Why is Ken Cuccinelli losing the Virginia gubernatorial race?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's certainly interesting to see that climate change has become a central issue in the much-watched Virginia gubernatorial race between Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. It has a lot to do with the fact that Virginia has a significant coal industry, of course, but Cuccinelli is also a head-up-his-ass climate change denialist, and that has opened the door for McAuliffe to strike.

One would hope that Virginia voters abhor Cuccinelli's ideological fervor and abject ignorance, and hold him accountable at the polls for this and so many other far-right views, but it's just hard to see the electorate really deciding this race over such a serious public policy matter.

No, I think we know why Cuccinelli, the state's abhorrent attorney general, is behind even against a shifty character like McAuliffe. And no, it's not because Virginia is now a purple state leaning more and more blue.

No, it all comes down to blow jobs, and specifically to Cuccinelli's objection to them.

I mean, most people like blow jobs, right? Surely at least the slightly-less-than-half male part of the electorate to which Cuccinelli himself belongs is nothing if not enthusiastic about them, and surely there are some in the slightly-more-than-half of the other part who at least don't mind them and may even see them as central to their sexual experience, perhaps even as an enjoyable component of it, if not always a necessity no matter how desperately, if not pathetically, the other part pleads for them.

You see, Cuccinelli is the anti-blow job candidate, and really the anti-"sodomy" candidate generally, which means he objects to oral and anal generally. I needn't delve into the enthusiasm that concerns the latter, but the key here is that Cuccinelli objects not just to fellatio but to cunnilingus as well, and that should arouse the indignation of the slightly-more-than-half part of the electorate that finds itself on the receiving end of that act.

Well, and the giving end too. For both. Because, of course, we're talking not just about straight sex but about gay sex as well, and of course the far-right Cuccinelli is hardly a fan of what the gays do, nor of gay rights, nor, one imagines, of the gays themselves, because he's basically a bigot. Anyway, maybe he likes hand jobs or BDSM or something, though we don't know what and what is not, for him, a "crime against nature," but the point is that if you're not doing it like Christian procreationists, presumably with the lights out, in the missionary position, and with a great deal of guilt and shame, you're basically Satan's spawn, and that really cuts down on the fun any straight couple can have and even more of the fun any gay couple can have.

In any event, I'm sure there are any number of important issues that are animating this high-profile race and engaging the electorate, but Cuccinelli's anti-sex agenda has to be the driving force behind his poor showing in the polls, no?*

Because a lot of people really, really, really like blow jobs. Even in Virginia.

(*Okay, fine, probably not. But it should be part of it. Virginians deserve to know just what he wants to do to their sex lives.)

Another nuclear emergency in Japan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Reuters:

Highly radioactive water seeping into the ocean from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is creating an "emergency" that the operator is struggling to contain, an official from the country's nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force, told Reuters.

Countermeasures planned by Tokyo Electric Power Co are only a temporary solution, he said.

Tepco's "sense of crisis is weak," Kinjo said. "This is why you can't just leave it up to Tepco alone" to grapple with the ongoing disaster.

"Right now, we have an emergency," he said.

Well, you know what they say about playing with fire. Or plutonium.

Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"

By Carl 

In scanning the news this morning, I found this headline:

Russia says it will help Syria deter "hot heads"

Now whom could they possibly mean, I wonder...

All kidding (on the square) aside, this is a bit troubling, although part of the problem could be in translation (or not). "Hot heads" is a pretty demeaning term, and about the only action apart from McCain's apparently unreported and foolish venture into Syria taken this weekend was taken, or rather not taken, by the European Union when it allowed the arms embargo with Syria to expire, thus allowing weapons manufacturers in the EU to sell openly to the rebels.

Already, there's been some backlash against Russia swiping its paws at the EU.

I've discussed in the past some of the background between Syria and Russia, but let me sum it up quickly: Syria buys Russian arms, maintains the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean (at Tartus), has energy development deals with Russia in both oil and natural gas, and is closely allied with Iran, also a major Russian arms customer, and also a big customer for Russian natural gas.

There. Not too painful, right?

Read more »

The quest for sane Republicans

By Richard K. Barry

It's easy to find wacky Republicans wherever you look. It's not much of a challenge. So when you find one who seems sane, you notice.

The New York Times ran a report on a California town, Lancaster, that has been successfully promoting solar energy. The mayor, a class-action lawyer by the name of R. Rex Parris, has been a strong advocate. 

When asked if global warming was indeed a threat, he responded, "Absolutely. I may be a Republican. I'm not an idiot." 

It's a good joke. Sadly, a lot of Republicans are idiots. 

Stimulus works

By Carl 

Finally, we may be seeing the renewable energy debate ending, and the renewable energy era beginning:

U.S. solar-panel installations more than doubled in the second quarter from a year earlier led by demand in California, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Installations totaled 742 megawatts in the quarter, up 45 percent since the first quarter, and may reach 3.2 gigawatts by year end, the Washington-based trade group said today in its quarterly market report. California led installations with 217 megawatts, followed by Arizona with 173 megawatts.

The U.S. now has 5.7 gigawatts of installed solar capacity, enough to power 1 million homes, according to GTM Research, a Boston-based consulting company that prepared the report with SEIA.

The boom was driven by large projects that sell power to utilities, with little growth in residential installations and declines in non-residential projects, Shayle Kann, vice president at GTM, said in an interview Sept. 7. "It's an indicator that the utility market will be the main story this year and probably for the next few years."

What does this all mean? It means that commercial developers are finally hooked on being both energy independent and turning what had been a cost into a profit center. It means that the cost per megawatt to install solar panels is going to start coming down. The 3.2 gigawatts installed this year is the tip of the iceberg, as the US has about 13 gigawatts in planned solar installations under contract, with 3.4 gigawatts slated to go online in 2013.

Developers are the mission-critical market in terms of getting acceptance of solar energy in the United States. By deploying solar energy in office buildings, retail spaces, and condo complexes, word of mouth at the consumer level will begin to build, and soon you and I will be at The Home Depot augmenting or even replacing our worn-out furnaces.

And we have President Obama to thank for all this. If he hadn't made a firm commitment to weaning the nation off foreign oil and backed that up with stimulus funding for the renewable energy industry (which has been growing in a nation where industries have taken a hard hit over the past thirty years), this would not be happening.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Will Paul Ryan have any integrity left when Mitt Romney is done with him?

By Richard K. Barry

Last week Sam Stein had a piece at Huffington Post in which he discussed the fact that GOP VP nominee Paul Ryan has enthusiastically accepted the Romney team's approach of lying about everything, hoping, apparently, to court the support of what are euphemistically called "low-information voters."

In this case, Ryan blasted President Obama for "failing to rescue a General Motors factory in his Wisconsin congressional district, calling it 'one more broken promise' on the Democratic administration's record."

According to Stein, Ryan said this during a campaign stop:

I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open. One of the reasons that plant got shut down was $4 gasoline. You see, this costs jobs. The president's terrible energy policies are costing us jobs.

Stein added that this claim has been seriously ridiculed for the fact that the Janesville, Wisconsin plant actually closed during the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. Stein then goes on to show that it was obvious Ryan knew this but made the charge anyway.

You can and should follow Stein's well-argued case, but the bottom line is that if something as important as an auto manufacturing plant is threatening to close in anyone's congressional district, that Rep. would know everything about the plans, when it was slated to close, and do anything possible to stop the closure, as Ryan did.

Many have commented that the Romney campaign has hit upon a fairly novel campaign strategy, which is to lie consistently knowing that much of the mainstream press will simply treat clear untruths as a different perspective rather than bothering to challenge the lies. Similarly, a lot of well-meaning voters have neither the time nor inclination to fully understand when lies are being told. Funny thing is that it might just work.

Given the frequency of Romney's lies, it would seem to be a considered strategy rather than the normal kind of political truth-bending. And given Ryan's willingness to apply the strategy when he could be so easily caught out, it must mean he got the briefing and accepts this way of campaigning.

In a way, I suspect even those who support Romney know he wants the presidency so badly he will reverse any position previously held. They know his integrity is in doubt. As for Ryan, I'm sure some people view him as a straight-talking mid-western dude who tells it like it is - that he's a truth teller. Let's see how that plays itself out as Ryan spends more time with Romney.

I just finished reading Larry McMurtry's wonderful Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Lonesome Dove. In it, one of the characters places a bit of Latin on a sign heading into a ranch. It reads: "Uva Uvam Videndo Varia Fit," which seems to have something to do with grapes. I read no Latin but one commentator believes the figurative translation is "We are changed by the lives around us."

It's going to be interesting to see if Paul Ryan, the supposedly straight-talking mid-western dude, has any integrity left by the time he spends three months with Mitt Romney, a man who never met a useful lie he didn't like.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Darrell Issa

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

Darrell Issa compares fracking chemical recipe to recipe for Diet Coke, says Americans have no right to know it. (link)

-- David Roberts (@drgrist)

Interesting. I had no idea you could set fire to the Diet Coke coming out of your tap. Or that some Diet Coke in a river could destroy wildlife. Or that Diet Coke could east away your body from within and destroy your community.

There's a reason Big Gas and its allies don't want their secrets getting out. And it's not because they're afraid of competition from Pepsi.

But maybe Rep. Issa should take a trip to Gasland and go for a swim in one of those pools of fracking water. I mean, if he's so sure of himself and not just a complete moron.

(Then again, Diet Coke may be just as carcinogenic as whatever the hell's in the fracking mix. No, not really, but it made you think, right?)

Mitt Romney wasn't a global warming denier before he was

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(From Think Progress.)

Mitt Romney in June (similar to the Mitt Romney of the past, if more wishy-washy):

I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world's getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.

Mitt Romney on Thursday:

My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us...

I think the EPA, acting in concert with the president, really doesn't like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear... I really do believe that the EPA wants to get its hands on all of energy and be able to crush it to cause prices to go through the roof... [T]he EPA should not be regulating carbon dioxide.

Which is the real Mitt Romney? Does it matter anymore? Does he even know who he is anymore?

How does he have any credibility left (even within his own party)? Because he certainly doesn't have any integrity. He's basically a business-oriented center-right technocrat who's now selling out to the far right (aka the GOP base). And he's completely shameless about it, now going so far as to embrace global warming denialism, rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus and taking unsubstantiated partisan shots at the EPA, which of course one must do to get anywhere in the GOP.

What was that Jon Huntsman was saying about Romney being "a perfectly lubricated weathervane"?

Defending ARPA

Guest post by Christopher Miller

Chris Miller, a Truman National Security Project fellow, was a sergeant in the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division through two tours in Iraq, during which he earned a Purple Heart, and an adviser to the Iraqi Army. After returning to the U.S., he was involved with VoteVets.org and Operation Free, travelling the country as part of the Veterans for American Power Tour. He is currently studying British and European law. This is his first guest post at The Reaction.

**********

When it comes to the budget and debt, the knives have come out in Washington. And the key phrase seems to be, "everything is on the table." Conservatives want to put our energy security and independence on the table, as well. And it seems they want to do it for reasons more political than fiscal. The debt must be trimmed, but it cannot come at the expense of our national or future energy security.

Recently The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a report supporting greatly scaling back funding for the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), calling much of what it does "wasteful and unnecessary." They claim that the DoE must stick to its role of promoting national and economic energy security from "traditional" sources. They also cling to the conservative article of faith that the private sector can innovate better without government support.

With the national gas price average hovering around $4 a gallon following two years of steady price increases, the DoE's efforts to research new fuel technologies seem to be very necessary and no waste. DoE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is working on non-oil liquid fuels from abundantly available domestic sources that would eventually produce significantly cheaper prices at the pump.

ARPA-E is based upon the model of a more famous agency: DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Though others claim it, the truth is that DARPA invented the internet, as well as GPS technology, advanced microchips, and even Velcro. Additionally, they developed stealth technology, guided missiles, and unmanned aerial drones, all of which have greatly contributed to the success of our military.

ARPA-E and DARPA have been praised as models of "lean" bureaucracy and focus on high-risk, high-reward ideas within a relatively small budget. They also highlight the fact that the government can drive innovation. This pays dividends not only for our energy needs and national security, but for our economy as a whole, since the private sector tends to build on these innovations. The private sector application of the internet, GPS, and nuclear energy are examples. We wouldn't have nuclear power if it weren't for the government's Manhattan Project, and imagine business without the internet or transport without GPS. 

The Heritage Foundation report claims that the private sector can do the job better. The facts tend to disagree with them. Many of the research projects cited in the report as private sector examples of new energy research and development are in fact public-private partnerships, receiving vital funding from federal agencies such as the DoE, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the military.

Recent business trends, especially since the economic downturn, show that private companies are not willing to invest large amounts of money in new research and development. The energy sector invests only 0.3% of its revenue in new R&D projects. Another inconsistency is that the report claims to support a continuing role for ARPA-E but wants to cut out virtually all of its funding. ARPA-E was only recently fully funded as part of the 2008 stimulus plan, and conservatives essentially want to pull the plug already, while claiming to support it.

Why would anyone be against these agencies? Cutting the DoE budget would only save a very small amount of money and would come at great expense as oil prices continue to rise and America falls behind in the energy race. Clearly, part of it is ideological. Conservatives believe, falsely, that energy research should stay with the private sector, despite government research and funding being responsible for its development. The other part is political. President Obama has unveiled the development of new energy technologies as a vital part of his Energy Security Blueprint. GOP conservatives have shown themselves ready to stand in the way of anything the White House wants.

Again, conservatives are playing political games with national security. Our energy future requires an investment now and shouldn't fall victim to ideological or political gamesmanship. The benefits of continuing energy research are clear for our national security and independent energy future. It will benefit American families by cutting our dependence on volatile and expensive petroleum; eliminate our dependence on importing foreign oil; keep our troops from having to secure our energy sources overseas; cut business' energy costs; create new jobs and private-sector industries; and lead to clean, American sources of energy and technology we can market elsewhere. We can afford to pay a small price now for these dividends in the future.

Tap water shouldn't catch on fire

By Edward Copeland

Just last week, T. Boone Pickens returned to The Daily Show to discuss how natural gas was a safe energy resource that the U.S. had plentiful supplies of that it could use to wean itself off its dependency on foreign oil. However, when Jon Stewart brought up the subject of "fracking," Pickens got tongue-tied. That's probably why he and every major natural gas executive in America refused to be interviewed about the process for Josh Fox's documentary GasLand, which details the destruction that has been unleashed on people, animals, and the environment by the practice.

Fox had never made a documentary before but sort of stumbled into it when he noticed the changes happening in the creek near his family home in rural Pennsylvania following an offer from Halliburton to lease the family's land for natural gas exploration. While they would receive a few hundred thousand dollars from the agreement, as had many rural Americans across the country, they'd also encounter poisoned water sources, dead animals, health problems and more, all which seem to stem from the process used to retrieve the natural gas.

