Free market dogma is easily summarized: the market is always more efficient than government, so government can never do anything (health care, weather forecasts, renewable energy subsidies) as well as the private sector.

As Greenspan famously testified (my emphasis):

I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise.

Now that Greenspan's successor may transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of assets from the country's most sophisticated private-sector investors to the government, Greenspan and the free-market fundamentalists must be really, really concerned about the risk of suboptimal performance.

On March 6th, US Rep Jay Inslee (D-WA) proposed the Clean Energy Buy-Back Act which

would guarantee U.S. producers of clean energy connection to the grid and predetermined rates from utilities for their power.  It is the first ever proposal in Congress that would implement... a performance-based incentive (PBI) policy, also known as a feed-in tariff.

Hmmm...  wherever did I read a proposal to require utilities to guarantee renewable energy producers a minimum price?

Oh yes, maybe it was the Micro Power Producers Act of 2007(pdf), produced by an Energize America Team that I led.

Or maybe it was Why wind needs feed-in tariffs written four days earlier by Jerome?

I do not want to imply Jerome or I influenced Inslee.  Instead, I claim that this bill is stronger and better than Energize America's proposal.

And it was proposed by an influential Representative.

Bush famously laughed off his first years in office (recession, war, terrorist disaster) with the line "I hit the trifecta."  Now, McCain is working on his own trifecta.

Here's the background: last year, a majority of both Houses voted to roll back subsidies for Big Oil and extend and increase them for efficiency, solar, wind and other renewables.  However, the Senate fell one vote short of ending a filibuster.  McCain missed the vote-- the only one to do so-- and never announced how he would have voted.

Earlier this year, the Dems tried again as part of the fiscal stimulus plan.  Again, despite majorities in both Houses the Senate fell one vote short of ending a filibuster.  Again, McCain was the only one to miss the vote.  Again, he never announced how he would have voted.

He was in a ticklish position: alienate his base by voting against oil subsidies, or most of the nation by voting against renewables?

The Dems are now trying for a third time.  Subsidizing solar, wind and efficiency (instead of oil) remains a no-brainer.  But its difficult not to also wonder whether McCain will miss the trifecta.

It’s a broken world.

One Jewish myth says this is literally true.  The sixteenth century Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria taught

that God created the world by forming vessels of light to hold the Divine Light. But as God poured the Light into the vessels, they catastrophically shattered, tumbling down toward the realm of matter. Thus, our world consists of countless shards of the original vessels.

A lot of things in our world remind me of this myth, like secret prisons, the Iraq war, and the state of American health care.  

But learning about biofuels has really driven this home to me.

Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine makes the casethat

"free market" policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

 

These disasters include Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

Today, the financial markets are in turmoil, the housing market is in freefall, the labor market is in trouble.  Over the next year, a lot of us will lose years of savings, much of the equity in our houses, or our jobs.

A lot of us are going to be shocked.

History teaches that this is when the free-marketers will strike.

Remember, they may only have one year to take whatever they can.

The free market is efficient, but it is not subtle.  $90/barrel oil is how the market signals "More oil.  Stat."

But the Saudis and Opec have refused to pump more oil.  Earlier this week, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said "We will raise production when the market justifies it."

Why won't the Saudis pump more oil?  Maybe they realize it will be more valuable in a few years.  Maybe they want to weaken the US.  Maybe they want to strengthen their bargaining position in some behind-the-scenes negotiation.  Maybe they want to set the scene for a large pre-election decrease in the price of oil.

But there's an elephant in the room, which was acknowledged by President Bush on national television on Tuesday.  Maybe they're not pumping more because they can't pump more.

If they [Saudi Arabia] don't have a lot of additional oil to put on the market, it is hard to ask somebody to do something they may not be able to do.

The implications of Bush's statement are astounding and disturbing.

[Promoted from the Diaries - MB]

Rumors are flying that the 2007 Energy Bill will be voted on tomorrow.  59 Senators favor it, meaning we are ONE VOTE away from passing it stopping the GOP filibuster of it.

The GOP strategy this year has been clear:  

Put every possible obstruction in the path of Democratic legislation.  When nothing gets done, blame it all on the leadership.  Say it enough times until everyone starts to echo it, including the press. And then have the chutzpah to say that the American people are fed up with confrontational politics.

We are ONE VOTE away from ending this.

We are ONE VOTE away from giving a huge helping hand to the infant solar and wind industries.

