Just a quick run-down of the commitments that Senator Obama just made at CGI:

• Climate - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through a cap and trade system and a $50 million a year investment (over 10 years) in alternative energy. He also gave a shout-out for biofuels.
• Poverty - Embrace the MDGs by increasing our foreign assistance and focusing it on the "right priorities."
• Education - Erase the primary education gap by 2015, partially by creating a $2 billion global education fund.
• Global Health - End deaths from malaria by 2015, partially by helping to provide 730 million bed nets, training medical professionals in the developing world and giving them incentives to stay, and investing in malaria drugs.

Suzlon Green Power, one of the top five producers of wind turbines worldwide, just announced the biggest commitment (dollar-wise) of CGI. Suzlon has committed to bring 3,500 megawatts of electricity to nearly 10 million people, primarily in India and China, over five years. The projected cost of the project is $5 billion, and Suzlon will contribute $1.5 billion in equity. The increase in capacity represents roughly a third of the current capacity of GE, the current world leader.

Suzlon estimates that the these projects will cut 7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, roughly the equivalent of what 350,000 Americans consume -- nothing to sneeze at.

VP nominee Sarah Palin delivered the keynote speech tonight, and the majority of the the substantive section focused on energy policy. (Transcript from the RNC below.)

The gist: The U.S. needs energy independence from "dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart," like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, as well as terrorists in Saudi Arabia. I know that drilling won't solve the problem, but it is a good step in the right direction. To truly solve the problem America also needs to foster nuclear power, clean coal, and renewables.

Though I'm not sure the drilling is truly helpful in the short term, the rest of her strategy is on point (although admittedly vague).

Two quick points:

1. This sentence doesn't work: "With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers"...unless the antecedent of "ourselves" is "the U.S. and our allies," which doesn't seem to be what she intends in this instance. Russia's control of oil flow to Europe is a strategic issue for the U.S., but it has little to do with America's dependence on foreign oil.
2. She says, "But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all," presumably to imply that Obama's energy policy is nothing at all. In fact, it is remarkably similar to what Obama suggested in his acceptance speech. The U.S. is lucky to have so many potential leaders committed to robust reform of its energy policies.

The full section:

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.

I'm sitting in on a very enjoyable panel on Climate Change and Energy Security hosted by Reid Detchon from the UN Foundation and featuring J. Michael Davis, former Assistant Secretary of Energy under Bush 41; Robert McFarlane, former National Security Advisor to President Reagan; George Pataki; and R. James Woolsey, former CIA director under Clinton.

Piece of advice, if you get a chance to catch a panel hosted by Detchon (excellent dry wit) or featuring the others, particularly Woolsey or Davis, you should.

My battery's dying, so I'll have to upload some more thoughts later, but the first thing that struck me was how the ideas of those on the panel very closely match what I have heard being said about or by Obama recently.

Both Davis and Pataki mentioned right off the bat that we must rely on markets, but that those markets, because they are imperfect, must be tweaked by the government. This tacks closely to this New York Times magazine article on Obama's economic philosophy. Granted, this is not, at all, a rarely held opinion, but it is interesting that the even the phrasing is very similar.

Second, despite the fact that the panel's focus is "climate change and energy security," the most often used phrased early on is "decreasing dependence on foreign oil," which loyal UN Dispatch readers will remember was a central pillar of Obama's acceptance speech.

*Update - Reid Detchon pointed out to me that Obama's speech referenced independence from "Middle East" oil not "foreign" oil, something that I should have caught. Dependence from Middle East oil (roughly 20% of U.S. consumption) is a pretty weak measure and not nearly enough.

I just want to highlight the fact that Obama said this last night:

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

The desire to truly repeat Kennedy's call to reach the Moon within a decade has long been a dream of politicians, actual and fictional.

The end goal, in this case, is undeniably admirable (and politically savvy). It is somewhat broader than Gore's call for clean electricity within the decade and more clearly beneficial to our economy and foreign policy than Bush's call to reach Mars. As Obama says, it is securely at the nexus of economic, foreign policy, and environmental concerns. (I would also add humanitarian.) I'm sure I don't need to rehash to this audience why such an action helps us reach major goals in each of these areas.

Only time will tell whether Obama will be able to do so. It is a major challenge. As Governor Schweitzer so entertainingly laid out on Tuesday, we currently consume 25 percent of the world's oil output and only 3 percent of the reserves.

His strategy?

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

The $150 billion is a good start. Hopefully, in the near future, we'll see more details.

Yes, Hillary's was well done too, but I'm talking about Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. That guy knows how to work a crowd.

It's worth the watch if for only that reason, but he also delivered what has, to this point, been the Convention's most robust prime-time argument for a new direction in energy policy.

"America consumes 25 percent of the oil, but has less than 3 percent of the reserves. You don't need a $2 calculator to figure that one out. There just isn't enough oil in America -- on land or offshore -- to meet America's full energy needs. Barack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one you don't use."

Kudos to Schweitzer for clearly recognizing the importance of efficiency and energy independence.

His support for "clean coal" is misguided, but, all in all, Schweitzer delivered a message that must be heard in prime time.

Center for American Progress President John Podesta and UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth write a joint op-ed in the Denver Post today on the promise and challenge of remaking the energy economy through smart public policy.

The technologies we need to begin this economic transformation already exist today, and the dollars will flow if we just change the rules of the energy game, rules that have favored the old ways of doing business with tax breaks, regulatory incentives, and lip service to alternatives, and stop using the atmosphere as a garbage dump for our emissions. As a first step, we must cap our emissions and put a price on carbon. The investments that will result from this decision will be a powerful stimulus for economic growth, competitive advantage, and new jobs -- good jobs in manufacturing, installation, and research, entry-level jobs and high-wage jobs alike.

[snip]

The Democratic Party platform recognizes the energy opportunity in its section on "Investing in American Competitiveness" -- but it does not go far enough. The size and urgency of this task require a president willing to make it the top domestic priority in the White House -- not pigeonholed as an energy initiative or environmental initiative or even as a security initiative, but made the centerpiece of his economic agenda. Indeed, it will demand that the president refocus the mission and responsibility of all relevant government agencies and convene them in a new National Energy Council in the White House.

The success of this year's candidates and next year's elected leaders will rise and fall on how they address the energy issue. Those who convey the scale and scope -- and opportunity -- of transforming our energy economy will succeed.

Steve Clemons tries to cut through the smog surrounding the domestic debate on oil prices:

This debate over oil and energy policy disgusts me because both Obama and McCain are trying to force short term, knee jerk responses to a major policy challenge for the nation.

To get the price of oil down, candidates should work harder at thinking through what the characteristics of a new equilibrium in the Middle East and globally might look like. What kind of deal can be done with Iran that preserves Israeli security, Iran's domestic energy interests, and does not leave Iran with a domestic capacity to covertly manufacture nuclear weapons? There's much that can be done.

Elizabeth Kolbert agrees in The New Yorker with the futility of the short term strategy:

A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, "because oil prices are determined on the international market," the impact on fuel costs would be "insignificant."

Of course Kolbert also believe that decreasing the price of oil at this point wouldn't be a positive thing:

If the hard truth is that the federal government can't do much to lower gas prices, the really hard truth is that it shouldn't try to. With just five per cent of the world's population, America accounts for twenty-five per cent of its oil use. This disproportionate consumption is one of the main reasons that the United States--until this year, when China overtook it--was the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Regardless of where you stand on her latter argument, it's pretty difficult to argue that the candidates shouldn't be focusing on longer-term strategies, if for no other reason than "a new equilibrium in the Middle East and globally" sounds like a pretty good thing.

This morning Kate Sheppard posted a great succinct analysis on what the U.S. Congress may do on energy legislation before recess:

The "biggest opportunity" to pass energy legislation, Bingaman said, is the tax-credit extensions for renewable energy that have stalled repeatedly in the Senate, despite passing in the House on multiple occasions. GOP senators haven't liked the Democrats' proposals to pay for the tax credits by closing what Democrats consider to be tax loopholes for business, but moderate Democrats have insisted that so-called "pay-fors" are necessary to prevent the bill from adding to the budget deficit.

A new compromise version of the bill, proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would pay for the extension of tax credits by setting limits on the ability of hedge-fund managers to defer taxes on their income held offshore and by putting off until 2019 a tax credit for multinational corporations. Baucus also added a number of unrelated provisions meant to make the bill more attractive to Republicans. It's unclear how many Republicans might be willing to back Baucus' proposal.

