Have you noted Dominion Power's early morning announcement today on a new grant to Virginia Tech to research carbon sequestration?

At first glance, it seems like just a feel-good (albeit thin) press release. But then ? in 30 years of doing PR, I cannot remember ever seeking to put out a positive announcement on a Saturday.

Was it because they wanted to avoid any scrutiny? After all, there are plenty of credible experts available ? maybe not on a weekend ? who will tell reporters that CO2 sequestration is becoming a discredited pipedream. It's an idea in search of a technology looking for a practical application that may never come. But it is a good way for Dominion Power to say: "Leave us alone already. See, we can spell climate change."

Then again, maybe the real purpose of the release wasn't for the news media at all. Maybe it was intended for emailing and faxing  ? some 70 hours before the polls open ? to candidates who are growing increasingly uncomfortable with Dominion's  intransigence on environmental issues.

We blog about this on our website today. www.VirginiasCommitment.org

both Republicans and Democrats with money.  They don't need a TV ad to convince any politician.  Dominion wrote the Electric Utility Restructuring Act (or deregulation) and then they wrote the re-regulation bill that passed this last session.  Was there a great deal of opposition from either party?  Nope.

What would the energy, land use, and other environmental bills that they enact look like?  Are you thinking baby steps or giant leaps?  In cutting VA's emissions by 80%, what would need to be done?  And I assume you are talking about an 80% reduction in 2007 emissions or what is the base year? 

Just taking the 80% alone, I am thinking you are talking about major initiatives.  Because we would immediately have to start offsetting the population and economic growth of the state.  So, I'm interested in hearing what you envision as that legislative agenda.

You can get to 80% mostly through efficiency and renewable energy.  But we as Virginians (and Americans) have refused to do that yet because our government has subsidized the externalities (for exapmle, your power bill doesn't reflect the health costs of kids who get asthma from the coal pollution).  And under our current system, it's not in Dominion's best interests to promote efficiency - the more power they sell, the higher their profit is.

this:

Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.

[...]

The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.

Actually, change that last sentence to "currently priced around $95 per barrel."  If CSP was competitive then, it's REALLY competitive now!

I never said that you need to stop population or economic growth.  But it is a fact that more people and more economic activity require more power.  You can reduce per capita consumption of electricity.  But if you keep adding people, then demand will still grow.  Unless you manage to so dramatically decrease per capita consumption that it offsets growth in population and economic activity.

I really asked what you thought a Democratic majority in Virginia would do.  The Scientific American article you reference mentions several things.  But ultimately what is the General Assembly going to do to effect those changes.  On the electric consumption improvements, do you think the GA would mandate changes or provide incentives?  And if they are incentives are we talking paltry incentives or big incentives?  And if we are talking big incentives where are you going to get the tax revenue to fund those big incentives?  And if you are talking tax increases, where will the willpower to raise taxes come from?  And if additional tax revenues are going to fund energy efficiency improvements and not to fix traffic congestion in the state's major metropolitan areas, how are voters going to feel?

On fuel efficiency, what is the GA going to do to transition personal vehicles and trucking fleets to more fuel efficient ones? 

On renewable energy, what is the state going to do here?  Your up again against cost and one very powerful player: Dominion.  Also, you are up against the coal interests of the state.

To reiterate, my question is what do you think that a Democratic majority in Virginia will do?  How much of a difference are we talking about?  And do you really think that they will enact legislation to reduce VA's carbon emissions by 80% by 2050?

I vote for Democrats and Republicans so I disagree with you about a vote for the GOP is a vote for regressive environmental leadership.  May I refresh your memory, under the leadership of Democratic Chair and Board majority, they have voted for every land use application regardless of the impact on the roads, environment, schools, etc.  Just take for example, Vienna Metro West.  Connolly and Smyth pushed the application across the finish line despite the objections of hundreds of good Democrats who care about the environment.  While Connolly and Smyth praised the project as being the best thing since slice bread, they approved the clear cutting of 4 acres of trees, praving over open space, claiming a tot lot as open space, and projecting that 45% of the residents will take Metro.  Since when does one basketball goal count as meeting the recreational needs of the expected 5,000 new residents?  I sure hope the folks who spent hundreds of hours attending hearings, writing letters, and testifying, remember that Connolly was not their friend.  Sorry you are stuck with Smyth despite all the hard work that RaisingKaine put into helping Charlie Hall.  It is time for a change, beginning at the top.

who is strongly pro-environment, and please explain why they are, exactly.  IF you can name one, name a few more.  I can name DOZENS of pro-environment Democrats, but no Republicans spring to mind. What Miles wrote is almost an absolute rule, with a few exceptions like Lincoln Chafee.

But if you look at Virginia's League of Conservation Voters 2007 scorecard  there are several Republicans who have lifetime scores above 50% and in the 2007 session a whole lot above that number.  Even on the national level there is a good handful.

The cause of environmentalism should transcend partisan politics.  To the extent that we make it partisan, it is as fragile as the majority that a particular party holds.  Majorities come and go, but to the extent we can permeate the issue across party lines, then you have a lasting majority on this issue.  And I think that is easy enough, it is just understanding and addressing the concerns of different constituencies.