Last night, Senator Murkowski was treated to a fundraiser by lobbyists for the Nuclear Energy Institute, Duke Energy and Peabody Coal. Political Party Time has the details:

Host Alex Flint lobbies for the Nuclear Energy Institute, whose PAC has given her $5,000 since 2008. Beverly K. Marshall lobbies for Duke Energy, which is based in North Carolina, and has given the senator $24,050 over the course of her career. David Russell represents a number of clients for Bryan Cave LLP, including Peabody Energy, a coal company based in St. Louis,  Mo. Peabody’s PAC has given her $3,000 since 2008.

Here is a screenshot of the invitation, which was distributed by the NRSC:

Political Party Time also made some interesting general observations about Senator Murkowski’s fundraising habits:

Murkowski gets more campaign cash from the energy and natural resources sector than any other–more than $1 million over the course of her career. Seventy-three percent of her campaign cash comes from sources out of state.

Senator Murkowski was met outside the fundraiser by a group of student protesters. Rather than taking the time to engage with the concerned youth, she quickly brushed past them into the building. Watch here:

Just 19 hours later, today at 2:00, Senator Murkowski will do the bidding of those who funneled money to her campaign last night. On a conference call with Chamber of Commerce members Senator Murkowski will give an overview of the EPA’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and her efforts to stop those plans. Here is how the Chamber of Commerce describes the call:

The U.S. Chamber is pleased to announce that we will hold a special member conference call with United States Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and we want you to be a part of this timely discussion about climate change and legislation in Congress to deal with EPA’s actions to regulate greenhouse gases on the afternoon of Thursday, February 25. Join in this worthwhile opportunity to hear an overview of the EPA’s move toward regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, its burdensome affects on business, and Congress’ response to the move. Register now to receive the dial-in number.

Senator Murkowski has introduced bipartisan legislation to allow time for Congress to address the climate change issue and prevent EPA from moving forward with a regulatory scheme to regulate greenhouse gases under the ill-suited framework of the Clean Air Act. On January 14, the first major step of that process–an EPA final rule concluding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare–took effect, and with it the obligation to move forward with what could easily become the most expensive and intrusive set of regulations in history. The implementation of these rules will have a significant impact on the economy and small businesses.

This is one of those all-too-often instances in Washington where a direct connection can be drawn between a candidate’s fundraising and their anti-progressive legislative agenda. Polluting corporations don’t funnel millions of dollars to candidates out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so with an expectation that they’ll get something in return, and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski never disappoints on that front.

Indeed, Senator Murkowski’s extremely close ties to oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists have caused some to speculate that she is romantically involved with some of them:

When I moved from Alaska to Washington, I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to find someone who was right for me. The first couple of years were tough — I met a lot of potential matches but couldn’t find the perfect one. My dad had lived in DC for years and had a lot of success with PolluterHarmony, so I decided to try it.

When I saw Jeff’s profile, I couldn’t believe I found a lobbyist with so much money to contribute to my re-election campaigns and so many big coal and utility industry clients. Arch Coal, Southern Company, Edison Electric… I thought “He’s just what I’m looking for!” We instantly clicked — in our first phone conversation, he told me he could bundle $10,000 by our first date. We met in person a week later, and he had the check in hand.

In order to make sure Washington lobbyists know that Senator Murkowski’s votes and legislative efforts are up for sale to the highest bidder, PolluterWatch.com is now running ads on Politico:

And to be fair to Alaska residents who may also be interested to know about the unscrupulous behavior of their senior Senator, ads are also running on the websites of Alaska TV stations:

Despite intimations to the contrary, Senator Murkowski is far too beholden to corporate interests to take the true interests of her state seriously. While Alaska is literally melting, Murkowski’s spokesman is busy attacking bloggers for asking hard questions. While her state’s infrastructure suffers from the impacts of climate change, Murkowski lets corporate lobbyists write legislation for her. And while a bipartisan group of Senators works to find consensus on climate legislation, Senator Murkowski does everything in her power to keep her funders happy by thwarting progress at every turn.

Visit NoDirtyAirAct.com for the latest on Senator Murkowski’s efforts to the bidding of her energy industry lobbying pals by severely weakening the Clean Air Act.

By way of this Steven Pearlstein article, Ezra Klein wonders why natural gas doesn’t get as much attention as nuclear energy as a bridge fuel toward the clean energy economy:

My understanding is that natural gas is a really promising candidate as a bridge fuel (a cleaner energy source between the coal/oil economy and whatever comes next), for all the reasons Steve Pearlstein lays out here. But nuclear energy attracts all the political attention. Why is that? Is it just because nuclear energy has traditionally been opposed by liberals and so it’s become an article of faith among conservatives? Does nuclear energy have a more-organized or better-funded industry backing it?

I’ll look at a few factors that may play a role in this below.

Read the rest of this entry »

House Energy and Commerce Committee (via Pro Publica):

Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey today sent letters to eight oil and gas companies that use hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and natural gas from unconventional sources in the United States. The Committee is requesting information on the chemicals used in fracturing fluids and the potential impact of the practice on the environment and human health.

“Hydraulic fracturing could help us unlock vast domestic natural gas reserves once thought unattainable, strengthening America’s energy independence and reducing carbon emissions,” said Chairman Waxman. “As we use this technology in more parts of the country on a much larger scale, we must ensure that we are not creating new environmental and public health problems. This investigation will help us better understand the potential risks this technology poses to drinking water supplies and the environment, and whether Congress needs to act to minimize those risks.”

Here is the letter to Halliburton CEO David J. Lesar:

lesar_letter –

And here is a background document the committee put together on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing:

hydraulic_fracturing_memo –

In four simple steps:

Well, the four steps that we suggest actually help us reach the Kyoto goals for the year 2030. Step 1 was double nuclear power production. Two is offshore exploration of natural gas. Three is make half our cars and trucks electric in 20 years. And finally doubling energy R&D spending to make solar costs competitive. By our computation, we’d actually get where we want to go.

You see, first we round up all of the world’s unicorns…

In the wake of yesterday’s explosion at a natural gas plant in Connecticut, Caroline Howe at Its Getting Hot in Here makes a good point:

Fossil fuels are not safe. They are not safe for our planet, they are not safe for our communities, and they are not safe for the workers inside of their power plants. This is not the first power plant explosion, this will not be the last. It is time for America to commit to a clean and safe energy economy – where our friends and neighbors can work in green jobs that give good wages and safe working environments. My heart and prayers are with the workers at the Kleen Energy Plant and with their families — and with the future of our nation to not face such a tragedy again.

Greenhouse gas emissions aside, here are a few recent environmental problems and public health concerns associated with generating electricity from coal, nuclear and natural gas:

• Yesterday — Middletown Power Plant Explosion Caused By Gas Leak, Officials Say: “Early reports were that a natural gas leak could have caused a devastating explosion Sunday morning that killed two and injured as many as a dozen more at a power plant being built south of the city on the Connecticut River.”
• Last week — Radiation Levels Spike Near Vt. Nuke Plant; Leak Source Not Yet Found: “Levels of radioactive tritium mushroomed Thursday in a new monitoring well at the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, an indication the leak was coming from water that runs through the reactor itself, according to the Department of Health.  These are very high concentrations,” said William Irwin, radiological health chief for the Department of Health, who was at the reactor Thursday. “We’re not dealing with a minor system. It’s an important source that needs to be quickly found.”
• Last week — The EPA released “engineering assessments of 40 more coal ash impoundments showing they have the ‘high’ or ’significant’ potential to cause loss of human life, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure.”
• 9 months ago — 8 Firefighters, 1 Gas Employee Burned In Natural Gas Explosion: “Eight firefighters and a gas company worker were injured in a natural gas explosion at a strip mall in Forestville, Maryland on Thursday afternoon. Despite being caught in the violent explosion, only two of the injured remain hospitalized.”
• 13 months ago — TVA spilled 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic coal ash in Eastern Tennessee. “A test of river water near the spill showed elevated levels of lead and thallium, which can cause birth defects and nervous and reproductive system disorders”
• Natural gas drilling has contaminated the water in several states.
• Coal mining releases methane, carbon monoxide, soot, copper lead and mercury at levels known to pose risks to human health.

And here are some recent environmental problems and public health concerns associated with generating electricity from solar, wind and geothermal:

• …
• …
• Actually, there are no environmental problems or public health concerns associated with generating electricity from wind, solar and geothermal sources.

Just something to keep in mind when you hear people talk about ‘cleaner burning natural gas,’ ‘clean coal,’ and ’safe nuclear power.’

Update — Senator Lautenberg has questions:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said Monday that a fatal explosion at an unfinished natural gas-fired power plant in Connecticut over the weekend underscores safety concerns about a proposed natural gas pipeline in New Jersey.

