I do my best to keep track of—and post on this bulletin—headlines that resonate with the energy zeitgeist (if there is such a thing). Readers then tell me with their clicks which of those headlines most impress them (see our most popular articles list to the right). It’s worth taking a closer look at these, and the bigger stories behind them. Here goes:
1.) From National Journal, we hear that the recently-released Obama budget seeks to expand clean-energy programs by spending more of the Pentagon’s money on them, as opposed to using money from the Department of Energy, which has taken political damage from the right. This story is low on specifics—the author admits that “details are thin on the ground”—but the general strategy makes sense. Reducing overal fuel costs by using “hybrid-engine tanks and air craft carriers,” would obviously be to the military’s wartime advantage. And unlike with clean energy spending in the civilian world, Republicans don’t really stand in the way. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham explained to NJ how this type of spending is different than anything that could end up like Solyndra (emphasis mine):
“We’re not talking about putting $500 million into a goofy idea. We’re talking about taking applications of technologies that work and expanding them. I wouldn’t be for DOD having a bunch of money to play around with renewable technologies that have no hope. But from what I understand, there are renewables out there that already work.”
Uh huh.
2.) What’s up with the Heartland Institute leaks? The facts, as far as we know, are as follows: several documents, seemingly from the Institue, have fallen into the hands of the press. The documents portray a political strategy meant to undermine climate science. The Institute, which describes itself as a “free-market think tank,” claims at least one of these documents is fake. But it’s at a loss for words regarding the others, which among other things indicate that the group pays $300,000 per year to famous climate skeptics and is paying $100,000 to design a grade school curriculum that emphasizes disagreements over climate science. Whether or not the documents are real, the AP’s Seth Borenstein verified these two facts and several others contained in the leaks.
We’ll have to continue to watch to see everything that eventually shakes out.
UPDATE: This guy admits to using someone else’s name to get several of the documents in question, and then releasing them to journalists.