Energy on The Huffington Post

Steven Cohen: Climate Policy and Sustainability Management

2009-12-21T10:33:22Z

The issues that emerged at the Copenhagen climate conference served to remind us of the difficulty of solving complicated cross-national environmental problems. Ever since Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner first popularized the idea of a single interconnected biosphere, it's been obvious that national sovereignty would make it difficult to solve some global environmental problems. The climate problem is even more difficult than most since its causes are everywhere and its impacts mainly in the future. It is becoming clear that the U.N.-dominated climate negotiation process is coming to an end, to be replaced by bilateral and multilateral negotiations among the two dozen or so major emitters of greenhouse gases.

This does not mean that the processes that first led to the Kyoto Accords and then the Copenhagen conference should be seen as failures. The world received a crash course in climate science and policy in the past few weeks, and the conference created a venue and deadline that accelerated the negotiation process. However, while climate is a critical issue, it is not the only sustainability issue we need to address. I think it's time to broaden our focus.

The idea that the nations of the world would cede sovereignty over their economies to permit a global greenhouse gas cap-and-trade policy was misguided fantasy that is hopefully now laid to rest. So how do we move forward? The most obvious next step is to view the climate issue as only a part of the broader issue of global sustainability. We need to understand that the planet's environmental health will only be maintained when people begin to understand its connection to sustainable economic development.

In some respects, the climate issue and the debate over emissions have been the world's first major exposure to the centrality of this connection. Unfortunately the lesson seems to be that the price of economic growth is a warmer planet. This is a slightly modified version of the old lesson that we can't have economic growth without poisoning the planet, whether through pollution, nuclear waste, or other environmental hazards. The problem with this thinking is that it fails to recognize the economic importance of the biosphere. We need a well-functioning biosphere to generate wealth, and when we damage that system, the price of repairing that damage is inevitably far greater than it would have been if we had managed to avoid damaging it in the first place. The key word here is management.

If we are to achieve worldwide economic development while maintaining a functioning, healthy biosphere, we must learn to control the impact of our activities on the planet. We need to learn to efficiently distribute, process and use water. Sewage and other waste must be cleaned before it is returned to our rivers, lakes and oceans. Food must be mass produced yet the land must retain the capacity for regrowth and regeneration. Our energy supply must be based on the virtually limitless source of the sun. The bottom line is that we must become more conscious of and careful with the complex web of life that supports the existence of species other than our own.

To accomplish all of these tasks, we must dramatically improve our understanding of this planet and the impact of our actions on its biosphere. The first step in developing the technology of sustainability is to develop the means of measuring the health of the planet in all of its intricate dimensions. Measurement is a critical element of management. If you can't measure something, you can't manage it, because without measurement, you cannot tell if your management is making conditions better or worse. The specific measures of the planet's conditions will help us identify problems and begin to work toward solutions. The goal of sustainability is nothing less than planetary management, and that is an audacious goal that we are a long way from achieving.

Climate change is among the first of the problems of planetary health that we have been able to identify. Measures of temperature, CO2 concentrations, melting of polar ice and sea level rise have all been used to define the dimensions of this problem. We know there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we know where it comes from and we know that it is warming the planet. What we don't know is the impact this warming will have or the best ways to adapt.

The most fundamental technical challenge is sustainable, fossil fuel-free energy. Today, renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. We need new technology to rebalance that equation if we are to shift away from fossil fuels. Many wonder if that will ever happen. The cost of renewable energy, solar and wind power, and battery storage will almost certainly come down as we develop the technology to promote and implement them in our everyday lives.

Sometimes national security drives the development of technology; sometimes it is public health. Laptops and the internet were products of American defense and space programs. London developed sewers and indoor plumbing to prevent the spread of disease. New York developed a hugely expensive water supply and transport system because local sources were polluted. I'm sure that at the time, someone was saying, "Do you know how expensive this indoor plumbing will be? We will all go broke installing these pipes and pumps everywhere..."

The field of sustainability management must take center stage if globalization is to succeed in promoting efficiency and economic well-being. We have an enormous amount of work to do if we are to learn, analyze, strategize, and govern effectively. Scientists, organizational managers and even politicians must learn to deal with the complexities of the world we now live in. The noise and symbolic politics of Copenhagen may, for some, be a cause for despair. Nevertheless, it was an important step in a process that has been underway for years, yet will take decades to "complete." So let's not get distracted by the noise and just get back to work.

Tom Friedman: Saving The Planet Through An Earth Race

2009-12-21T08:13:47Z

Still, I am an Earth Race guy. I believe that averting catastrophic climate change is a huge scale issue. The only engine big enough to impact Mother Nature is Father Greed: the Market. Only a market, shaped by regulations and incentives to stimulate massive innovation in clean, emission-free power sources can make a dent in global warming. And no market can do that better than America's.

Eugene Mirman Tackles Dong Energy (VIDEO)

2009-12-18T12:27:26Z

In an environmentally friendly move, German "Dong Energy" canceled plans to build a coal energy facility, and now activists calling themselves "climate pirates" are out to encourage them to build a clean energy facility. Grist.org sends Eugene Mirman to investigate a ceremony between Dong energy and the pirates as part of their Copenhagen coverage... and hilarity ensues.

Check out this video of Eugene Mirman's extremely professional investigative journalism... penis jokes.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Wyoming Wind Energy Recommendations Get More Time For Public Comment

2009-12-17T09:23:40Z

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is extending the deadline for public comment on its proposed recommendations for protecting wildlife from wind energy development.

The department released the draft document in November to provide guidance for wind developers seeking state permits.

Brian Keane: Generation Wins SmartPower's Energy Smart Ad Challenge

2009-12-16T17:22:05Z

SmartPower has announced the winner of our $10,000 Energy Smart Ad Challenge, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. We called out to filmmakers around the country, challenging them to create what they think is the best 30-second video ad that compels young people to save energy.

The winning video, Generation does just that. It's a moving, memorable and informative ad created by 22-year-old Yale graduate, Alexander Dominitz.

SmartPower and the U.S. Department of Energy congratulate Mr. Dominitz for his excellent work.

You can view all the Top 10 videos from the Energy Smart Ad Challenge at www.YouTube.com/SmartPower.

Let's Get Energy Smart!

Louis Klarevas: Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony

2009-12-15T16:50:35Z

As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger framework of how a new approach on the environment will stave off global warming and shore up American primacy.

By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of American strategy must occur soon.

The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way.

Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action.

This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats.

The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals.

Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union.

Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests.

What both sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future.

To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon.

Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States.

Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order.

But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S.

With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace.

Not all hope is lost however.

With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S. selfishly.

The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability.

Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms.

In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability.

Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be.

What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon.

For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent.

By promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion.

Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check.

The bottom-line is that the U.S. needs to become green energy dominant as opposed to black energy independent - and the best approach for achieving this is to promote a national strategy of greengemony.

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson: How to Make the Fate of the Planet Boring

2009-12-14T14:42:00Z

If energy and climate change are the great challenges facing the human race, why are leaders who should be telling us what our options are talking like a bunch of bean counters?

There's probably no better way to confuse and bore people than to start flinging a lot of numbers around. Yet this is exactly what's happening in Copenhagen where world leaders make bold speeches about how we must act and that global warming could be a disaster of epic proportions. Then the whole thing seems to disintegrate into quibbling over the numbers.

For a lot of Americans, it just becomes a blur. President Obama is offering a commitment to greenhouse gas reductions of about 17 percent compared to 2005 levels, while Copenhagen conference organizers say anywhere from 25 to 40 percent cuts are needed, but based on 1990 levels. The Chinese are offering an entirely different formula, promising to cut their "energy intensity" by 40 percent. It means they'll try to switch to cleaner fuels and be more efficient, but they're not actually promising to cut their emissions at all.

Then there's the 350 business. Environmentalists have rallied worldwide to promote a goal of having 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's what many scientists argue is the maximum amount of CO2 the Earth's climate can stand (although we're already at 387 and likely headed for 450). Much of the coverage quickly turned into scientists debating whether 350 is the right number, or even feasible.

Any number that can spawn more than 4,000 demonstrations from Afghanistan to Antarctica is working for a lot of people. Climate activists have raised their own intensity levels, with more protests in Copenhagen. Unfortunately, anyone who's not already in the movement probably has no idea whatsoever what the whole thing means. For most people, this tit-for-tat over the numbers is utterly bewildering.

Why use 1990 levels as a benchmark, for example? Or 2005? If you're not an expert, this is like sitting in the stands watching the grounds crew argue over where to set up the goalposts and draw the chalk lines, without knowing whether they're about to watch football or curling.

Setting targets is important, and these are perfectly valid, even vital points for scientists and political leaders to argue about. But these discussions are soaring right over the heads of a general public where four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel, according to opinion research by our organization, Public Agenda. Even more can't name a renewable energy source. A Pew Research Center survey found 55 percent said they're heard "nothing at all" about the cap-and-trade proposal in Congress.

We've spent our careers working to get the public engaged in complicated public problems, and we can confidently say that people don't engage with percentages, they engage with choices, especially choices about things that matter to them--their homes and communities, their livelihoods, their children's future. If you present the options fairly and explain them in actual English, not its fuzzy policy-wonk variant, people can and do weigh alternatives, consider the tradeoffs, and come to reasonable conclusions. In fact, letting people grapple with choices is one of the fastest ways to help them move along the learning curve. We've seen it happen time and time again in our work.

This climate change debate doesn't have to turn into a science class, and the fundamental problem isn't that hard to grasp. We need to cut greenhouse gases emissions, while also finding more energy to meet booming worldwide demand that's expected to increase 40 percent over the next twenty years.

We need more energy and cleaner energy, so let's start talking about this in terms of options. What are we using fossil fuels for now? Electricity and cars. What are the choices for switching away from them? Nuclear power, wind and solar, natural gas (which is a fossil fuel, but a cleaner one). What are the alternatives for making them less damaging? Using them much more efficiently and cleaning up coal. How long would it take? It will take a while. No time to lose. How much would it cost? They all cost something, but sticking with the status quo could cost us even more.

Telling people that the planet faces a catastrophe, and then launching into an incomprehensible debate that bears no relationship to people's daily lives could be the worst mixed message of all time. If it's that important, then we owe it to people to explain the choices open to us for generating electricity, fueling our cars and factories, building our houses and living our daily lives in ways that protect, rather than endanger, life on Earth. This numbers game is just shutting them out.

Exxon Mobil Strikes Deal With XTO Energy For $31 Billion

2009-12-14T11:08:44Z

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is making a $29 billion bet that pressure to curb climate change will mean natural gas – cleaner than coal and suddenly much easier to reach – will become a crucial source of U.S. power.

Exxon agreed to buy XTO Energy in an all-stock deal at a 25 percent premium, showing how eagerly a company that is among the most conservative in a conservative industry is jumping into the market for natural gas.

XTO Energy, Exxon Deal: Learn More About XTO Energy

2009-12-14T10:16:49Z

XTO Energy, a natural gas producer, is expected to be purchased by Exxon Mobil for $31 billion in stock and the assumption of $10 billion in debt, the New York Times reported this morning.

The Wall Street Journal adds that an agreement has been reached between the companies and the deal is pending XTO stockholder approval and regulatory clearance.

XTO Energy describes itself in the following way on its Web site:

XTO Energy Inc. has grown from its inception in 1986 to one of the nation's largest independent oil and gas producers. Our proven strategy has built a domestic reserve base with greater than 2.06 billion barrels of oil equivalent and a track record of increasing production and reserves, with a compound annual growth rate of about 24% and 29% respectively since going public in 1993.

XTO Energy claims to have the experience and expertise necessary "to acquire the best reservoir rock." It adds that it incorporates new technology and innovations to find untapped reserves and produce "healthy economic returns."

More from the AP:

Exxon Mobil will buy XTO Energy in an all-stock deal worth $31 billion as the oil giant moved aggressively Monday to capitalize on the growing supply of natural gas at home.

The deal could signal a new rush to own natural gas assets by major integrated producers, and perhaps the start of a significant consolidation in the energy industry.

Obama's Next Economic Push To Be Staged At Home Depot

2009-12-12T17:46:53Z

The White House announced on Saturday that President Obama will be hosting a discussion about his new home retrofitting proposal at a Home Depot store in the Washington D.C. area.

The event will be invitation only, and will focus on "the economic impacts of energy saving home retrofits." According to the White House press release, the President intends to "solicit ideas" from members of the labor, manufacturing and small business communities.

Last week, Obama asked Congress to create incentives for homeowners who make their property more energy efficient.

Fossil Fuel Alternative: Turning Sawdust Into Gasoline

2009-12-11T15:56:17Z

This is not science fiction: We actually can make gasoline from wood waste, switchgrass, algae and sugarcane. Maybe it won't be 'fossil fuel' anymore.

Elihu Dietz: Don't Have a Cow

2009-12-10T15:26:43Z

At best, meat is wasteful: it takes 10,000 pounds of grain to produce 1000 pounds of meat. That's 90% of the total energy it takes to make a burger, thrown away. And if you're more philosophical, the problem is some more complicated equation of inhumane and unethical. The feedlot conditions under which the vast majority of livestock are raised are barbaric and killing something generally makes one want to reach for an rationale. But is abstaining from eating meat really the solution?

The issue was addressed recently in the New Yorker review by Elizabeth Kolbert of Jonathan Safran Foer's new book, Eating Animals.

"The cost that consumer society imposes on the planet's fifteen or so million non-human species goes way beyond either meat or eggs," she writes. Bananas, blue-jeans, soy lattes, the paper used to print this magazine, the computer screen you may be reading it on -- death and destruction are embedded in them all. It is hard to think at all rigorously about our impact on other organisms without being sickened."

The implication is that we shouldn't bother not eating animals when we're just going to trounce all over mother nature with everything else we do. Which is like my argument for not practicing general hygiene when I was 6. I was just going to get dirty all over again. You know what else is hard to stop? Violence, world hunger, and the Yankees. But that's never been a good reason for the Orioles to stop showing up for spring training. We would never except this complacency about stopping violent crimes. We cannot stop human nature; people are going to die at the hands of other people, it's only natural. What's great is that we all know that that's true, but we balk at the idea of eliminating our police departments. We don't cut funding because we're not 6 years old. Just because something is unpleasant, and the battle is destined to be fought forever uphill, doesn't mean we lay down.

Preventing violence is about self-preservation, though. What's pragmatic about changing the way we factory-farm? In order to produce the largest animals in the shortest amount of time, livestock in this country are fed 28 million pounds of antibiotics a year (apparently they don't need a prescription or a public option). Compared to only 3 million pounds for the entire human population in the U.S. We feed cows food that is not natural to their diets, food that's high in calories to promote growth. Their stomachs can't take it though, so they start to bleed internally and that leads to infection. These infections are so inevitable that we just throw antibiotics, sometimes in massive doses, into each of their diets everyday. This leads to bacteria developing resistance to those antibiotics, which are often the same ones that we use. "The CDC estimates that, each year, nearly 2 million people in the United States acquire an infection while in a hospital, resulting in 90,000 deaths," states the FDA. "More than 70 percent of the bacteria that cause these infections are resistant to at least one of the antibiotics commonly used to treat them." We are being killed by microbes that have developed immunities to the antibiotics that we feed our livestock. It's in our best interest to not raise animals the way we do right now.

Another justification for eating meat, even the way it's farmed now, is a sort of faux-bio-anthropology argument which briefly goes like this: humans evolved with the ability to eat and digest meat so it is our right to chow down. Biologically, it's true. We can eat meat. We can also commit adultery, vote for Nader, and wear flannel, but we (usually) recognize that we have the responsibility not to. Letting our biology dictate our behavior was an idea we waved bye-bye to when we first found a higher being a GODzillion years ago.

But the actual logic behind eating meat is really much simpler. It's straightforward and easy to follow. It goes like this: I want bacon-bits in my mouth. Amen. Meat tastes great. Let's just acknowledge that that's the rationale for eating it. This isn't about a principle to never eat meat. The less meat you eat the better, to my mind, but I'm not as concerned about that as I am that people eat meat and rationalize it these two arguments. These two arguments for eating meat, "We're going to ruin everything anyway" and "we can so we should", are really about doing nothing, and they're about as sound as the concrete around Yankee Stadium.

Being vegetarian or vegan is not the solution to waste, a greener earth, and animal ethics. But who said it was? Just like the solution to global warming is not to just change your light-bulbs and find Al Gore not boring. The solution to feeding lots of people cheaply, using land responsibly, and raising animals with dignity is not a simple equation. It's a constant (math pun) effort from all of us to think about what we eat, what that food costs in real terms, and be smart about our choices. It's uphill, but that's all the reason to focus and not let apathy and complacence decide what we eat.

If we want to have a real discussion about the value of factory farming versus the risks, expenses, and sacrifices of the alternatives, let's do it. There's not a perfect answer so it's not about us versus them. Not eating meat isn't the final solution but it allows us to express a little control over a problem that is way beyond any individual.

Ned Lamont: Help Needed: Political Entrepreneurs in State Capitols

2009-12-10T09:59:16Z

Three years ago, I ran for Senate because I believed our nation's priorities had veered severely off track. During that campaign, I stood up time and again to say that the decision to invade Iraq was not only costing our country in blood and treasure, but also sucking all of the oxygen out of facing the critical domestic reforms we needed to make on issues like energy, health care, and education. Now -- three years, one presidential election, and one historic economic crisis later -- those challenges have grown significantly.

I know that if President Obama had even one or two more allies in the United States Senate, his job would likely be immeasurably easier. But while we need good, principled people representing us in Washington, the problems piling up at home demand our immediate attention. I am convinced that state government is where political entrepreneurs can have the most significant impact on the everyday lives of those we hope to serve. And I believe we need to confront the catastrophe now facing our states with the same moral urgency that we exhibited when confronting the catastrophe of a misguided war of choice three years ago.

Today, in a scene familiar to many states across the nation, Connecticut finds itself facing immense fiscal challenges as our working families and small businesses continue to bear the brunt of the economic downturn. After years of unfocused leadership, our state is sorely in need of a chief executive who will focus like a laser on creating jobs and getting our economy back on track.

That is why I recently formed an exploratory committee for the office of Governor of Connecticut.

My beloved state is almost financially bankrupt, relying on one-time revenue sources and borrowing to plug long-term shortfalls. But even worse, I see a Connecticut bankrupt for new ideas -- the types of ideas that prove that government can be a constructive partner in creating good paying and stable jobs.

While Washington lumbers along, we need to remember that it is the states which have historically been the incubators for real change. Many of the agencies in FDR's alphabet soup of job-creating reforms were based on models that began at the state and local level. Today, we need our Governors need to be true entrepreneurs who have the political courage to begin the reforms that will make a real difference in people's lives.

Connecticut may be the land of steady habits and slow to change, but the fiscal crisis is forcing all of us -- families and government alike -- to reevaluate how we do business. I truly believe that a Governor with an entrepreneurial approach can be the difference that restarts our jobs engine and refocuses our priorities. Small businesses are often at their most innovative when they have the least money, and there is no reason Connecticut can't be as well.

For instance:

• With some of the highest energy costs in the country, Connecticut businesses are moving elsewhere -- hitting our workforce when they are already down. But, since we also have a relatively high percentage of World War II-era housing, there is no reason we should not be at the forefront of residential energy efficiency. We should be educating the next generation of energy entrepreneurs so that they will be prepared to capitalize on federal and state funding to retrofit our oldest housing, reduce homeowners' bills, and reduce peak loads. It is critical that we have this type of comprehensive vision on energy that would both invest and institute reforms to create jobs and save everyone on their monthly energy bills. Instead, Connecticut is currently raiding these same energy efficiency funds to fill budget holes.

• While educating our children for the 21st century job market is an obvious priority, Connecticut currently has the highest achievement gap in the nation. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently visited our state and announced his "Race to the Top" funding for states that are enacting bold education reforms. Secretary Duncan saluted the city of New Haven, where a courageous Mayor, John DeStefano, and a bold President of the American Federation of Teachers, Sharon Palmer, together negotiated an agreement that will give New Haven kids the best chance of competing for the jobs that will be in highest demand in the 21st century. Forward-thinking efforts like those happening in New Haven could be duplicated throughout the state -- doing so would ensure that we give the next generation the tools they need to thrive.

• Connecticut has one of the oldest populations in the country, and, consequently, some of the highest health care costs. While we hope that President Obama and Congress succeed in reforming health care in a way that brings down costs, we can't afford to wait to find out. Between the state's share of Medicaid funding and the willingness of labor unions to be part of the solution, Connecticut can be a significant driver in implementing new incentives, rooting out waste, promoting health and wellness, and making health care affordable for all of our citizens. And doing so in the insurance capital of America would send quite the message.

Our states have long been the birthplace of new solutions in government. Governors can make a real difference in this effort -- you can see it in the difference between the states that continue to fall behind, and those that innovate and reinvent themselves. I firmly believe that Connecticut can and must lead by example.

A. Siegel: The Power of No Regrets

2009-12-08T17:53:25Z

One of the most promising, yet also most frustrating, aspects of dealing with Climate Change is how the noise (the static) of the debate makes it difficult for the majority of people to understand the power of the "No Regrets" strategy opportunity and promise.

The concept of a "No Regrets" strategy has been around for decades. For example, this 1991 New York Times article on a National Academies of Science report was entitled Economic Scene: The 'No Regrets' Greenhouse Fix.

Reduced to its journalistic essence, "no regrets" goes something like this:

Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC refrigeration chemicals) are rising rapidly...virtually guarantees the planet will trap more solar energy and the earth will grow warmer.

But the plausible range of temperature change is as little as 2 degrees Fahrenheit to as much as 9 ... [this does] not tell us much about the ensuing environmental and economic damage or the difficulty of adaptation. In agriculture, for example, hard-to-predict shifts in rainfall are likely to have far greater consequences than the direct effect of hotter summers.

Gradual weather change would probably prove only an expensive headache for humans. ... there is some possibility of discontinuous, catastrophic change -- for example, a huge release of methane from the melting Arctic tundra that turned the cornfields of Iowa into a desert in a single generation. And there is little doubt that thousands of marine and plant species would be decimated by even a gradual warming.

Note that this is from nearly 20 years ago, during the First Bush administration, and the formal reports, with imprimateur of a Republican administration made clear that Global Warming/Climate Change was/is real, that it had serious risks, and merited actions. But what actions ...

What to do? The panel's "no regrets" strategy starts with emissions-reducing initiatives that would pay for themselves in greater economic efficiency. High on this list is energy conservation for buildings, vehicles and industrial processes.

win-win paths to cut radically emissions and reliance on fossil fuels that make absolutely sense before one even accounts for climate change. Mining and drilling for those negawatts and negagallons is the richest set of veins to tap into the United States ... 20 years ago and today. And, those savings can be had for a fraction of the fiscal cost of producing new power.

And, when looking at producing new power, with each passing day "clean" sources are becoming more cost-competitive with polluting sources -- even before considering the national security implications of dependency on foreign oil and the polluting costs of fossil fuels (whether asthma, cancer, mercury in the foodstream, smog visual impacts at National Parks, or Global Warming). Once factoring those "externalities" into our understanding and calculations, the 'clean' choice becomes an even more powerfully smart choice.

In short, the pure "No Regrets" strategy can only take us so far. We can, at a profit, carve a tremendous chunk out of the damaging impacts that our energy profligacy and polluting practices cause. At some point, however, the 'profit' motive fails to deliver. That is, it "fails to deliver" only if we choose to ignore something the NAS highlighted back in 1991: the uncertainty factor. Again:

There is some possibility of discontinuous, catastrophic change.

Americans spend tremendous resources on "insurance," hoping never to need it, but spending those resources "just in case." Whether disability insurance through the Social Security taxes or additional private payments, health insurance, life insurance, or even travel insurance and extended product warranties, we "insure" ourselves to reduce the harm from and help us weather the potentially 'catastrophic' event (like our DVD player breaking 1 year and 1 day after purchase or coming down with a cancer that requires $100,000s of medical care and will keep us out of the work force for years).

Thus, a true "no regrets" strategy wrings out all those elements that will improve economic performance (as individuals, businesses, communities, nation). And, after doing so, asks the question: What is a logical cost assessment of the remaining risk and how much would it cost to reduce that risk? If the risk of sea level rise, species extinctions, disrupted agriculture, new infrastructure investments required to adapt to catastrophic climate change, etc can be valued at $20 trillion in "net present value" (NPV ... value today, in today's dollars), then an investment of $trillion or $4 trillion to obviate that risk is a well-spent insurance policy.

And, this was the conclusion of that 1991 NAS panel:

the panel ... would go further, buying a little insurance against an unexpectedly rainy (or, more likely, a very dry) day. This would surely include spending money to develop greenhouse-benevolent energy technologies that will be on the shelf and relatively affordable if they are needed. And it would probably also include reducing greenhouse emissions where there are only modest net costs.

Truth be told, some 20 years of near inaction (and, actually, worsening action) have made the exact recommendations clearly OBE, even if the overall sense of the report is spot on in terms of creating the political and societal cases for taking actions to mitigate catastrophic climate change.

And, the power of "No Regrets" is one reason why you will hear naysayers fighting so hard against "Green Jobs" (or Clean Energy Jobs), arguing that energy efficiency gains are false (Jovan's Paradox), that renewables aren't real, etc ... They will strive to continue the confusion on this because they realize that as people understand that much of what needs to be done isn't 'sitting in the dark', but finding ways to more cost effectively (efficiently) get them their lighting, the support for real action will grow. When people begin to realize that, almost certainly, we can make green by Going Green, the support for serious action on energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate change mitigation will mount. As people understand that it is not a question of the economy versus the environment, but the economy and the environment, the support for serious and aggressive action away from our fossil foolish heritage will mount.

Those who seek to keep the United States embedded in a 19th century energy system, who believe that the answer to everything is 'more' rather than use smarter, and look down beneath their legs when they hear energy (coal, natural gas, oil), are fearful of losing their record profits as Americans move toward an Energy Smart future. They wish to keep their profits and thus seek to confuse the public and the political system as to the value of aggressively pursuing a No Regrets Strategy. And, if we continue to listen to them as has been the case for far too long, we will only have regrets ... quite serious regrets.

Copenhagen Climate Summit In Disarray After 'Danish Text' Leak

2009-12-08T10:18:15Z

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

Alternative Energy Voices Fight To Be Heard At Copenhagen (VIDEO)

2009-12-08T08:27:01Z

Special To The Huffington Post

By Kate Willson of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for The Global Climate Change Lobby series:

Industry officials are arriving in droves today to take part in what's being pegged as the seminal global event on climate change. The place is expected to fill with representatives of traditional carbon-intensive industries, like oil and coal. But the first to set up their exhibit booths at the conference center in Copenhagen are largely those whose voices have been drowned out - the people representing wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.

The Global Wind Energy Council wants the talks to produce targets for emission reductions. "The higher the better, because wind turbines help reduce emissions," says Rune Birk Nielsen, speaking on behalf of the council. For the first time, wind has followed more established industries in coordinating a global message among its member companies.

"We've got almost every large manufacturer in the world, including the Chinese and the Americans," Nielsen boasts. "For the first time you see these companies stick together with the global voice. The message is, 'wind power works.'"

While the wind industry tries to makes itself heard at the UN talks, it's having more success at the national level. "On the UN level it's so blurry -- there are so many delegates and representatives," Nielsen says. "On the national level it's much easier. We know who we want to talk to. They're much more accessible." The countries most receptive to the industry lobby: China, India, Brazil, and the United States -- the very countries so key to achieving a binding agreement at the Copenhagen talks, which conclude Dec. 17.

Pete Gorton, director of the International Solar Energy Society, says his industry can't compete with the cash-backed lobbying of the big carbon emitters. It depends, instead, largely on grassroots advocacy at a national level. "We believe it's effective," he explains. "If we had more money, we could do more. But we're optimistic. I'm paying my own way here. I'm here out of interest."

Watch the exclusive coverage from Copenhagen:

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

A. Siegel: Clean Energy Jobs Should Go Swimming

2009-12-07T16:13:11Z

This is part of a series of brief posts on 'clean energy jobs' opportunities for sparking meaningful employment, quickly, in the United States as discussed in Clean Energy Jobs: Stimulate Me.

Clean Energy Jobs Go Swimming: $300 million per year for 10,000 jobs

Legislation is, they say, analogous to making sausage. Sometimes, in the mixing and mashing, seemingly well-intentioned and sensible options can create counter-productive situations and leave many valued goods on the table. One small example of this could open the door to creating employment, lowering costs for state & local governments (including educational institutions, improving 'customer' satisfaction, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

When it came to the stimulus package earlier this year, as part of a politically popular move limiting programs eligible for funding, "swimming pools" were explicitly excluded from ARRA funding mechanisms. While, amid serious economic stress and government investment to keep the economic from continuing in freefall, it might have seemed morally appropriate to do this, this restriction simply flies in the face of reality and good sense.

Around the country, whether in schools (K-12 and universities/colleges) or public parks/rec facilities, state and local governments (and independent public recreation authorities) own and operate swimming pools. Many of these, especially as one moves away from the sun belt, are indoor pools heated for good portions of the year. For example, Fairfax, Virginia, has nine recreation centers with indoor swimming pools. Dependent on many factors, the annual heating bill for one of these (large) pools can run $10,000s to even $100,000s.

Such utility bills typically continue, often under the radar, even amid reduced local tax revenues as a 'fixed expense' with seemingly no good choice: continue to operate the pool (perhaps saving some $s by lowering the temperature a few degrees and angering swimmers; perhaps raise entry fees significantly and cut into usage) or close it down for months at a time. Few localities choose the shutdown option, unless near bankruptcy, thereby almost guaranteeing above-inflation rate increases in the utility bills even as local revenues fall. Another option, however, exists -- one that was precluded by the ARRA restrictions and that should be opened with a jobs package: solar hot water.

Solar hot water for pools represents one of the fastest payback options for renewable energy systems. Without even accounting for any outside assistance, according to the Department of Energy:

A solar pool heating system usually ... provides a payback of between 1.5 and 7 years, depending on your local fuel costs. They also typically last longer than gas and heat pump pool heaters.

"Between 1.5 and 7 years" to payback? That is, roughly, stating that there is an ROI of between 10 and 60+ percent per year of energy savings versus the cost of installation. This, as well, doesn't account for reduced maintenance costs and lower future system replacement costs.

This Energy Smart choice, however, falls through the cracks in many local government planning systems. Solar isn't well understood and, often, viewed as some form of 'enviro-liberal luxury' item. Utilities come out of a different budget than infrastructure investments. Utility costs are often undifferentiated, thus the $100,000 to heat a pool is simply wrapped up in the $300,000 (example) of utilities to run a rec center. And, amid economic constraints, investment budgets for 'enviro-liberal luxury' items are often the first to go to the wayside.

Here, however, is a straightforward way for the Federal government to spark local business activity throughout most of the nation, help local governments reduce operating costs (SAVE MONEY!) while providing better public services (warmer pools at lower cost), foster improved infrastructure for renewable energy projects throughout the nation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs.

At a rough estimate, putting in solar hot water heating in an enclosed public pool might run roughly $100,000 on average. A Federal program could combine direct payments along with additional assistance: a direct payment of 50 percent along with, as necessary, a ten-year loan program for the remaining portion. In essence, this would provide local governments a path toward $10,000s a year in savings on every heated pool's operating costs, money that could be used to keep teachers and policemen on payroll or pay for other threatened local government expenditures (and/or reducing the burden on taxpayers).

Such a program would be a highly effective leveraging tool as part of Federal assistance to state and local governments. The Federal assistance would pay back, a high rate of return, in terms of local and state governance costs. And, it would foster jobs.

Due to the leveraging amount, assuming that the Federal costs would end up (at the high end) at about 66% of installation costs, every million invested should support about 30 direct and indirect jobs (which, of course, includes the teachers not fired due to local government savings).

Let's take that Fairfax County recreation department case: nine large indoor pools. Assuming (almost certainly low) that each pool costs $50,000 to heat each year, this totals some $450,000 in annual heating costs. Pool heating percentage of total costs varies, but a 50 percent figure is a reasonable working number: thus, annual savings would be $225,000 (or roughly 3 teachers with benefits). Let us assume that it would take $1 million to put in solar hot water heating for all of these large pools. The upfront costs for the solar heating would be paid back in just under 4.5 years (at a 22.5% per year savings), assuming that energy costs don't rise. If the Federal government paid half the costs, the County would see its investment paid back in just over two years. A two-year, 40% per year, payback seems quite sensible for funding via a bond program that might cost the County's citizens about 5 percent per year in interest. And, by the way, this does not count the various tax and other economic benefits that would accrue back to the County of Fairfax, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Federal government due to business activity, employment taxes, and other financial implications of such a program.

A $200 million per year program, assuming the Federal government's costs total 66% on average, would mean some $300 million per year invested in solar heating for public swimming pools (local & state rec centers and parks; K-12 schools; public universities). In just a few years, the majority of the nation's public heated pools could be converted to solar heating. A $400 million program ($600 or so total investment) would support the conversion of roughly 6000 public swimming pools around the nation. This program could, as well, easily be extended to Federal pools (such on military bases), assistance to non-profit pools (notably private educational institutions), and assistance to backfitting solar heating to commercial pools (such as water parks). (The program could, as well, be expanded to energy efficiency in these facilities from pool covers to more efficient pumps or otherwise.) Let us say, with that additional effort, a $300 million / year program would leverage to $500 million / year and rapidly transform the heating of America's large pools from fossil fuels to renewable energy and increase energy efficiency in America's recreational swimming.

Clean Energy Jobs Go Swimming: $300 million per year for 10,000 jobs

Clean Energy Jobs series posts:

Clean Energy Jobs Fill Labs

Clean Energy Jobs Go To The Cleaners

Clean Energy Jobs Blow In (not Blow Up) Coal River Mountain

Clean Energy Takes the PHE School Bus

Clean Energy Jobs Go to the Market

Clean Energy Jobs Go to School

Tips for the Job Summit: Can we say Clean Energy Jobs?

Clean Energy Jobs: Stimulate Me

Jim Selman: Dealing With Low Energy And "Burnout"

2009-12-07T15:43:56Z

I think the most common complaints I hear from folks in corporations these days is that they are 'just tired', have 'low energy' or are 'burned out'. Usually these declarations are accompanied by a compelling story that there is 'too much work' or that they are pressed to produce without having the resources they need. It seems people are working in a condition in which they are being constantly called on to produce more for less. The results: poor morale (at best), an environment of stress (at worst), breakdowns in people's health, lower productivity, and even (in extreme cases) sabotage. But what do these statements mean? And what can we do to change our experience at work (or in life) for that matter?

These statements reveal a particular relationship with our circumstances, based on a point of view that there is something 'causing' us to feel this way. When we say our workload is the cause of our low energy or tiredness, we are connecting two separate things (amount of work as cause and energy levels as effect) and collapsing them into a story that leaves us suffering in a self-fulfilling interpretation. This way of thinking will keep us stuck being victims of the situation we believe is causing our experience.

Now I don't want to minimize people's experiences and I don't doubt they are sincere when they report how things are for them. But I would invite them simply to stop for a moment and reflect on what they are saying and what they are feeling.

I am not talking here about genuine physical fatigue or illness such as the flu. I am talking about the kind of 'low energy mood' that we can all experience when we are feeling overwhelmed or not in control of a situation or our own lives. Think of what happens when we resist being tired or having low energy. Generally, it will make our mood worse. We may suppress it for a while, but it will always come to the surface (and usually stronger than before). So how can we shift our mood?

I propose that we can alter moods like these by changing our point of view (our attitude). But, as we all know, changing an attitude or point of view isn't easy. It is not easy because our attitude is a habit--a habitual way of being in relationship to our circumstances and ourselves.

A mood is what connects our stories about the way things are and our experience. The mood locks us into a particular relationship with the past and the future. If we see a positive future, we are generally in a good mood. If we see a negative one, we'll easily fall into a bad mood. The key is to stop trying to get the circumstances to be positive or negative, but to master how we 'see' the circumstances.

In a way, it is the old 'glass half full' or 'glass half empty' dilemma--the glass is neither until we see it one way or another. This isn't about positive thinking. To think positively, we'd have to see the glass as half empty first and then pretend it is really half full. The question is not which way it is, but what point of view are we committed to.

When we know that there is an end to a particularly strenuous period of work, we can feel energized and become even more productive. When we think that the flow of work is endless or that we have no choice in the matter, then we may begin to break down, feel disempowered, become tired. Life begins to feel like a burden.

I have found that resolving these kinds of chronic negative moods about workload and feeling overwhelmed begins by reconnecting with the fact that we always have a choice, even when part of our story is that we do not. When we can 'own' that our work is our choice (even if we don't particularly like what we are doing), then we have taken the first step toward changing how we relate to it. It is OUR job.

The second step is to learn to 'be present' when we are working. One of the common pitfalls we can all fall into as we become more competent at a job is to 'go on automatic', which allows us to spend more and more time thinking or feeling sorry for ourselves and ultimately making the situation worse. If something happens that 'jolts' us into being present (such as a crisis), we experience an instant shift in our mood and our energy level increases dramatically.

The third element in mastering these types of moods is to approach all work as physically challenging. In other words, we need to stay in shape if we're going to play at a level of peak performance. This is just common sense. If we are feeling fit and 'alive', we will generally bring that to whatever we are doing. Having a heavy workload doesn't mean that we need to feel heavy also. We can only accomplish what we can accomplish in a day, and whatever is unfinished on or 'to do' list will be there tomorrow. In the end, we'll all die someday and leave something unfinished.

Finally, it is important that we acknowledge what we are not doing. Depending upon the organization and the nature of our work, it may even be appropriate to publicly acknowledge all the things that are not being done--not only to eliminate the extra stress of trying to hide incomplete work, but also to allow others in the organization to respond responsibly to the reality of a particular work situation.

At the end of the day, no employee should ever need to sacrifice over-long periods of time or put up with low energy or negative moods. But the responsibility for doing something about these begins with the employee, not the employer. Our moods are not caused by our circumstances and our workload. Our moods originate in how we relate to our circumstances and our workload. When we assume responsibility for how we relate to our circumstances, we are no longer victims. We can then either initiate changes in how we work or change our experience by becoming even more present while we're working.

© 2009 Jim Selman. All rights reserved.

Natalia Rose: The Science of Living Foods: Fruit in Motion Remains in Motion

2009-12-06T19:29:53Z

Note: This post contains helpful dietary information for all health-conscious readers, but be forewarned that it's not all pretty!

Let's consider, for a moment, Newton's first law of motion: A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

Now, when you launch into a diet high in living foods, primarily fresh fruits and vegetables, you will discover that they create motion. Meanwhile, non-living foods -- such as cooked proteins, cooked starches, nuts, and all manner of processed substances -- keep the intestines mostly stagnant.

Most people consume copious amounts of mainstream food or "gym-head health food" -- such as protein bars, lean meats, soy, and peanut butter. This food is dead; it has no kinetic energy. Living foods are alive; they have a lot of kinetic energy.

When living foods suddenly enter your stagnant, waste-impacted intestine, you may feel like you've swallowed a bunch of expanding jumping beans! If, like most people, you've embarked on a diet of living foods for the weight loss and digestive benefits, you may be perplexed when your midsection suddenly starts moving and expanding.

But don't be too quick to cry confusion in the face of all the conflicting information circulating in health and raw food circles. Simply put on your scientific thinking cap. Take a moment to sit with the common scientific sense of chemical reactions and the laws of motion. In this way, you can find all the dietary answers you need without opening a single book or visiting a nutritionist, spa, doctor, or raw food guru.

Pay close attention now. Here's a scenario that illustrates an important concept that will serve you well in the living-foods lifestyle:

Imagine taking the remains of dinner and tossing it into a garbage can. Seal the lid. The next morning when you wake up, go to the garbage can and open it. The stench that assaults you is noxious carbonic gas that has started to grow rogue bacteria. This is what happens in your body -- but your body is much warmer, so the chemical reaction and resulting bacteria are much more pernicious.

Now imagine what would happen if you took fruit -- the cleanest, healthiest food known to humankind -- and added it to the garbage at this moment of chemical decomposition. Would that be healthy? Even though fruit is wonderful, it is not going to generate immediate health in this scenario. Consider the kinetic motions and chemical properties of foods. When you place fruit sugar on top of acidic waste and gas, the result is more gas, fermentation, and putrefaction -- ultimately endangering the bacterial balance of the intestine and constipating the bowel.

Therefore, if you were a scientifically minded live-foods enthusiast, you would take one of the following steps:

(a) wait for your body to remove the waste and gas that supports the proliferation of bad bacteria;

(b) have a vegetable juice or vegetables, which will have a neutral effect at worst and a beneficial effect at best by hydrating the waste and contributing good microbes to fend off the bad bacteria; or

(c) just wait a few hours before eating or drinking to give the body a chance to clear up this digestive upset (commonly caused by poor food combining, poor food order, overeating, eating while stressed, etc.).

Remember, living food is only health-generating if it has an advantageous chemical reaction with everything else going on in the great petri dish of the body.

If after eating your first living-foods meal, don't be surprised if you experience a ballooning midsection! Remember Newton's first law of motion. Dead food piled on top of dead food keeps the intestine pretty dead. But living foods -- with all their live enzymes kickin' around - -will act upon the body in a state of rest.

Most people assume this means that cleaner meals don't agree with them, but what's happening will ultimately be a very good thing if you continue to incorporate more living foods in your diet. The raw hydrating substances are just reacting to the acidic waste and helping to eliminate it. This is a temporary state of awakening. The only way to clean out the old matter is to introduce these ultra-clean living foods (imagine soap for the intestine) and allow them to do their work.

If you seek to minimize the development of new carbonic gas, you will eventually have clean, contracted, healthy cells. This will correlate to a lean body with tremendous vitality. So don't misunderstand the changes your body undergoes as you introduce more living foods to your diet.

Let's all keep our thinking caps on and consider the laws of motion as we make our meal choices. It's actually really fun getting to know our bodies in this new way. Here's to the kinetic energy of living foods and harnessing the laws of science to improve our life experience!

Saudi Oil Minister: Oil Prices 'Perfect'

2009-12-05T09:55:24Z

CAIRO — Saudi Arabia's oil minister said current global oil prices are "perfect," as several key OPEC members indicated the group was unlikely to change output levels when it meets later this month.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which supplies roughly 35 percent of the world's crude, has held its quotas unchanged since last year's record 4.2 million barrels per day in cuts.

Robert Amsterdam: Putin's Big Lie About Khodorkovsky

2009-12-04T11:10:51Z

I have been getting a number of calls and emails about Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's impromptu attack against Mikhail Khodorkovsky during the televised call-in show this week, and there was one thing remarkably different from back when I would receive such calls just a few years ago: not a single person, not even the more moderate pro-government types, could be bothered to take him seriously. Here we have the Prime Minister of a major power, an important country, speaking out in blatant and publicly acknowledged falsehoods to attack a Russian citizen, while the world sits back quietly in amusement watching him spin the Big Lie.

For those who missed all the drama, this was the second time in two weeks that Putin fell off the script, and lashed out emotionally towards Khodorkovsky (whom I represent as international counsel). Putin behaved in a way totally inappropriate for any head of government - much less one who is so obviously personally motivated in the prosecution of a legal case. The TV comments had all the appearance of improvisation, and it seems unlikely that Vladislav Surkov, Dmitry Peskov, or anybody else had the opportunity to smooth out the edges of the statement. Asked when Khodorkovsky would be released, Putin jumped: "Unfortunately, no one recalls that one of the Yukos security chiefs is in jail too. Do you think he acted on his initiative and at his own risk? He had no actual interest. He was not the company's main shareholder. It's obvious that he acted in the interests and under the directives of his bosses. How he acted is a separate matter. At least five murders have been proven."

Leaving aside for just a moment the fact that Khodorkovsky is not a murderer, and has never been charged of involvement in any such violence, the logic and timing of this argument is ridiculous.

Blood libel is Putin's Big Lie, and it is the ultimate mendacious recourse that the Kremlin falls back upon in times of desperation. Why now, one might reasonably ask, would Putin find the opportunity to share such important new insights into the case of a political prisoner? A person who has already suffered and been held illegally for six years now in labor camps in Siberia and the isolators of Moscow?

One could consider this the first official reaction to the international arbitration court decision that Yukos shareholders (separate from Khodorkovsky) can sue the Russian government as a signatory of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) for damages of up to $100 billion for their unlawful expropriation of Yukos. Let's recall that we saw similar behavior back when a Dutch court ruling back in March 2008 ordered that the government pay $850 million in compensation. It is a clear warning and a threat, befitting of a thug.

As an avalanche of legal decisions from foreign, actual rule-of-law courts destroys the government's credibility on the Khodorkovsky show trial, more and more scrutiny is being focused upon the crime within the crime: what happened to the country's largest, most transparent, and most successful oil company, and who pocketed billions from this illegal expropriation? This inconvenient fact of vast personal enrichment and state corruption in the theft of Yukos makes any accusation against Khodorkovsky suspicious from the outset. They may as well have accused him of starting the Reichstag fire.

Vadim Klyuvgant, Khodorkovsky's trial lawyer, has pointed out that there are questions that Putin appears to be avoiding: "This is the second time in the last five days that the prime minister has offered an extended reflection [on the subject]. The relation between the content of the question and the content of the reply is interesting. Putin was asked, 'When will you release Khodorkovsky?' The premier no longer makes any corrections to the form in which the question is posed. He knows very well that he is the one who must release Khodorkovsky. Let me stress that none of the accusations that were voiced today have ever been brought against the person of whom Putin was speaking."

Today in the courtroom Khodorkovsky himself reacted to the slander: "Vladimir Putin has just publicly declared that he knows for a fact that the funds stolen by Yukos are not in the hands of those who suffered during the said case but have been transferred to the nation. In the words of our premier, this money has been returned to the people on his orders. Since the prosecution have not found any other source of funds for myself and Yukos than from the sale of oil produced by the company the prosecution, evidently, Vladimir Putin knows certain circumstances, concealed from the court, that it would be of interest to know."

Khodorkovsky also added that they plan to petition for Putin to be summoned to give evidence at the Khamovnichesky district court.

First the comparison with Al Capone, and then murder accusations. Yet if the Kremlin had any real crime to prosecute against Khodorkovsky they wouldn't have had to mount two incompetently prosecuted show trials. Sergei Magnitsky was just murdered at these people's hands, using the same methods of medical blackmail suffered by a Yukos lawyer to force false testimony. Also this week, two constitutional court judges were just forced to resign for showing independence. Legal nihilism is at its all-time high, yet the government pretends to believe that all systems are running with regularity.

The panic we are witnessing shows that the criminals of the state doubt their own legitimacy, and deeply fear the legal ramifications of what happens next when this injustice comes to a close. And they should be afraid.

Kites Could Harness Wind To Power The World

2009-12-03T11:09:58Z

Some experts estimate that the total energy contained in wind is 100 times the amount needed by everyone on the planet. However, most of this energy is at high altitude, far beyond the reaches of any wind turbine.

So it's little wonder that researchers across the world have been working on generating electrical power from kites that can catch these high winds.

Jennifer Donahue: Bill Clinton Brings Smiles to Uneasy Democrats, Supports Obama Afghanistan Plan in New Hampshire

2009-12-03T08:49:52Z

Bill Clinton returned to New Hampshire Wednesday night on the 30th anniversary of his first visit to the state, like an old friend returning home, for a speech to the New Hampshire Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner.

"They haven't yet delivered on the promises made during the campaign. They've stopped the hemorrhaging but haven't started the rebuilding," Clinton said of the Obama Administration. "I've seen this movie before. It's the same thing they were doing to me. Aw, he's a one termer. He's washed up."

Clinton said the three huge problems that exist are inequality, instability and unsustainability. The 42nd President focused on the need for energy independence to create jobs, save money and achieve national security interests.

On Afghanistan, Clinton said he supported Obama's plan. "How they behave there and what they do is unknowable. You start off playing an away game and you only have to play an hour... If there is no time limit on an away game, the home team wins. To win, you have to convert it to a home game." Clinton said the surge in Iraq succeeded because insurgents were getting their heads cut off. "Our guys got better, but also the people were empowered and sick of the thugs," and it became a home game for our troops.

"Health care is the economy. I talked to Senators. I've spent more time of this since I left office than when I was in it." Clinton said, 'We'd be better off with any of these bills."

"What turned the 1994 election from a minor loss was attention deficit disorder and discouragement." He urged Democrats to "fight the false charge. We got hired to answer the how question."

On daughter Chelsea's engagement, Clinton said it is, "My first step on the way to becoming a grandfather."

"I would not have become President without New Hampshire and you know it. Hillary and I will never be able to thank you for three magical days in 2008." Clinton said, referring humbly to Hillary Clinton's surprise Primary win in 2008 over Barack Obama, in a venue filled with cheering supporters.

Scott McInnis, Dan Maes Echo Oil Company Talking Points In Attacking Ritter

2009-12-02T16:48:55Z

DENVER — Taxes, jobs, budget shortfalls – the usual fodder for political wrangling is already spurring debate in the Colorado governor's race. But the time it takes to approve oil and gas permits?

That bit of bureaucracy has become a flashpoint as Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter defends his record against two Republican challengers.