An explosion Sunday at the Kleen Energy Systems plant in Middletown, Connecticut killed at least five workers.

“This tragic incident reminds us that natural gas, while cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, comes with safety risks. The explosion raises a red flag about the construction of a natural gas line that would run through New Jersey primarily for the benefit of New York,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement.

Tommaso Boggia at Funding Our Future writes:

During the CitizenTube State of the Union Q & A discussion, President Obama severely dodged a question submitted by young activists about his support of dirty energy.His answer is unwise, and deceitful. I hate to say this about the President that has done more to invest in a clean energy economy than anyone before him (not a hard accomplishment since W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter were the only presidents in office since clean energy became an issue), but young people are tired of being lied to by the White House and congress.

He continues:

Despite the evidence and public support, President Obama’s comments disregarded the potential of renewable energy. Instead, he championed dangerous and dirty alternatives like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (for some incomprehensible President Obama keeps on calling it ‘clean coal’) and nuclear energy even though many studies question their ability to quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. CCS is extremely inefficient, forcing us to dig up and burn much more coal per unit of energy produced (that certainly won’t help our friends in West Virginia fighting to protect their mountains). Nuclear energy consumes large amounts of fresh water, already a precious resource that will become even more rare as the climate warms up.Is President Obama’s support for these dirty forms of energy just a gimmick to schmooze voters?

It is becoming increasingly clear, to me at least, that President Obama truly embraces the Republican mantra of ‘all of the above’ as an energy policy. One problem: ‘all of the above’ is a catchphrase, not a plan for sustainably powering our economy for decades into the future. Acknowledging that there is legitimate role for coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas in our energy mix is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even with the right policies and investments it will take decades to alter our energy mix to a somewhat-sustainable balance. But when President Obama uses his rhetorical gifts to sing the praises of dirty energy — and encourages increased oil/gas drilling and loan guarantees for constructing new nuclear power plants — he is moving our energy mix in the wrong direction and making the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy more lengthy and expensive.

You can watch the question and answer session here at the 31:38 mark:

Nobody could have predicted:

T. Boone Pickens has cut his massive order for wind turbines from GE by more than half.

The energy investor, who made wind power a key part of his plan to wean Americans off foreign oil, said Tuesday he will now take delivery of 300 turbines, which he will use for wind farms in Canada and Minnesota.

None of the turbines will come to Texas, as originally planned.

Meanwhile, Pickens continues his campaign to persuade Americans to use natural gas to fuel heavy trucks, rather than diesel. Doing so, he said, could cut Middle East oil imports in half.

I’m not a fan of T. Boone Pickens or the Pickens Plan. I think he is a scam artist, and I don’t think converting our vehicle fleet to natural gas engines is viable. Read more here:

• Democrats Should Not be Praising T. Boone Pickens
• T. Boone Pickens Caught in Two Lies in One Short Interview
• Boone Pickens Caught in Several More Lies on Frontline
• T. Boone Pickens Thinks Obama Will Fall for the Pickens Plan
• For the Pickens Plan to Work, People Have to Misunderstand It
• Not Credible: T. Boone Pickens Floods Online Poll With Votes, Brags About Results

I’m normally pretty skeptical of those who advocate drastically increasing the use of natural gas for electricity generation. My skepticism is largely due to nature of the domestic gas that is available. Most of the new natural gas discoveries in the United States are shale gas. Shale gas is difficult to get to, and requires an extraction process that involves leaking large quantities of undisclosed chemicals into water supplies.

With that being said, this is the type of natural gas procurement I can get behind:

Hundreds of trash trucks across California are rumbling down city streets using clean fuel made from a dirty source: garbage.

The fuel is derived from rotting refuse that San Francisco and Oakland residents and businesses have been discarding in the Altamont landfill since 1980. Since November, the methane gas created from decaying detritus at the 240-acre landfill has been sucked into tubes and sent into an innovative facility that purifies and transforms it into liquefied natural gas.

Almost 500 Waste Management Inc. garbage and recycling trucks run on this new source of environmentally friendly fuel instead of dirty diesel.

In a state that has passed the most stringent greenhouse gas reduction goals in the United States, the climate change benefits of this plant are twofold — methane from the trash heap is captured before entering the environment and use of the fuel produces less carbon dioxide than conventional gasoline.

“We’ve built the largest landfill-to-LNG plant in the world; this plant produces 13,000 gallons a day of LNG,” said Jessica Jones, a landfill manager for Houston-based Waste Management. “It will take 30,000 tons a year of CO2 from the environment.”

Driving past the giant pile of trash near my hometown in Ohio over the holidays, I wondered why they weren’t generating gas from the trash. It seems like a perfect match; the methane gas created naturally by the dump could probably fuel the dozens of garbage trucks they send out weekly, with plenty of gas left over to sell back to the local utility. I don’t know for certain, but I assume the investment made up front — especially considering the tax credits for retrofitting the garbage truck fleet — would pay itself off relatively quickly.

This story keeps getting better and better. Greenpeace seems to have evidence that all of this was in violation of Senate rules. Their Executive Director Phil Radford has fired off a letter to Senator Schumer to this effect.

Here is the letter:

Letter from Phil Radford to Senator Schumer-1 –

Here is the sign on the front door of the event, which prominently displayed API and Newsweek logos:

Here is the flyer the American Petroleum Institute distributed at the event, claiming the oil industry is responsible for 9.2 million jobs:

API jobs flyer_color copy –

Here is the event’s program:

API Newsweek program_color copy-1 –

I told you the other day about Tuesday’s policy forum hosted by Newsweek magazine and the American Petroleum Institute. At the time, Howard Fineman defended his magazine’s role in providing a forum for communication between powerful special interests and members of Congress:

Rep. Ed Markey, the chief sponsor of the House cap-and-trade bill and a leading environmental advocate, is a full participant in the open, on-the-record discussion with no control by API over the questions or flow. Dem Sen Byron Dorgan is also participating and will reflect various views in Dem caucus. Rep Fred Upton, who opposed the House bill, will also participate. I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record balanced discussion like this. Newsweek has a long tradition of enviro reporting, including our annual green issue.

It looks like I wasn’t the only one who took issue with Fineman’s take. TPM Muckracker ran the headline: Fineman: “I See Nothing Wrong” With Newsweek/Oil Lobby Panel. Jamison Foser of Media Matters wrote:

Seriously? The “discussion” featured the president of the American Petroleum Institute — which just happens to fund Newsweek — but no representatives of environmental organizations … and Howard Fineman calls that a “balanced discussion”?

Apparently to Newsweek, “balance” means “Industry representatives who fund us and–Hey! Look over there!”

Despite basically nonexistent media coverage, the event went forward as planned on Tuesday evening. We’ve begun to hear from some folks who were in attendance.

Greenpeace, which has been leading the charge on this, provided me with this dispatch via email:

Greenpeace staff got into the event (on the 3rd attempt) to confront Gerard and Fineman with the questions of Newsweek’s rental price and the pay-to-play nature of the panel. Gerard was able to sit side-by-side with the members of Congress who showed up: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI).

Greenpeace staffers approached Gerard with cameras rolling to get answers to the question of Newsweek’s rental price. At first, Gerard unwittingly shook the staffer’s hand before realizing what was happening. He then quickly walked away with Greenpeace on his tail – all the way out of the building and out onto the street.

Fineman quickly left the scene without comment.

Here is a short video clip of the incident Greenpeace describes:

Additionally, I got ahold of a short audio clip from the event. After Representative Markey talks up the future of natural gas, Newsweek’s Fineman tells an industry-friendly joke:

As a native of Pittsburgh, I’m really excited about the Marcellus Shale. I’m hoping maybe there’s some under my relative’s land. (laughter)

Listen to the audio here:

No word yet on whether Fineman joked about the recent string of carcinogenic chemical spills in Pennsylvania as a result of hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale.

Update — Mark Floegel has more on this:

The first question from the audience was for Mr. Gerard: “How are you, the head of the oil lobby, qualified to speak about climate change?”

His answer? Money. (Well, what did you expect?) Mr. Gerard claimed that 9.2 million Americans rely on the oil industry for their jobs. He claims the oil industry has spent $58 billion dollars “addressing climate change,” which he says is “more than the federal government has spent.” Then he spoke about how we need to burn coal.

Floegel also notes that the American Petroleum Institute distributed ‘literature’ at the event:

Here are the headings:

This is about jobs.
This is about new taxes threatening your job.
This is about new taxes hurting our economy.
This is about higher energy taxes hurting your wallet.
This is about protecting and growing jobs.
This is about a better way forward.

A careful read of the API document reveals not one word about global warming. “Climate and Energy Policy: Moving?” Yes, in the wrong direction.