Energy & Environment

Earlier this month, I took a tour of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, located on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. A two-unit, 1700-megawatt power plant, Calvert Cliffs generates about one-fifth of the power needs for the entire state of Maryland, or equivalent to the electricity demand for the city of Baltimore. We saw the generators, peaked into the control room, viewed video of the spent fuel pools, and discussed some of the safety features needed to keep the plant safe.

American ingenuity and technological advances have unlocked a vast supply of domestic natural gas, more than enough to meet the needs of our country for generations to come. The economy and the environment are already benefitting from this affordable and abundant supply of clean-burning fuel, including the lowest CO2 emissions levels since the mid-1990s and a cost savings of more than $560 million per day for consumers and businesses. According to a study by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, domestic natural gas production has actually helped prevent us from falling into another recession.
 
But what if we could continue to enjoy these benefits while also creating more jobs and more economic growth?

270 minutes. That's how long the leading candidates for president and vice president have stood on stage in front of the American people without mentioning a challenge as big as the national debt, education, health care, and national security: climate change.

It's not that they haven't had plenty of opportunities.

Over the past year, we’ve heard a lot about the Obama Administration’s ‘War on Coal’. The White House has been quick to dismiss the notion, pointing to their “all-of-the-above” energy policy. They’ve attributed the demise of coal-fired power in part to the record-low prices of natural gas. While most agree that the coal industry has faced challenges, especially under current economic conditions, the argument that people are shutting down coal power plants because gas is cheaper just doesn’t hold water.
 
Why? Coal is by far the cheapest source of electricity. So if cost isn’t the reason, what is?

It’s no surprise that at this time of great decision, the nation is sharply divided on our current energy path. But while the nation disagrees on the details, it is wholeheartedly united in the desire for political leaders to guide us toward a solution. And I see that as very encouraging.
 
I also see that as a clear mandate for whoever is in office next.
 
These observations are supported by results from “2012 Energy Habits, Awareness & Perceptions,” a national survey recently conducted by Harris Interactive and funded by the Propane Education & Research Council (PERC) to gauge the current public opinion about domestic energy and green living practices. Some of the most interesting findings were on the subject of domestic energy:

The Clean Water Act is 40 years old today and the nation should celebrate the accomplishments of this landmark legislation.

As we near the end of 2012, we can look back and say we’ve made remarkable progress on cleaning up the nation’s waters.

Forty years ago, people were afraid to swim or fish in our waters, our lakes and our rivers. And quite frankly, we didn’t have the resources to address the issue.

This election season, the Sierra Club has rolled out a campaign called “Toxic Money, Toxic Votes” that identifies six Republicans it claims are “toxic candidates” who allow oil and coal money to influence their votes.

Despite the proverbial chicken and egg problem in trying to prove cause and effect with political donations, this campaign might not be so bad if the Sierra Club had actually targeted candidates who are well known to be close allies of oil and coal. It didn’t. The organization had entirely different criteria. All six of the Republicans it targets are battling in tight campaigns listed in the Cook Political Report as “toss-up” races against Democrats.

Access to critical minerals and metals is vital to America’s militarystrength and economic health. As we move further forward into the technology age, we need a range of non-fuel minerals – from antimony to zinc – for defense technologies that protect the homeland and project American power abroad. These same minerals and metals underpin our manufacturing sector too, and the cost of raw materials impacts everything from productivity and innovation to economic growth and job creation.

Without smarter policies that increase access to resources under our own soil, America will continue to depend heavily on China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and other countries that don’t have our interests at heart.

In his recent post, Biotechnology Industry Organization’s president and CEO James Greenwood brashly minimizes important and ongoing  concerns of many Americans when claiming that because the drought is subsiding, those calling for adjustments to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are merely “not allowing this crisis to go to waste.” In reality, the RFS is monopolizing 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop for use as ethanol, inflating food prices and damaging the environment.

As Election Day approaches, issues such as new energy production, energy jobs, and state economic recovery are figuring high in people’s minds and could well influence how people vote in November. If President Obama is returned to office, what can America expect regarding the Administration’s energy policies in a second term?