Renewable-energy companies have been howling that failure to extend the tax credits is crippling them.

Kate's got it right, particularly the last line. Boom/bust cycles in the tax code have been truly damaging to the renewables sector and are one of the reasons why the U.S. lags behind its European counterparts and why most of these companies are headquartered abroad.

In general, uncertain and erratic policies increase the cost of capital, meaning that one must pay a higher rate to equity providers or lenders if one cannot count on supportive policies in cash flow projections. In a burgeoning and nascent industry, like the renewable energy industry, which works on tight margins, it can be devastating. For example, in 2001 and 2002, a two-month gap between the expiration and renewal of these vital credits resulted in a four-fold decline in new wind capacity.

The consequences of a failure to act now by the Congress could be even worse, possibly sparking the loss of more than than 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in investment in 2009 in the solar and wind energy industries alone. Conversely, passing all of these tax provisions soon will help to prevent the cancellation of 42,000 MW of planned renewable energy projects in development today in 45 states -- an amount equivalent to 75 baseload electric power stations.

It seems like everyone these days is talking about energy. On the Hill, politicians are literally yelling about it, with a natural emphasis on prices at the gas pump. Some propose increasing oil supply as the solution to energy woes, while others see this as an opportunity to speed up the shift to a new energy economy. Of all those clamoring to get their ideas heard, I put my stock in Nobuo Tanaka of the International Energy Agency, who says that the world needs a $45 trillion energy revolution.

Like I said, Mr. Tanaka works for the IEA, and if one takes the time to look at some of the IEA's long-term projections for the world energy outlook based on the status quo, it is not a pretty picture. The predictions show massive growth in world energy needs, along with reductions in security of supply. Perpetuation of fossil fuel reliance leads to problems in world supply, which means even higher prices, drastically reduced energy security, and a scenario that makes a more peaceful world difficult to imagine. All the dire effects of global warming aside, long-term reliance on fossil fuels, no matter what your political affiliation, spells disaster.

Many, especially in the United States, are focused on the idea of increasing supply to ease costs, and while this may or may not be effective in the short-term, it seems that at best it ultimately delays the inevitable while ignoring the other side of the economic equation. Reducing demand seems a much more sustainable, long-term approach.

Beginning an energy revolution now sounds all the more appealing given these dire predictions, since it looks like the options are either peaceful energy revolution now, or violent energy revolution later.

Commenting on the rush to blame biofuels for the global food crisis, the UN's Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes has warned against "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." His ideas were echoed by Lennart Baage of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, who said, "It is important not to go to extremes."

In fact, there are a number of experts trying to dispel the myth that biofuels are the sole or primary force behind the unfolding global food crisis. As I have discussed previously on UN Dispatch, the processes that have caused the spike in food prices are numerous and complex (including increased demand, rising oil prices, the weak dollar, commodity speculation, trade distortions), and policymakers should avoid making a scapegoat out of biofuels simply because it is politically expedient.

The truth is that sound policy toward biofuels can be extremely beneficial for the developing world. Nobody has said that the shift to biofuels from fossil fuels has been perfectly executed, but you would be hard pressed to find an energy expert who says that the situation presented by fossil fuel reliance is a sustainable path. The initial move toward biofuels offers developing countries an opportunity to develop natural resources and infrastructure that will help lead away from oil addiction, with the significant environmental, economic and security benefits that implies. Policymakers have already learned many lessons about the "smart" and "dumb" ways to manage the production and sale of plant-based fuel, and with this experience leaders will be all the more prepared to deploy the next generation of biofuels (made from non-food plants and agricultural waste products), which will be even further dissociated with the limitations of the current generation.

John Holmes and Lennart Baage are right, managing food and energy requires a longer-term perspective and casting blame is counterproductive. The food crisis should be approached as a whole and responses must be measured. Thankfully, the UN is prepared to take a cautious approach, so at least on the international level, it seems unlikely that the world will throw the biofuels out with the bathwater.

Current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has initiated immediate and sweeping responses to prevent dire impacts from rapidly escalating food prices. And former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is stressing the importance of long-term investment in agriculture, as part of a drive toward a second "green revolution" in Africa. He estimates that food production on the continent could be doubled or tripled through such a change. