claims with something more substantial than "I said so."

[mioffe]

Dear valkyrie607, please forget about my poor English, click mioffe, omit repetition and if you will be patient enough, you will found many topics, why "Isaid so".
Please found, something with what you disagree and we will talk.
Al Gore think that CO2 as GHG increased temperature on the Earth, because of that increased evaporation of water vapor and as it is also GHG temperature will increased more.
I am telling that in air we have not only water vapor, but also water droplet. To evaporate 1 kg of water we need a lot of energy (339 kcal). Molecular weight H2O=18, N2=28, O2=32, CO2=44. As lighter than other gases it go up to cloud level. Condensation of water droplet released back 339 kcal/kg. But this energy released on cloud level, where IR radiation more easely go to space, than on ground level.
Property of water, despite it create GHG-water vapor, actually cool the atmosphere.
If it is true we have completely different tools how to fight GW.

[mamacat]

The program to build a clean energy infrastructure will help the economy in many ways. In the short run, it will put people to work in construction. In the long run, it will create permanent jobs in manufactureing of parts for and maintenance of clean energy facilities, will stop much of the bleeding of our national treasure to oil exporting countries, and will mitigate gloabl warming.

So, it is not a matter of the Green Energy Revolution going on in spite of the economic downturn, but a matter of the Green Energy Revolution being a part of the solution to the economic downturn, on several levels.

[loki]

But capitalist and Ivy Greeders will stop it dead in its tracks.

[mioffe]

Instead of analyzing where we are really loose energy and change situation our government was involved in very expensive unscientific fight to stop GW by reduction of CO2.
If we move 100 kg person in car which weight 2000 kg we spend 5% energy to move person and 95% of energy to move car.
Even if we will forget about efficiency of engine and calculate how much energy we are loosing to produce fuel, to heat (cool) car, to light and any others needs we can say that real efficiency of moving one person by heavy car is less than 1%.
IT IS MEAN THAT 1GALLON OF GASOLINE IS MOVING PERSON, WHILE 99 GALONS OF GASOLINE are MOVING CAR.
When we produce electricity we are loosing at least 80% of fuel energy as heat.
Please answer what are you think about this point and after that I will go forvard.

[ipv4]

Please , we've heard enough. Now go take your medications.

[mioffe]

Dear ipv4, it is your quot:
GM's Bob Lutz Talks Volt With Letterman (VIDEO)
This would go perfect with my solar panels. Sorry you can't say the same.

posted May 25, 2009 at 22:18:41"

It is confirm that you are the same as FormerReaganite lobbyist for green energy and have the same attitude as Al Gore "DEBATE IS OVER" when he and both of you can not or maybe do not want to answer on simple questions, confronting your very expensive, environmentally danger direction!
You are wrong and because you are trying escape debate you are very DANGEROUS PERSONS.

[FormerReaganite]

OK mioffe, I see your point about wasting energy moving people around. Why don't you talk to the policy planners, and investors, about this? Why not write a book? If you have valid ideas on efficient transportation, why waste time trying to convince a bunch of late-night internet message junkies like us?

[mioffe]

Dear FormerReaganite,
In environment when so powerful person in the world as Al Gore proclame that "DEBATE IS OVER" and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Pak ki-moon, Tony Blair support him by believing and mass media create hysteria in billions of people about GW, reason for that, etc it impossible to published something opposite.
You are Physics from maybe prestigious University, let try to cooperate- I will provide you with my information, we will found common ground and you will try to publish result on perfect English, where you want.
If it will work, you as Democrat will do the best for President Obama Government.
I am not Republican not Democrat and not advertise for any Companies.
I am person who badly want to escape catastrophy if we will follow wrong vision about Global Warming.
I came in USA in 1992 and I saw how Michail Gorbachev destroyed former USSR with stupid ideas.
He is also one of supporter Al Gore's ideas. I am doubt that he understand subject.
If YOU ARE AGREE, I AM READY.

[FormerReaganite]

Hey, slow down. I only said your "efficient transportation" idea is interesting. But I don't agree at all about your trashing of alternative energy sources. (wind, solar, hydro, etc)

[mioffe]

FormerReaganite: "If you were smart, you would invest in clean energy, too. It will be the big money-maker in the next several years.

And they have a cadre of well-paid lobbyists out there to convince the uninformed masses of why we should continue on the same path (that got us to this disastrous economic downturn in the first place.)
And what if the "Republicans" are wrong. They usually are, about a lot of things. That is precisely why "they" lost the last U.S. election.

Go away, you coal lobbyist

Gloom and doom forecasts about a "low carbon energy" economic disaster are utter NONSENSE. Thousands of new jobs will be created in a "green, carbon-free" economy. From research, to engineering, to manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars, etc, perhaps even *millions* of jobs will be created, jobs which do not even exist now.

Not only that, alternative energy may even provide the necessary "fuel" to start another "boom" in economic growth.
Don't be so gullible as to believe the gloom-and-doom propaganda the coal / oil industry is putting out. Can't you see they are trying desperately to protect their polluting, money-grabbing, outdated industry?"
REREADING THIS COMMENTS BY FormerReaganite, i ALSO HAVE QUESTION TO HIM:
WHO LOBBIIST YOU ARE AND HOW MUCH THEY PAY YOU?

[CentralVA]

I wish I could be more optimistic about the administration's planned clean energy "investmen­ts." But I fear that the only "green" that will result from most of these projects will be in the wallets of Al Gore and his cronies.

[valkyrie607]

Whereas the green lining the wallets of oil company execs, their lobbyists, and the politicians they pay for is totally unworthy of notice or consideration when evaluating the claims about the effect of investment in alternative energy on our economy.

Right.

[CentralVA]

The behavior of the oil industry and their hangers is irrelevant to the key question: are these green energy programs a good idea or not? To date, the evidence offered in favor of these initiatives is underwhelming, to say the least.

[FormerReaganite]

YOU should be investing in "green" tech. It will be the coming boom. You will see.

[OldFreddie]

Where is the outrage that the EPA is set to approve 42 out of 48 applications for MTR permits? Better than that, where's the story?

[bluejay20255]

Clean energy revolution won't stop the recession.

[FormerReaganite]

The U.S. banking system is acting as a brake on economic expansion right now. They refuse to lend money to eager home and car buyers as well as badly-ailing companies. Solution: Nationalize the banks, so the green revolution can get under way. This is precisely the "change" the country (and the world) needs.

[mioffe]

FormerReaganite: "Solution: Nationalize the banks, so the green revolution can get under way."
This type of solution destroy former Soviet Union, when one party ( and mostly their lider decide what is good for economy, or what is bad).
Green revolution is a disaster for economy and environment. Please reread my previous opinion why it is.
If I am right, (scientist which I read, including Al Gore and his adviser confirm this my point) Nationalization of banks will put all our money and our efforts in wrong direction. It will destroy our economy and make huge damage for Nature.

[valkyrie607]

You type like a high school kid imitating Boris and Natacha. You're not who you say you are.

[tomsowell]

World Wide politicians are banding together to stop a invisible and non existent train.

[olephart]

This ostrich moment has been brought to you by Exxon where our next quarterly dividend in more important than your children’s lives. We’re rich, we don’t care.

[FormerReaganite]

And they have a cadre of well-paid lobbyists out there to convince the uninformed masses of why we should continue on the same path (that got us to this disastrous economic downturn in the first place.)

[tomsowell]

Investing in poverty...­..After we are done throwing tax payer money,at these Global Warming( a man made crisis) alternatives,and the forcing of GM,and Chrysler to make death cars,what are we left with......­.I will tell you....Hig­h Energy costs,cars no one wants,high unemployment,a stagnant economic system,non profitable car industry,loss of economic status,and credit rating,and a lower standard of living for the poor and middle class.....­.And 30 years from now when the dust settles we will finally be at the point that the FREE MARKET could of achieved in 10 years

[clearthinking123]

tomsowell, but this is exactly how we got here, the unregulated FREE MARKET allowed the major auto makers to produce shoddy wasteful vehicles based on the short term marketing-hyped desires of uniformed consumers. Nowhere else in the world do so many people drive SUVs; the true cost of highway maintenance, waste and pollution (hidden by artificially low gas prices and lax regulation) are back to haunt us. Poor and middle class standard of living is sinking because we refuse to invest fully in the public sector like the dozens of countries that have a higher standard of living than the U.S. The unregulated FREE MARKET makes a handful of millionaires and forces the rest of us to spend all day competitively shopping for every last piece of basic necessities (McCain would have had us spending every last minute of our day fighting to find health care coverage ‘across state lines’!) Look around you, nearly every real quality of life (good safe neighborhoods, clean open spaces, clean air and water, access to public education) was NOT BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE FREE MARKET but by collective action of citizens in the form of government. That’s patriotism. That’s how civilized people live together. It’s time to stop believe the Hannity idiots who would have you shop for your own coffin.

[CentralVA]

Life under a free market system is not always easy, but compare it to life under other systems. On the whole, I cannot think of any place in the world I would rather live than the United States.

[tomsowell]

I disagree..­..Poor management,and Unions have destroyed this industry..­Capitalism is not always pretty,but its way more efficient(Its why we were the envy of the world)..Th­e world loves Obama because we will shrink down to their level)...L­ook for Obama to do what he can to let gas sky rocket(I believe the Dems snuck a gas tax in the Stimulus nobody read)...le­ave your number I will call and we can have a real debate...T­HE MORE WE KNOW THE LESS CHANCE OF EITHER PARTY PULLING THE WHOOL OVER OUR EYES

[OldFreddie]

But don't forget that Al Gore will be a billionaire with all his investments in the green energy sector. So that makes it all worthwhile, dontcha know?

[CentralVA]

Thanks, OldFreddie-- you made me laugh out loud.

[FormerReaganite]

If you were smart, you would invest in clean energy, too. It will be the big money-maker in the next several years.

[valkyrie607]

A "low carbon economy" means an economy where we can't run as many machines on oil and coal and gas. This means we're going to have to do more things ourselves, and become less automated. And that means more jobs.

People screaming about job losses are the ones worried about THEIR jobs: politicians who take bribes from oil companies, those companies CEOs and lobbyists, etc. Real workers like geologists and miners have already started looking for other work.

[mioffe]

From point of view of political propoganda it is perfect.
FROM ECONOMICAL AND INDUSRIAL POINT OF VIEW IT IS ABSURD AND GOOD MOVEMENT FORWARD TO STONE AGE!

[valkyrie607]

More labor intensive technologies are not the same thing as stone age technologies.

[tomsowell]

This is a terrible comment...­read economics my friend....­Inefficien­cy is not job creating(its poverty creating) Even though I believe Global Warming,Co­oling,Clim­ate Change(I don't know which one they are using today...th­ey have to change the name with the temperature) is all BS...We can use this Green Tech to advance our nation with wealth...T­he Free Market will cure this problem in 10 years by itself....­Obama will set us back 30 years by tampering with the markets

[valkyrie607]

I'm not talking about inefficiency. I'm talking about technology which can work with less energy. This energy can be provided by a combination of human labor and alternative sources of energy. Such technologies must needs be more efficient than fossil fuel technology. The fact that fossil fuels are so rich with energy actually promotes inefficiency. Why else would we think it worth the expense to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides, truck them to a farm, use a fossil-fuel-driven tractor to plow and harvest, then burn more fossil fuels to truck the produce thousands of miles to the consumer? Only because oil and gas appear so cheap to us. But we are not accounting for all the costs.

[TxAggie]

You are correct,it is going to mean less machines running on oil, coal and gas. It will also mean increased costs for everything that is produced and consumed by every American, except Obama of course, he will still jet around on Air Force One on the taxpayer's dime. It will mean less jobs, a worse economy, a greater dependence on imported oil and a hell of a lot of real workers from every walk of American life looking for a job. Hopefully it will also mean a whole bunch of politicians being voted out of office.

[munki]

Well then don't destroy the nature!!!!

EPA needs to expand their scope not only in safety of landfill, but business sense!

I can go on and on on this one!!!!!!!!!

STOP BUILDING LANDFILL IN RAIN FOREST IN GUAM!!!

[mioffe]

"After several years with a relatively low profile under President George W. Bush, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "is back on the job," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told The Associated Press on Thursday during a trip to Paris."
I do not support President George W. Bush and his Environment solutions.
If everything what I read is true Lisa Jackson will bring to our environment more damage, than President George W. Bush does!
Mister President fire EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Steven Chu and others supporters of wrong understanding of Global warming by Al Gore and scientists who support him.
Green movement in energy is disaster for economy and environmet!
Thanks to everybody who will make sure that our Government understand this.

[valkyrie607]

Ah yes, the dude who majored in physics at the misnamed State University of... what was it, Latvia? Who also solved all the problems of global warming years ago, but has apparently been holding out on everyone.

He's a fascinating sock puppet.

[mioffe]

Dear valkyrie607, I wrote about Latvias state university only to explain snob, like you that I haven't any credentials in this area.
Yes, despite any credentials I "also solved all the problems of global warming years ago, but has apparently been holding out on everyone."
It is not so difficult task, everyone who will try to understand my vission of Global Warming could do it, even if he has education of High School.
I am not trying to hold my opinion. I send to every newspaper, magazines which writing articles about global warming my opinion on this topic and their mistakes. They did not answer me.
I send the same to President Bush and his staff, to President Obama and his staff, to many Senators and Congresmen, because I found a lot of mistakes in Books of Al Gore An inconvenient truth, 2006 Earth in the Balance, 1992. They did not answer me.

Maybe their staff full of the same snob as you to prefer credentials to knowledge.
Pak ki-moon, Tony Blair, Robert Redford, Mihail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton, Tomas Friedman do not climatologist, they believe Al Gore and repeat his recomendation.
Question is not about me. Our Government is going in very costly and dangerous directions.
Please look in my reason not my credentials!

[FormerReaganite]

Why don't they answer you?

Think, man.

[valkyrie607]

If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you would be totally sympathetic to my skepticism.

[mioffe]

Dear FormerReaganite you are again trying to insult me, instead as Physics found mistakes in my reasons. You have something in common with next person:

valkyrie607: "If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you would be totally sympathetic to my skepticism­."
I "would be totally sympathetic to" your "skepticism" if you will show reason against my point of view, not political propaganda as I saw in your profile.
I have scepticism about Al Gore after I found his mistakes, read many others authors about GW and both of you could see in my profile, that despite poor English and not so prestigious university I am at least understand problem.
Please if you participate in debate put knowledge before "skepticism" of snob.

[Mogadad]

Glad to see she's getting a little on the job training. (By touring the world using clean burning tax dollars)