It inspired Fox to go on a cross-country journey to other sites to see the damage done by the hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) process, which the companies insist were safe but which evidence proves otherwise. In a way, it doesn't matter because the 2005 Energy Bill, formed in the wake of the secretive Cheney Energy Task Force, exempts all energy companies from safety regulations that had been in place for decades, some dating back to the Nixon Administration, so the corporations basically can do whatever they want in the least-expensive way without any concerns for the safety of nearby residents, the companies' own workers or the environment itself.

As one man tells Fox, "Amazing. What took millions of years for Mother Nature to build can be destroyed in hours by heavy equipment." If only the equipment were the main problem... What's really causing all the destruction is the seepage of a virtual stew of hazardous chemicals that are used in the fracking process to retrieve the natural gas. It's pretty amazing to watch scene after scene in state after state of people putting a lit match next to a flowing faucet or a stream and see the flames burst forth.

There are other stories that you hear repeatedly as residents complain about contamination only to be told that the water is safe by government or company officials, who then refuse to drink a glass of the tap water when the residents offer one. It's even more disgusting when Fox meets with representatives of state departments of environmental protection and they speak the corporate party line, denying that contamination is as widespread as it is, or at congressional hearings where executives testify that there isn't any evidence of risks and the happy House members, including a particularly dumb-looking and -sounding Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.), side with the businesses.

Meanwhile, Fox learns of those who have contracted cancer and died, the risks of brain damage from repeated exposure, pets losing hair and a Colorado woman who keeps the corpses of mass and sudden animal deaths preserved in her freezer for any potential investigations. Even more frightening is learning how Hurricanes Katrina and Rita scattered the junk from hundreds of thousands of sites all over the place.

GasLand is a pretty good effort for a first-time filmmaker such as Fox and another example of a documentarian doing the investigative work that the Fourth Estate has abandoned. You do learn a lot, though he tends to repeat himself and I don't think it belongs in Oscar's final five documentary features compared to some of the other finalists and nonfinalists from 2010 that I've seen. Still, it's very good and yet another case of showing the indifference both corporate America and our elected leaders have toward the average citizen's wellbeing.

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Reflections on Obama's Oval Office speech on energy and the Gulf oil spill

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Like Creature, I found Obama's Oval Office speech tonight adequate but not nearly enough -- adequate in the sense that it got the message across to a broad audience that the president will be tough on BP and will pursue some sort of energy agenda, much needed in these troubling times, not nearly enough in the sense that it didn't contain nearly enough of a commitment from the president that he will actually pursue meaningful energy/climate legislation. I would have found it disappointing except that I wasn't expecting much and pretty much got what I expected.

At times, Obama was, as unfortunately he so often is, Bush-like. As The Atlantic's Joshua Green put it, "The no-nonsense tone, martial imagery ('battle plan'), the three-part plan, the identification of a bad guy (BP's CEO) who is going to be dealt with sternly, who was scolded for 'recklessness,' and whose company will be paying for the cleanup and damage -- not asked, but told to pay, evidently -- all of this was good theatrics, and moderately reassuring." Yes, moderately, to the generally uninformed, but hardly to those who get that what is needed is comprehensive, transformative reform.

And that just wasn't there. Green again: "What stood out was that for all his praise of the House climate bill and talk about the 'consequences of inaction' and so forth, not once did he utter the phrase, 'It's time to put a price on carbon.' And that suggests to me that this speech was primarily about containing the damage to his administration, and was not the pivot point in the energy debate that many people were hoping for." Anyone hoping for more, or seriously believing that more was coming, hasn't been paying attention. I have no doubt that Obama understands the need for address climate change and America's energy problems with a robust plan, but he has proven thus far to be anything but the bringer of meaningful change he claimed he was way back in the heady days of the '08 campaign.

Health-care reform was significant, true, but he pulled back from demanding a genuinely transformative bill, one with a robust public option, and ultimately championed Republican-style reform, a package that closely resembled what the Republicans had been pushing as an alternative to Hillarycare in the '90s. He is doing the same with on energy and climate change. The rhetoric has been lofty, the possibilities promising, but what he will end up supporting is something far less than what is so desperately needed, something that goes some of the way but that essentially protects his political self-interest first and foremost. Am I too cynical? How can I not be? I was a huge Obama supporter, and I've been paying attention.

The connection here between energy/climate and health care was certainly not lost on Ezra Klein:

Obama did not make any specific promises about the bill he would support, or even that he wanted. He did not say he would price carbon, or that we should get a certain percentage of our energy from renewables by a certain date.

But his language was a close echo of the language he used in the health-care fight. "There are costs associated with this transition," he said, using a formulation many will remember from health care. "And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy." Similarly familiar was his reminder that "I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels," and his promise that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."

The optimistic take, at least for environmentalists, is that this is the language and approach Obama uses when he really means to legislate. The pessimistic take is that Obama shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language rather than a sharper case that might persuade skeptics.

Count me optimistic in that Obama can get something done. Count me pessimistic in that it'll be too little too late.

But of course it's not all his fault -- just like he alone can't clean up BP's mess -- and Jonathan Chait is right that he can only do so much:

Basically, he's saying he just wants some kind of bill. His standards are very low. I can't necessarily blame him -- the votes aren't there in the Senate and he can't conjure them up. He needs something that at least begins the process of transitioning to a clean energy economy. But with the public uninterested in climate change, interest groups mostly advocating for the status quo, and moderate Democrats unwilling to take another tough vote, he's not going to get much.

The thing is, that shouldn't stop him from pushing for more than he can ultimately achieve. Instead of conceding to political reality, he should be leading from a position of strength, using his pulpit and his office to sway minds and, as necessary, twist arms. We saw some toughness on BP and the oil spill tonight, but on the larger questions of how to transition America away from oil dependency to clean, alternative energy and how to address climate change in a meaningful way, we saw the same old President Obama, and, alas, that's just not good enough anymore.

While we were sleeping

Guest post by Nancy Brune

Dr. Nancy E. Brune is currently the director of Research and Policy at UNLV's Institute for Security Studies, where she works on energy security and national security issues. She is a Truman National Security fellow, as well as a member of Women in International Security and the Pacific Council on International Policy. This is her first guest post at The Reaction.

**********

There's a reason why the Senate's new clean energy bill is called the American Power Act. If America fails to adopt a comprehensive energy strategy to keep us strong in the 21st century, we won't have much national or military power to speak of as we confront an increasing number of national security challenges.

The new Senate clean energy and security bill was a long time coming. The decision made by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham several weeks ago to suspend his involvement in negotiations did not bode well for America's energy security. Long gone are the days of Summer 2008, when candidates from both parties called on America to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, offering solutions to make us greener and safer. Sadly, while our political leaders have yet to achieve any real progress in making us safer and less reliant on foreign oil, other countries are aggressively taking steps to ensure their own long-term energy security and sovereign power.

Over the last few years, geopolitical powerhouses – including China and Russia – have taken bold measures to ensure their long-term energy security. Driven by the need to fuel its rapidly growing economy, China has invested in distant, oil-rich African nations including Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, and the Sudan. But it has also ponied up money closer to home. On April 20, China's National Petroleum Company announced a $900 million heavy crude production project with Venezuela. Just a week earlier in neighboring Brazil, a country that sits on vast pre-salt oil reserves, China's Sinopec and the China Development Bank signed a strategic development pact with Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company.

In addition, China – along with several sovereign wealth funds owned by countries in the Middle East – have made significant investments in energy companies in Canada, one of America's closest allies and biggest source of oil imports (almost 25 percent). This wave of investment in our northern neighbor stands in stark contrast to the recent decisions last fall by the U.S. Department of Defense and private firms to reverse course and cancel plans to develop and use Canadian tar sands oil.

Russia has also been quite active in building strategic relationships with several resource-wealthy countries to enhance its long-term energy security. In September 2009, Russia and Venezuela announced several cooperative agreements on defense, trade, and energy. A consortium of energy giants in Russia signed two agreements with Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the country's national oil company. Last week, former Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed the merger of Gazprom, Russia's state gas company, with Naftogaz, Ukraine's state energy company, in a deal that would give Russia control over the Ukraine's vast European pipeline network.

Even our European allies, despite facing significant economic strain, announced recently that they are investing precious financial resources in almost fifty new energy projects "to strengthen the region's energy security."

Around the world, America's allies and competitors are moving aggressively to secure access to energy resources as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy. For instance, in addition to investing in oilfields, China is also making significant investments in renewable energy. In 2009, China's investment in renewable energy totaled $34.6 billion, surpassing U.S. investment of $18.6 billion.

America cannot afford to delay any longer. Energy security and resiliency are inextricably tied to America's long-term national security interests, geopolitical bargaining power, and economic might. Every day that we put off forging a comprehensive national energy strategy undermines the power of our military, the single largest consumer of energy in the world. We need a climate and energy bill that will provide measures to help us diversify our sources of energy, protect our military, and reduce our vulnerability to turbulence in global energy markets.

As was clear in 2008, energy security is an issue of national importance. We can't afford to let politics or a single interest group hijack our long-term energy security. There are signs that national leadership is committed to moving forward. Last month, the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar took the bold and courageous step of allowing the Nantucket Sound wind project to move forward. The recent oil spill has made the urgency of supporting measures to develop other sources of energy more critical. On Wednesday, Senators Kerry and Lieberman presented their new energy and climate bill, the American Power Act.

We now have before us an opportunity to make America less vulnerable to political instability and volatility in global energy markets. Other nations recognize the critical link between energy surety and national security. Will America?

IEDs and oil prices: Iran and the terrorist threat to the U.S. military

By Michael J.W. Stickings

VoteVets.org, in conjunction with our good friends at Operation Free, has put together a hard-hitting new ad examining the connections between U.S. energy dependency and Iran's terrorist campaign against the U.S. in Iraq.

HuffPo's Sam Stein reports:

In a spot set to air in eight key states, the group, VoteVets.org (with assistance from the energy independence group Operation Free) splices footage of highly developed improvised explosive devices being used against U.S. soldiers alongside Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Narrated by Iraq War veteran Christopher Miller, who earned a Purple Heart as the result of an IED explosion six years ago, the ad makes the case that passing energy legislation is a national security imperative.

"That's the type of IED that earned me a purple heart in Iraq six years ago," Miller says, as footage of a U.S. convoy being blown off a dirt road runs in the backdrop.

"This is what our troops are up against today: EFPs [Explosively Formed Projectile] specially designed to pierce American military armor. It is a devastating weapon and it was created in oil-rich Iran. They are ending up in the hands of our enemies. And every time oil goes up a dollar, Iran gets another $1.5 billion to use against us."

"Connection between oil and the enemy couldn't be clearer," Miller adds. "We need to break that connection by breaking our addiction. And we can by passing a clean energy climate plan. It would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half."

"Some in Congress say it is a tough vote. Not as tough as what our troops are up against."

That's for sure. Yet, given the immense power of Big Oil and the Saudi lobby, Congress likely won't do nearly enough, if anything at all, to address energy dependency in any meaningful way.

This is an important video. Watch it:

Taking the mission to secure America to Copenhagen

Guest post by Jonathan Powers and Robert Diamond

Jon Powers is the Chief Operating Officer of the Truman National Security Project. He is a veteran of the Gulf War, serving as an officer in the United States Army, and the founder of War Kids Relief. He was previously Veterans Program Director at the Eleison Group, where he worked on outreach efforts by the progressive community to veterans and military families.

Rob Diamond, a Truman National Security Fellow, is a Senior Vice President at Realty Capital International LLC, a global real estate investment banking and advisory firm. He was previously a Vice President at Bear Stearns & Co. in the Structured Equity Products/Equity Finance group. Prior to his career in finance, he served as an officer in the United States Navy, completing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Ed. note: This post was originally published at The Huffington Post. In September, we ran a post by Jon on "why the military is worried about climate change" -- you can find it here. We have also published a number of different posts from Operation Free -- see here. -- MJWS

**********

Next week we will board a flight with a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to fly to Copenhagen and wage a battle that will help address a threat to our national security. Our plan of action does not involve the Danish military, but instead involves the negotiators who are gathered to develop an international agreement on addressing climate change. We are bringing to Copenhagen the voices of the veterans and national security experts from across the nation who are standing up as part of Operation Free to secure America with clean energy.

Watch this video of our fellow veterans who have been reaching out at events across America to talk about the risks that climate change poses to our national security:

The American people understand their security is at risk when we talk about:

• The absurdity of funding our enemies who hunt our troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. By sending $1 billion a day overseas to buy oil from other nations, many of whom have unfriendly regimes, we are endangering our own troops on battlefield.

• Climate change acting as a "threat multiplier," making the world less safe. When Americans see that the CIA, Pentagon, and the national intelligence apparatus are actively developing plans to address threats in climate-affected nations with already fragile governments, they understand this is a threat to our country. Climate change is a root cause of destabilization in countries around the world in which extremist groups will look to take advantage and gain a foothold.

• Our nation's dependence on dirty fossil fuels is causing carbon pollution that is making our climate unstable... and is affecting our security.

Operation Free was formed because we know it is our military that will have to address these threats. Instead of waiting for things to get worse or fights to break out, we believe the United States must begin to take decisive action now.

The security community agrees that these are unsustainable courses of action and that we must act urgently to reduce these threats. Here at home Congress is moving ahead with clean energy legislation, but Copenhagen provides us an opportunity to truly establish ourselves as a nation that leads by example.

Skeptics are calling on us to wait for China or India to take the lead, but why would we put our security in others' hands? Americans want us to take our security in our own hands, and that is why our leadership is so critical in Copenhagen.

It is American leadership that is necessary to provide a broad consensus towards an agreement that will:

• Reduce our dependence on oil;
• Promote clean energy incentives; and
  
• Get Americans back to work producing clean, domestic, and safe energy.

America must lead by example in Copenhagen. Our security depends on it!

Sign up for Live from Copenhagen articles next week.

Better, stronger, faster

By Carl

The television show The Six Million Dollar Man used this as an opening monologue:

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.

That program was about a test pilot crippled in a horrendous crash, rebuilt using the (then) latest technology.

So it goes with our electrical grid, if only in fits and starts and drips and drabs:

Winners in the Obama administration's $3.4 billion smart grid sweepstakes were exultant. Some losers sounded bitter. But there seemed to be no quarrel that yesterday's Energy Department grants will accelerate revolutionary changes in the ways electricity is generated and managed by utilities and their consumers.

"The grid has to evolve to support where policy is driving us," said Chris Baker, senior vice president and chief information officer of San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which won a $28.1 million federal smart grid grant yesterday. It will help to fund a $60 million futuristic information management system that ties key elements of its smart grid together.

As events of August 2003, as well as events early in the Bush administration demonstrated, we are running a 21st Century economy on bearskins and bone knives, in terms of electrical power.

The grid as it stands is basically a series of local nodes inadequately joined to create large regional swaths of interconnected power feeds. If one plant goes off line, another can shunt electricity to that region and draw on others down the line. This all happens incredibly fast with incredible amounts of power being rerouted chaotically, without function or form.

Not good, particularly as the ultimate oversight is a guy with a button or switch, in case things get hairy. As 2003 demonstrated, many times that guy ain't fast enough.

Current monitoring of power flow takes places in whole seconds, when milliseconds have proven to be critical in determining how to route power. That's going to change. This means that routing will not take place in chunks of power but in fine-tuned streaming.

That's going to save a lot in terms of efficiency, repairs, and load on the grid.

Ultimately, I would hope the goal for energy in America is tons of small, renewable energy plants sprinkled across the landscape, and a power grid that can fine tune the low-power generation that renewable sources will create into plentiful electricity for the nation.

It's just smarter that way.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Climate change -- a national security challenge

Guest post by Rafael Noboa Rivera

Rafael Noboa Rivera is a writer and combat veteran. He served in Iraq from April 2003 to March 2004. This post originally appeared at The Hill's Congress Blog.

"You never have 100% certainty. If you wait till you have that, you'll fail."

The evidence is unmistakable. We have hard choices before us. As the impact of irreversible climate change and the need for cheap energy increases, you'll see more resource conflicts, more epidemics, and more deaths.

In short, life as we know it – for millions of people, including us – will become nastier, more brutish, and perhaps shorter. As an Iraq War veteran, I've dealt with the consequences of our energy needs in ways few have.

Acknowledging that our gnawing desire for cheap energy compels our involvement in the Middle East doesn't cheapen my sacrifice; it doesn't attenuate my service. It places it in rich context. Our energy posture is disastrous – economically, diplomatically, and militarily. It's a national security crisis. Our future depends on resolving this.

The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.

President Obama was talking about health care; it could've been about energy and climate.

The gathering storm – the magnitude of the threat before us – demands your attention. If you haven't paid attention before, you must now. The price we're bound to pay – in treasure, and, yes, in the lives of our uniformed services – is much too high. We must change our course.

We will – if people like me are paid heed. We must change. Doing so will result in security and wealth for America. Our present course can only end in failure and ruin.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

Quote of the Day: Steven Chu on energy and the American public

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The energy secretary said this the other day:

The American public... just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.

The media and the political class deserve much of the blame, of course, but Chu is quite right that Americans generally act like self-absorbed adolescents when it comes to energy consumption.

They've been taught to behave that way -- consume, consume, consume is the dominant American mantra, cultivated over decades, if not from the very beginning. You know the story, I'm sure.

I have little confidence that the people will change their ways quickly enough, or that the media will address responsible energy consumption in a serious way -- some in the media do, but the media amount to so much noise, with conservative spin often drowning out rational discourse.

It is refreshing, then, that Chu -- and the Obama Administration generally -- is working to address this gaping hole in public awareness of what the issues really are and of how urgent the need is for change with respect to both energy consumption and energy policy more broadly.

Energy policy and national security clearly linked

Guest post by Frankie Sturm

Frankie Sturm is communications director at the Truman National Security Project and a free-lance journalist.

The debate over climate change and energy legislation is becoming a debate over America's national security. And this is just where the debate belongs. As nearly 150 veterans gear up to visit Washington to ask their senators to take serious action on climate change, Jill Lawrence of Politics Daily reported on the new dynamic that national security is adding to the fight for new energy policy:

In the face of conservative attacks on climate-change legislation as a "job-killing energy tax," this is a welcome and potentially effective experiment in the politics of addition. We are not talking here about indulging tree-huggers or endangered species, or even about protecting the Earth. We are talking about protecting America. The argument is tough and double-barreled: We need to stop pouring money into oil-producing countries that are hostile to our interests, and we need to take global warming seriously as a threat to our national security -- because the military sure does.

From Operation FREE and the CNA report on the national security effects of climate change, to former Republican Senator John Warner and the Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate, the article gives a bird’s-eye view of why climate change is looming large in the minds of those who take national security the most seriously. As Politico reported, it's also having an effect on public opinion:

Respondents were best persuaded [to support energy legislation] by an America-first national security argument -- the notion that "over-reliance on oil from hostile nations hurts economy, helps enemies, and puts security at risk."

But as this avenue of debate develops, it's important to remember that messaging is not the motivator here. The plain truth is that climate change is a threat to our security. That's what we need to keep in mind, and that's why we need a new energy policy this year.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

The importance of geothermal power

Guest post by John Malone

John Malone, a VP/Senior Analyst with John S. Herold, an energy investment research firm in Connecticut, is a Truman National Security Project fellow.

Ed. note: This is the second piece we've cross-posted from Operation FREE. The first, on veterans and Big Oil, is here. -- MJWS

**********

In the world of renewables, most of the attention is on the wind and the sun. Geothermal power just hasn't gotten the same respect. That could be changing, as both the Obama Administration and Silicon Valley are considering the heat under the ground as a potentially huge source of clean, domestic U.S. energy, but recent setbacks are calling into question how much geothermal can contribute. Given the potential benefits, we should be doubling our efforts to make geothermal a viable power source for the U.S.

Some background: All thermal power plants use the same basic process. A heat source (burning coal or gas, uranium, concentrated solar energy) is used to turn water into steam, and the energy released turns a turbine that produces electricity. What sets geothermal apart is that the steam comes directly from the ground. Water percolates down through cracks in the ground and is heated to the boiling point by hot rocks underground (in some cases coming back up as a geyser -- think Old Faithful), and the resulting steam is drawn up via a well to a turbine.

This makes for, in principle, the ideal alternative energy source. Geothermal power releases virtually no CO2 or pollutants. Crucially, geothermal provides baseload power -- wind and solar power are better suited as peaking technologies, as they are dependent on energy sources that wax and wane over the course of a day. Geothermal power is on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (geothermal power plants can have utilization rates up to 98%). And from a national security angle, the promise of geothermal is obvious: There is no more domestic source of energy than the actual ground underneath us.

There's one problem, though. There are only a few places in the U.S. where you can find shallow groundwater hot enough to get steam directly from the ground. Engineers and geologists are therefore looking at a new way to tap underground heat. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) make use of the fact that, if you drill deep enough, any bedrock in the world gets hot enough to boil water. Basically, EGS involves drilling a well into deep, hot, dry rock; drilling a second well nearby to the same depth; fracturing the rock between those two wells enough to allow water to pass between them; and then pumping water down the first well and allowing it to percolate through the hot fractured area to the second well, where it will come back to the surface as superheated steam. The potential for EGS in the U.S. is enormous. A 2006 MIT report concluded it could provide 100,000 MW of power by 2050.

EGS is not without its drawbacks. Cost is the main hurdle. Oil and gas companies now measure well depths in miles, but these are wells drilled through relatively soft rock, not the hard granites that are best suited for EGS. If not managed properly, rocks could lose their heat -- eventually, pumping water through a hot rock system could bring the heat gradient down to the point that new wells need to be drilled. There has also been some concern about earthquakes. In 2006, an EGS pilot project in Switzerland set off a 3.4 magnitude quake.

That said, these hurdles are all surmountable, and given the huge benefits it could bring, there is already a surge in investment -- both public and private -- in EGS. Google laid down an $11 million investment for early-stage research. Perhaps most encouraging is the interest shown in EGS by our Nobel Laureate Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Obama's stimulus plan set aside $400 million for pure geothermal R&D. And it's looking like EGS wouldn't need too much more of an investment. A recent NYU study found that as little as $3 billion in R&D development could make EGS cost-competitive with fossil fuel plants.

The widespread application of EGS is still a ways off. But geothermal, whether traditional or EGS, should be used alongside technologies like wind and solar to diversify our renewable base. There is no silver bullet in renewable energy. It's better to think in terms of silver buckshot, where a collection of solutions add up to a big impact. We should do our best to make sure that one of those solutions is the one right under our feet.

A welcome breath of carbon-neutral air

By Carl

Sarah Palin is an idiot.

That said, there are legitimate concerns with respect to cap-and-trade policies in an energy policy, centered mostly around how easy it is to game the system to benefit large polluters, as well as a moral objection to the introduction of free market solutions to essentially a social problem. Rather than seek a reduction in carbon emissions, cap-and-trade effectively shifts the burden, spreading it around.

To a degree, this is true, but it's also true that there is a heavy financial incentive on the part of those who have credits to trade not to pollute more (they have less income), and as time goes on, the price of credits will index up, thus negating the pollution incentive for the purchasers of credits.

It's a gradual withdrawal of carbon from the pollution cycle, and therefore manageable.

Palin raises a ridiculous point, particularly in light of what other criticisms of cap-and-trade amount to.

She claims:

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Cap-and-trade does not limit energy production in the sense that it sets a ceiling on it. If some company decides that it needs more energy, and it is willing to make the rather punitive payment to use it, then it is free to do so. Cap-and-trade is not a quota system with finite limits.

Indeed, if anything, these voluntary measures will help extend America's own fossil fuel supplies as companies recognize there is profit in protecting the environment.

And profit creates jobs. And jobs create an economy.

Now, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Conor Clarke, subbing in for Andrew Sullivan:

Cap and trade creates revenue, which can be used to mitigate the costs for consumers. When the Congressional Budget Office did it's analysis of the distribution of the costs and benefits of the House's cap and trade bill, it found that the poorest quintile would actually benefit.

Cap-and-trade attempts to quantify the social costs of business decisions. If I litter, I create a job for a sanitation worker, which means a wage must be paid. In addition, I help feed a vermin population, which means a health official must be hired.

American society has always been predicated on the quantifiable. It's the Flatlanders' best method of proving their superiority. I can compare my wallet to yours, and if mine has more, I'm a better person.

Which might be true, but probably is not. As Warren Buffett so often points out, nobody gets anywhere in this world without the support of the people and society around him or her. Those who can shunt aside as much of the costs of success as possible to hidden and unmeasurable resources make pure profit.

Which is why it's important to account for these as closely as possible. Level the playing field, and open the books.

Who knows? Maybe it will even turn Alaska into a powerhouse state!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)