All Of The Above: Strategy or Cop Out at the 2014 State of the Union?

by

Most viewers of the 2014 State of the Union address, delivered last night by President Barrack Obama, should be praised for having the wherewithal to persevere through such a sleep-inducing collection of strung together sentences — although, among the mind-numbing were a fair share of surprisingly spritely, humorous notes.

Regardless, for those green enthusiasts out there, hoping to learn more about initiatives in the way of sustainability, clean energy, and alternative fuels, there was relatively little mention of such, and with even less value behind it.  Far from a laughing matter.

View the enhanced speech on demand –which is by far better than the
live broadcast– if you don’t believe me (tune in around the 15:40 mark).
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhBRouSmWs&w=560&h=315&start=940]

Unfortunately, the most prolific takeaway for such enthusiasts was a regurgitation of the All-Of-The-Above Energy Strategy, originally introduced several years prior.  And let me be clear (pun intended) — by “regurgitation” I don’t mean Mr. Obama repeated himself per se, but I do mean that it was just a simple spewing of what “we” have already accomplished over the past several years’ time.

Some of the facts and statistics used in the accompanying supplemental presentation seem randomly curated and desperately included, almost in some form of a last-ditch attempt to appear arguably progressive.  And be careful not to blink when watching the address, you may miss the just-over-four minutes the Pres took to speak to the notions of this All-Of-The-Above plan.

Nonetheless, a brief recap is in order, to point potential non-viewers in the direction of the few notions splayed upon last nights audiences:

  • America is closer to energy independence today than we have been in decades.  I hope this is self-explanatory.
  • Natural gas is being extracted safely. This was an obvious reference to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, something we have written about in the past and something which environmentalists everywhere denounce.
  • Companies are planning to build new plants that use natural gas.  President Obama made clear the fact that he wants to promote this via tax and other programs for these manufacturers who indeed increasingly move toward natural gas as a replacement means of production (instead of oil).
  • America will continue “strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities,” and “protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations” to come.  By definition, probably the closest we’ve come thus far to targeting sustainability, but still not compelling.  This just seems like some general commentary that could have been used years ago to describe our state, and which seem to be added only because they sound better to the heart than to the mind, once processed.
  • We are becoming a global leader in solar — “every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar.”  This is a great stat, assuming its factually accurate.  Bravo, Mr. President.  And his use was impeccable, directly relating solar’s ongoing push to economic job growth by referencing that men (and women) physically installing pieces of such equipment is not outsource-able.
  • GOAL: continue to invest in fuels of the future.  Check.  This should go unsaid — it’s something that would be done regardless of who is in office, be it oval or congressional.  Next.
  • We can continue to reduce energy we consume. He referenced the new standards for the auto industry, implemented after the bailout, to make vehicles more efficient.  Good example, yes, but we have been there and done that, so where else could this be actionable moving forward?  Another prospective example would have been beautifully refreshing.
  • The US is the leading nation in reducing carbon footprints.  Impressive, but how about we explore how we will maintain that role modeling… right?
  • We need to legislate new standards on the amount of pollution our power plants are permitted to dump into the air.  Air pollution is important, I get it.  And as we’ve seen in places like Mexico City and eastern Chinese cities like Beijing, it can quickly get so out of hand as to realizably affect the day-to-day quality of life for area inhabitants.  The future can only get worse, if not attended to, so let’s hope something of action can become of this verbiage.
  • “The debate is settled: Climate Change Is A Fact!”  Again, self explanatory, but a headline-grabbing quote all enthusiasts can be mildly happy about.

Now, that brief recap above contains literally every point I could imaginably pluck from the whole discussion of ecological sustainability, and most of it spoke solely of vague past accomplishments and emptily bottomless comments surrounding the overall direction we are headed. Personally, as someone truly interested in hearing what particulars could lay on the horizon, I was extremely underwhelmed by the President’s words, or complete lack thereof with respect to true governmental policy.  This could have been a chance for Mr. Obama to openly target specific goals and initiatives on one of the broadest stages possible, to really put the pressure on Congress to do something about the potential headliners — an opportunity blown.

As one US News and World Report describes fairly well, the State of the Union was predicted to be and then turned out to be unsustainable.  The article describes, quite adequately, that sustainability is the focus of making sure our living our lives does not hinder the ability of the generations to come from living theirs.  While the State of the Union contained moments wherein the glimmer of hope for the future verged on addressing some social or economic sustainability, environmental sustainability was not allowed to shine in its full brilliance.  There was clearly insufficient forethought and future initiatives relayed from the President — no true future plans were outlined for environmental policy.

All of this being said, I must concede that it is not all President Obama’s fault, that the entire State of the Union address seemed monotonous and archaically pointless.  In actuality, it is just that, and by inevitability.  The State of the Union was originally put into policy as a way for the President of the United States to relay his views on the current status and future agenda of the country to the US Congress.  This is especially needless in today’s society of technological advancement, what with all the instantaneous newsfeeds at our constant disposal via push notices to our pocket devices.

Overall, Obama’s address was only half-baked, nearly ignoring future sustainability, clean energy, and alternative fuel plans altogether.  But that’s just my opinion.

Got some time to share your opinions?  We’d love to hear them!
[polldaddy poll=7755598]

The Fiscal Cliff & Our Environment

by

Much has been made of the potential sequester the U.S. faces this New Years’ Eve, which the masses have affectionately labeled the “fiscal cliff.”  Well, with the possibility of large impacts to the average person and small business, rightly so.  However, what has not been rightly emphasized, in our opinion, is the potentially devastating effects this cliff could have on our nation’s environmental sector.  The cliff would lead to higher taxes and governmental budget cuts in the defense department, yes.  But what is less well-known is that the governmental cuts will also most likely include environmental victims.

For one, the energy industry could be significantly hurt, both at governmental and private sector levels.  Solar energy contractors who rely on receiving current 1603 cash grants for installation projects will not see those cash grants should the US see the cliff.  This could strongly hinder the financing of solar energy projects, depleting a relatively small but significant portion of the necessary cash for such projects.

Moreover, the cliff would trigger a $148 million retraction of funds from the US Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program.  To help put this into perspective, this loss is the equivalent of cutting the US Department of Energy’s solar energy program completely in half.  These cuts to agencies like the Department of Energy threaten not only a decrease in energy development, but also a decrease in energy usage, as programs would lose funding for research and loans used now for innovation projects.  The future would be increasingly questionable.

A second instance would have harmful effects for the US National Parks, National Forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.  For instance, the 258,000 jobs scattered among US National Parks and the 35,000 jobs among wildlife refuges could be jeopardized by the expected cuts in science and law enforcement positions at these establishments.  Similarly, the 2 million plus jobs within the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the US National Forests could also find themselves in limbo, as awaited budget cuts loom large.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, which employs 66 million scientists, educators, researchers, and technicians, among others, could see devastating effects, as well.

As the list goes on, the bottom line remains ever evident.  In cutting governmental agencies’ budgets, the environmental agencies will surely be among those who see drastic cuts.  Further, those cuts could prove disastrous, and at the very least, detrimental to the US’s management, protection, and research of the environment.  There are millions of jobs at risk, in addition to the health and lives of the organisms living among the zones over which these agencies keep watch.

Overall, based on the observations and predictions surrounding the seemingly imminent sequester our government currently wrestles, there could be hampering effects on government agencies who will see severe cuts, US citizens who will see layoffs, and wildlife who will see the harmful effects of increased neglect.  So God Speed to our government representatives, in hopes that their efforts add up to a reasonable solution that can avoid harmful cuts to the essential beings of such agencies, people, and wildlife.

[polldaddy poll=6799106]

Sources for More Reading:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-what-would-the-fiscal-cliff-mean-for-the-u.s.-solar-market
http://www.governing.com/news/state/gov-fiscal-cliff-full-coverage.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/11/15/the-fiscal-cliff-and-the-environment/
http://blog.cleanwateraction.org/2012/12/06/dont-let-the-fiscal-cliff-devastate-our-environment/

What Will the Future Hold? Hopefully Green Change.

by

I read an opinion piece earlier today by Columbia University faculty member, Steven Cohen, entitled The Transition to a Sustainable Economy May Happen Without the U.S. Federal Government.  Several strong and sometimes witty points are addressed in the article, all of which are of reasonable importance.  Overall, however, the piece points out the ever-increasing need for further developments in the realm of environmentally conscious change, through not only personal choices of society members, but through official government policies.  The latter of which, we have surprisingly found to be almost entirely lacking in the U.S., despite further research on the matters that may very well affect the future. 

One highlight of the piece that I do consider to be one of the more important elements, is a referenced letter from the co-CEO’s of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), a major global investment firm.  Although working predominantly within the financial industry, even KKR and its leaders strongly believe in higher levels of sustainability practices.  Among other things, they mention that such initiatives will lead to a better use of resources, as well as a more profitable business.  It is essentially a win-win situation, so long as adequate effort is put into it. 

A major distaste for the U.S. government’s lack of response to trending issues on limited resources and needed sustainability is openly expressed by Cohen as well.  To be honest, he is rightfully disappointed.  However, as I continued to read on and hop around the Huffington Post website, I did come across a slideshow list of the Greenest Celebrities.  I usually find such things hard to stomach, but in this case, I was immediately drawn in.  Some of the members of the list came as no surprise, but others I found to be quite the opposite.  I think its worth checking out and reading up on each of the celebs, but no matter how you view the issues, it can give a little more hope to the cause – although government officials seemingly refuse to take steps forward, perhaps with high profile individuals like celebrities pushing for advancement and programs, the green movement has large-scale hope yet.