We are ONE VOTE away from joining with the rest of the world in finally doing something about Global Warming.

Wow... I never thought I'd do a "Breaking" diary...

You may recall that the 2007 Energy Bill would repeal subsidies and require utilities to get 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 (Renewable Portfolio Standards or RPS).  Both cause problems for our free-market, can't-do-Republicans.

``I don't think it has a chance because of the tax package and the RPS,'' Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana said yesterday. Vitter says he is ``confident'' the legislation won't get the 60 votes it needs to proceed in the Senate.

15%  No problem for a can-do country like Britain.  Today, they announced plans to get 50% of all electricity from massive offshore wind farms by 2020.

Off-Shore Wind Could Power All U.K. Homes

The U.K. today will unveil plans for building off-shore wind farms that will produce enough electricity by 2020 to power every home in England, according to The Daily Mail.

The contrast between can-do Britain and our can't-do Republicans couldn't be starker.

On Tuesday, I argued that the 2007 Energy Bill is A Test for America... and for DKos.  So how'd we do?

Many of you saw Rep Hall's answer (my emphasis)

Pressure from the online community and Democratic freshmen members who were elected... to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, fight skyrocketing energy prices, and protect the environment helped make this happen.

So we're doing ok... so far.

The Progressive movement and this community are growing stronger.  We are no longer fighting a rear-guard action to defend ANWR, we are taking the offensive to reduce oil subsidies, increase efficiency, expand solar and wind, and budget more money for research.

And the need for these policies keeps going stronger.

The fossil fuel defenders are digging in.  "If it comes over here, we have no alternative but to have war," said Sen Domenici on Tuesday (quoted in VoteSolar email).

We're on the offensive, folks.  Yesterday the House... Tomorrow the Senate.

It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.  -Gandalf

Lucky bastards.  They didn't have to worry about the climate of future generations.

A few weeks ago, I asked Can the Democrats be THAT stupid? about the 2007 Energy Bill.  The overwhelming consensus was that they would be.

We were wrong.

The Democrats are rolling back oil subsidies, extending renewable credits, subsidizing hybrids and electric vehicles, and lots more.  

There may be a filibuster-- or a veto.

The Dems are not backing down.

This is a test for America. Can we still pass reality-based policy?

This is a test for our community.  We criticize Dems when they back down or support silly legislation.  Will we help them now?  

Please set aside the primary wars for a moment.  The outcome of this test will literally shape the weather of those that live after us.

...Rumors start circulating about the final version of the 2007 Energy Bill.  Apparently, it removes subsidies for renewable power and requirements that utilities use renewable power.  

It gives Republicans and utilities essentially all they ask for.  Idea!  All Democrats should only announce plans that Bush and the GOP have been pre-cleared with Bush, the GOP and the utility companies.

It sends tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies to encourage drilling who then pass billions on to their shareholders.  Idea!  Why not just send the check straight to oil company shareholders, and let energy companies compete on the free market?

It mandates a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 (this may include exceptions for American car-makers).  Actually, I don't think the physical reality of shrinking oil supplies will permit 2020 fleet averages to be less than 35 mpg.  Idea!  Why not legally require cars to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics?  (They can add an exception for American cars if Dingel insists.)

It seems the Democratic leadership is in a bit of a bind.

If the world can not decarbonize its energy sources soon, terrible consequences will follow.  According to the Nobel-prize-winning IPCC, a billion additional people will face water shortages, and hundreds of millions may starve or contract awful diseases.  

On the other hand, if the Democrats do take steps to support development of no- and low-carbon energy (which, incidentally, are overwhelmingly popular), then the Republicans could filibuster.

So, as I'm sure you'll understand, great perils lie in both directions.

You do understand that, right?

On Monday we asked, Can the Democrats be THAT stupid? about whether the Democrats would remove wind and solar subsidies from the energy bill.  We'll know soon.. they're trying to make up their minds.

Let me repeat: The Democrats are trying to decide whether or not to remove all subsidies and support for renewable energy from the 2007 Energy Bill.  By contrast, subsidies for nuclear energy, below-market rate leases for oil and natural gas, and subsidies for coal all look safe.

This is stunning.  Solar and wind are very popular (unlike oil companies).  They are infant industries crucial to decarbonizing and reducing risk to over a billion lives.  They are also crucial to American competitiveness.

