Economic woes remedied by green technology

Representatives from leading renewable technology companies and small businesses appeared before the House Small Business Committee to discuss the role of green technologies in spurring economic growth, particularly for small firms that are developing and using green, renewable practices.

Gregory Wetstone, senior director of government and public affairs for the American Wind Energy Association stated that nearly 35% of the nation’s new electrical capacity in 2007 came from wind energy, and the numbers are growing. Wetstone also said that America provides one of the best opportunities to harness wind energy. In addition, he said that turbine production plants help the economy by relying on nearly 400 sub-suppliers, many of which are small businesses.

Speaking on behalf of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contrators Association, Kevin Tindall stated that if only one in 10 homes installed water-efficient fixtures it could save more than 300 billion gallons of water and save nearly $2 billion annually in energy costs. Upgrading to these technologies also creates a strong demand for employees that are knowledgeable about energy-efficient products and necessary education programs.

However, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa) expressed concern over the cost of green technology. Andrea Lucke, vice president of sales and design for Robert Lucke Homes in Ohio stated that the average buyer stays in their home for only 7 years. This is not long enough to make the purchase of green technologies like solar panels feasible for homeowners. Members of the panel urged the committee to increase and continue federal incentive programs for such technology to combat this issue.

Congressman Baird urges Americans to go green

Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) held a press conference to encourage Americans to spend the money they receive from President Bush’s stimulus package on “green” products in order to both help the environment and boost the sagging economy.



Baird discussed how Americans have to spend the money “being put in our pockets” responsibly, and by improving our environment we could in turn better the future of our country. He cited his urging Congress to pass the bipartisan resolution H. Res. 987 as a start to begin convincing citizens to support his “Buy Green to Save Green” legislation.



Baird mentioned that although legislation to “go green” has been slow to implement, individual efforts to improve the environment have been successful. At the press conference, representatives from Lowes Hardware, Sears, and Home Depot spoke about how their companies have made efforts to increase the sales of environmentally friendly products by offering consumers discounts on such goods.

Senators spar over listing polar bears as endangered

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing to investigate the delay on listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species Act. Also present were ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Sen. John Barraso (R-WY). Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne was invited, but sent a letter to the committee declining to appear because he is a named defendant in a court case on the subject of the delayed listing.

Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) made a strong opening statement saying that the Bush administration has not followed the law by delaying the listing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. "The Bush administration does not have the right or the discretion to not carry out the law," she said. She said that the Bush administration was foot dragging on this listing while at the same time authorizing new oil and gas drilling in the Chukchi Sea where 20 percent of the world's polar bears live.

Boxer and her Republican colleagues had a bit of a back-and-forth before the witnesses were able to testify. Both quoting from the Bible, Boxer and Inhofe sparred over the concept of protecting "God's creation" Inhofe quoted Romans saying that false gods should not be made out of creation to be praised over the creator. Boxer responded, "You're correct, liars should not be praised."



Two out of the three witnesses testified that the administration has delayed and held up litigation about listing the polar bear. Dr. Douglas Inkley, senior scientist for the National Wildlife Federation testified that global warming is indeed negatively affecting polar bears and that his research indicates that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by 2050 due to ice loss caused by global warming trends.

William Horn, a lobbyist who lobbied Congress in the 80s to open parts of Alaska for drilling testified that listing polar bears as endangered opens up a "Pandora's box" of other unwarranted listings and that putting the polar bear on the list would make the Endangered Species Act into a "regulatory monster" which would negatively affect U.S. energy-sector business development. Horn emphasized that the fact that polar bear endangerment could be foreseen for the future does not merit an endangered listing now, saying that he viewed the species as healthy

Kassie Siegel from the Center for Biological Diversity said that the administration has rushed to allow oil and natural gas development in areas of polar bear habitat, but only delay on the listing of polar bears as an endangered species. Siegel said that the listing was intentionally delayed in order to facilitate the sale of parts of the Chukchi Sea for new oil and gas development, another threat to polar bears and their habitat.

Supreme Court today: Exxon v. Baker

There was one ruling, announced by Justice Kennedy. The question was whether plaintiffs could file an age discrimination suit against Federal Express even though they did not go through the normal EEOC complaint process first. The Court deferred to the EEOC's interpretation of its rules and found that the filings to the EEOC, though not the complete normal process, were a "complaint," so the suit can go forward. Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented.

The case today was Exxon v. Baker. Justice Alito has recused himself, likely because he is an Exxon-Mobil stockholder. The question is whether maritime law allows punitive damages against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and if so whether there's a limit to how large they can be. There is no clear, recent precedent on the issue, so the Court is looking at rulings from 200 years ago in cases that aren't directly comparable. Exxon is arguing that the captain of a ship cannot make company policy and is therefore independent enough that the company should not be held liable for his actions violating their policy; these concerns are the grounding for the precedents. Additionally, Exxon argued that punitive damages are unneeded in a case where the action was not intentional and did not benefit the company in any way. Baker argues that nothing has changed since the spill, indicating Exxon does need incentive to make sure it doesn't happen again. Baker also argues that the captain is in charge of a "business unit" of Exxon and therefore is high enough in the company that the company should be liable for his actions. Most states follow a "managerial agent" standard for determining when a company should be held liable in cases like this, and Exxon does not contest that the captain is a managerial agent; instead they argue that the rules are different in the maritime context. Justice Souter suggested the distinction may have been relevant when ship captains were out of touch with land for long periods and captains had to act independently, but the distinction may no longer make sense. On the size of the award, Exxon argues the Clean Water Act's limit of double the compensatory damages should be considered, but Baker points out the CWA considers economic harms to people rather than environmental harms.

All of the Justices seemed unsure of the strength of precedent in this case, so I do not feel comfortable predicting how any of the Justices will vote.

[Disclosure: the author is an Exxon-Mobil stockholder.]