Talk about a hot and windy debate as Washington grapples with the first big bill to try to power up a new clean energy economy. Studies and accusations are whipping around like wind propellers as the constituencies of fossil fuels and new energy square off.

While this seems like a flurry of much ado — is it possible that the American Clean Energy and Security Act wouldn’t pass?

Still, there’s much at stake. As we know from last year’s blockbuster stimulus bill, no one really reads all the copy, so there could be a lot of caveats, crumbs and sneaky insertions embedded into the 1,000-plus page act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

One hot button issue (funny how the political cliches fit this climate change topic) has been whether the bill will drive up electricity costs. Stands to reason that re-jiggering how we get power and the sort of power we use will come with costs. It also seems reasonable to expect that over time, clean energy, coming as it does from ongoing natural phenomena like the wind and the sun, would have cost efficiencies compared with crude oil, which must be siphoned from the earth and shipped around.

In my earlier blog, I asked who really knows how much these changes will affect household electrical bills; I mean really, how can we tell? It’s such a tar pit of variables.

Apparently, The Pew Center on Global Climate Change does think it has a handle on this issue. At least they’re trying harder than most to decipher the variables and forecast the future. For their take see their “Eight Myths About the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill.”

Myth #2 deals with energy costs and Pew seems to conclude that this switch to clean energy might (maybe) cost US households somewhere around $100 a year over the next few decades.

They also agree with our “who knows” thesis, saying essentially that: “Given the limitations of economic modeling, no analysis should be assumed to give a correct answer.”

They also note, a bit illogically, that even though we can’t count on any given economic analysis, if a group does undertake such an analysis (which might not be worth much) they definitely should “faithfully represent what is actually required by the bill”.

Right. Let the wrangling recommence.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Get ready for a new ad campaign pushing for a carbon cap. This one, though, comes not from policy wonks in D.C., but is a direct appeal from the steel belt. And it will yank at your heart strings.

The United Steelworkers and the Blue Green Alliance, in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund, have assembled four video spots featuring steel workers appealing for a carbon cap. Yes you heard that right.

The cap, these workers say, will free their industries to pursue clean energy and thereby put people back to work, this time making wind turbines, which require a lot of steel, as well as solar panels.

It’s certainly true that wind is fueling huge job growth. The latest figures from the American Wind Energy Association report that the field now employs some 85,000 Americans.

As for the carbon cap and the sticky question of how to place a price on carbon emissions — through cap and trade, which critics argue is complex and unwieldy, or through a carbon tax, which could be so unpopular as to be untenable — look for much continued debate as lawmakers inch closer to taking action.  Global warming legislation has a history of freezing up Congress.

These new ads, however, argue that we can’t afford a stalmate — individually or collectively.

Here’s one of the spots. There are three others on You Tube.

Braddock Mayor John Fetterman, by the way, is a Harvard-educated native of the area.

The TV spots and print ads will run in “swing” states, including Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, New Hampshire, Virginia and in Washington D.C.

For a discussion on the debate over cap-and-trade vs. a carbon tax, see the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The question keeps coming up on newscasts and blogs: Now that gas prices are abating will Americans revert to their guzzling ways. Or put another way: Are we stupid?

Seriously, this is a legitimate question. Look at our history. Our memory of tough energy times in the 1970s was short. The next decade brought a celebration of consumption, and stagnation on the green energy front.

The current economic freeze may temporarily cloud any clear verdict on our behavior this go-round. Consider the person with the gas-guzzling vehicle that they’d like to unload. They may be unable to buy a new gas-sipper and take on debt. Even someone who can afford to make a change may be holding out for a better built hybrid, those clean diesels coming our way or the all-electric cars we keep hearing will be here in 2010. (Here’s betting GM dearly wishes it was a year closer on its Volt.)

But should $2.50 a gallon gasoline cause us to waver in kicking our oil addiction, we may have a less co-dependent government this time.  Politicians of both parties support clean energy initiatives, and both presidential contenders have proposed tax incentives for people buying fuel efficient cars. These incentives mimic those already in place for hybrid cars, but also go beyond to include other types of eco-friendly vehicles.

A $5,000 to $7,000 tax credit for hybrids should cause many potential buyers to fall in love, or at least like, with new eco-cars, especially now that the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic hybrids have proven the technology works.

To find out more, check out The Pew Center on Global Climate Change website which has posted a thorough and nonpartisan voter’s guide. It details Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s energy proposals pertaining to transportation.

This guide comes late for some of us who’ve already voted. But it has value even past the election for people who want to learn how government hopes to nudge both car buyers and automakers down the green highway.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media