Its an old story...the "60 vote requirement"... the wavering moderate GOP Senators... leadership that refuses to make the GOP actually filibuster an unpopular position... the unmet medical need for spinal transplants.

But this one is still up in the air.  Our counterpressure might still prevent them from caving.  Here's how..

There's recently been lots of depressing news about Global Warming.  The northern ice cap is melting faster than scientists predicted, emissions are growing faster than anyone expected, American policy may take a huge step backwards.  Hundreds of millions may die and half of all species may vanish.

But this diary makes the case for optimism about Global Warming.

I don’t dispute anything mentioned above, and this diary is not snark.  I'm not a Denier, and I won’t tell you about the benefits of reducing hypothermia deaths or the Greening of the Sahara.

Rather, I'm going to argue that Global Warming is a solvable problem.  Then I’ll tell you how we might solve it.

The nightmarish visions of a warmed world are just that-- visions.  They may never be.  We can still prevent them-- if we adopt an attitude of pragmatic, can-do optimism, and embrace the willingness to experiment and solve problems for which Americans were once known round the world-- and may yet be again.

The problem:  According to the IPCC, Climate Change threatens the water supply of over a billion (with a b) people, and the food supply of 250 million.  Of course emissions are growing much faster than the IPCC's worst case scenario, and reality is running ahead of their predictions.

Solution in a rational world:  Crash program to replace carbon-intensive energy with low- or no-carbon energy (solar, wind, etc).

Best solution we could reasonably hope for given our screwed up system:  Stop all subsidies to carbon-intensive energy sources.  Massively increase subsidies to solar, wind, etc.

Rumored Solution of Democratic Leadership:  Remove all subsidies for solar and wind.  (Of course, keep massive subsidies for oil, coal and nuclear energy.)

No, no, they can't be that stupid... right?  right?

The world's climate experts have long been making some very dire predictions about Global Warming.  Because they are predictions, they rely very heavily on computer models.

Many people-- especially conservatives-- warned about this.  They pointed out that models are prone to many errors, and the scientific consensus is not always right.

Other people chose to rely on the scientific consensus.  Honesty compels me to admit that I was in this group.  We didn't think think the consensus was the last word, but we did believe it was the best window to the future a non-specialist could look through.

So this part really hurts me to write.  But I have to.

The data testing key parts of the global warming consensus are now available.

The consensus of climate experts were wrong.  Absolutely, verifiably wrong.  The computer models were wrong.  They simply do not match reality.

There's recently been a lot of bad news about climate change.

But we must not despair; solutions to our problems unquestionably exist.  The sun provides us daily with enormous amounts of energy.  Harnessing 1% of 1% of that energy (either directly, or by harnessing the winds or waves it powers), would power all of civilization.

This diary is nominally about a solution (Flying Electric Generators, or FEGs) which have the potential to supply clean, renewable electricity to the entire world.  But I write it to provide an example of how the ideals of the enlightenment-- curiosity, rational approach to problem-solving, pragmatism, enlightened debate—may help solve our problems.

Briefly, most of the wind is in the sky, so why not build the wind farms up there?  Flying robotic wind turbines will use a small part of the power the generate to stay aloft by running their horizontal turbines like helicopter blades, and send the rest down through their tethers.

High level winds are highly reliable, and harvesting 1% of the Jet Stream's power could supply us with all the power we use now.

The best part?  Flying windfarms could be reality within five years, producing power more cheaply than coal.

The 50 state strategy includes blue states, too.

Been helping out with Jamie Eldridge's congressional campaign recently.  (MA-05 special election to replace retiring Marty Meehan.)  The "Democratic Primary" (Mass-speak for "general election") is this Tuesday 9/4.  Campaign reminds me a lot of two campaigns I volunteered for in '06: Lamont primary and Shea-Porter (NH-01).  I'll tell you about Shea-Porter in a few, but here's why it reminds me of Lamont '06.

Like Lamont, Eldridge is a true-blue progressive running in a primary.  He's the only candidate in the race who: 1) supports single-payer universal health care 2) has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, 3) supports a moratorium on new coal plants.  He also supports GBLT marriage equality, wants to strengthen unions and to roll back the Bush tax cuts, wants to defend Social Security and Medicare.

Eldridge is running a people-powered campaign and has actively engaged the netroots.  He's a lot better than any of the other candidates, and is exhibiting precisely the kind of behavior we want to reward.

And now its crunch time, and he needs our help.  

But since its a primary, I want to say a few things right off the bat: