Green Inc:

Senators John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, and Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, have joined in introducing a bill that would establish awards for researchers who develop technologies that can economically extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stash it away.

Here is their press release:

U.S. Senator John Barrasso, (R-Wyo.) and Senator Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM), have introduced a bi-partisan bill focusing on clean air technology. The bill encourages technology that will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it.

The Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Act, S.2744, will establish an award system for scientists and researchers.

Historically, prizes have been used to spur all types of technological development to solve problems. For example, Charles Lindbergh was competing for the Orteig Prize, when he flew in the Spirit of St. Louis, non-stop from New York to Paris in 1927.

“Our proposal takes a fresh look at climate change,” Barrasso said. “We want to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. The bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation. It recognizes the need to develop the technological solutions needed to address climate change. It makes sense that we explore alternative approaches for removing and permanently sequestering excess carbon dioxide. With financial awards, we can encourage the extraordinary breakthroughs needed to tackle this problem.” Senator Barrasso introduced similar legislation last year. The Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Act is a new, bi-partisan version of that legislation.

“A bi-partisan solution is needed to reduce carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. I commend Senator Bingaman’s willingness to work across the aisle to find solutions.”

Senator Bingaman is Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the bill has been referred.

“If we could capture carbon dioxide emitted by low-concentration sources, or even the atmosphere, it would be a major step toward a cleaner energy future,” said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. “A federal prize to inspire inventive solutions to this technical challenge could help us get there quicker. That’s why I’m backing Senator Barrasso’s bill.”

The program would be established by a federal commission under the Department of Energy. Commission members, appointed by the President, would be comprised of climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists.

Awards will go to public and private entities that design technology to remove and permanently sequester carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.

Once the technology is developed, the United States would share the intellectual property rights with the inventor.

Greenwire:

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today approved three of President Obama’s energy and environmental nominees, including a controversial mining pick who has drawn fire from environmental groups.

After discussing the complaints against him, the panel agreed to send to the full Senate the nomination of Joseph Pizarchik to be director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Two senators opposed the nomination: Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Pizarchik, director of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Mining and Reclamation since 2002, has been under fire from environmental groups that criticize the agency’s policy to bury waste from coal-burning power plants in abandoned mines. Several studies have documented contamination to water supplies from the practice, but Pizarchik has remained a staunch proponent of the policy during his tenure.

Statement from Friends of the Earth, via email, below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Spokesman for Senator Murkowski loses temper with blogger, admits that major GOP talking point on costs of climate legislation has nothing to with legislation that is actually being considered.

On September 16th, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski joined a growing chorus of Republican politicians touting a flawed analysis of the costs associated with cap and trade legislation (see: Treasury Department, CBO, Media Matters, Politifact and Grist) by issuing this press release:

“It’s becoming apparent that the administration knew all along how much their cap and trade program would cost, yet they continue to claim it will cost no more than a postage stamp a day,” Murkowski said.

<snip>

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total cost would be between $100 billion and $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be $1,761 a year, on top of what they already pay in taxes to the government.

These statements are factually incorrect, and they are thoroughly debunked by the links above.

On Monday, I wrote about the eight Republican politicians (note: since then Rep. Pete Sessions joined the party) who had already begun parroting this false talking point. I followed up with many of these Republican politicians, requesting clarification on their factually incorrect statements. The most interesting response — by far — came by way of an series of increasingly heated emails between myself and Murkowski staffer Robert Dillon. Mr. Dillon is the Republican Communications Director for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The emails were followed by a brief phone conversation, in which Mr. Dillon made the following comments.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following exchange took place between EnviroKnow.com and Robert Dillon, Republican Communications Director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, via email.

EnviroKnow:

As you probably know, Senator Murkowski sent a press release last week touting an analysis of legislation that was never considered by Congress.

I was wondering if you have a statement on this or a response:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/18/lamar-alexander/alexander-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/

Please let me know.

Thank You

Robert Dillon:

Mr. Nelson:

You requested comment on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s release on the potential cost of cap and trade legislation? Please call or provide a phone number and I will call you back.

Sincerely,

Robert Dillon

EnviroKnow:

I am not interested in speaking on the phone. I need something written so I can pass it along to my readers verbatim. I think they deserve an explanation. If you are able to provide a written statement justifying the Senator’s use of unquestionably false information, please do so as soon as possible. If you are unable to do so I will be forced to indicate as such in my piece. Legislation as complicated as cap and trade is difficult enough to get right when everyone participates in the debate in good faith. Intentionally misleading press releases from United States Senators — with the explicit purpose of confusing constituents — is not acceptable and will not stand.

I anticipate your prompt response.

Robert Dillon:

I’m not sure there’s benefit in talking to someone whose already made up his mind about a story without even talking to the other side. That’s not journalism. We can speak on the phone first to discuss your story and then I may provide you with something written. I have reservations about responding to anyone who repeatedly calls a sitting US senator a liar without even having the professional courtesy to call up and engage on an issue.

EnviroKnow:

I’m offering you the opportunity to dispute my accusation that the Senator’s press release was factually incorrect. You can take it or leave it. I understand if you are unable to provide a substantive response, given the fact that the press release was demonstrably false. It would behoove you to come up with some sort of explanation for the factually incorrect press release, or you may risk the appearance of a de facto admission of guilt by way of refusal to engage.

Again — it is up to you whether or not you provide me with a statement, but I think a refusal to even attempt to back up the clearly false claims made in the Senator’s press release will come across very poorly.

I’m looking forward to your response.

Robert Dillon:

I have no guarantee that if I provide you with a response that you won’t edit it or doctor it to prove your point, which is incorrect, by the way. Without such a guarantee I’m not going to consider you an accredited journalist. You can either make a phone call and have a civil conversation and get information for your story and thereby serve the interests of your readers – or you can choose to do otherwise. It’s your choice.

EnviroKnow:

Well, sir, I’ll gladly offer my personal guarantee that I won’t edit or doctor your statement. Frankly, as someone who has never edited a statement in such a manner and would never even consider doing so, I take offense at the implication. I just want a statement from someone on the Senator’s staff — since it is perfectly clear to the casual observer that the press release was factually incorrect.

If you are unable to dispute my claim, I will indicate as such. But as evidenced by my continuing to correspond with you on this, I would much rather have a statement I can publish.

How about this? I’ll publish a screenshot of the statement rather than copying/pasting the text. That is perfectly reasonable, no?

EnviroKnow:

Is this suitable for you? I truly just want to publish your statement — in full and unedited — so my readers can judge for themselves.

Please advise.

Robert Dillon:

If that’s true then we can have a conversation via phone ahead of time.

EnviroKnow:

I’ll call you shortly.

Grist:

The Efficient Vehicle Leadership Act creates a program that rewards consumers who buy cars and trucks that get better gas mileage than the average overall fuel economy required for its class. Motorists who buy models which exceed that CAFE standard will receive a “fuel performance rebate” (claimed on their tax return or paid instantly by the dealer, whichever the buyer prefers), an amount tied to the fuel savings over and above the relevant CAFE standard. The savings can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on the vehicle’s fuel economy relative to other models of the same size. Conversely, for inefficient, gas-gulping vehicles, manufacturers will be assessed a fuel performance fee to pay for the program.

Here is the short summary:

Efficient Vehicle Leadership Act of 2009 Summary –

And here is the full legislation:

Efficient Vehicle Leadership Act of 2009 –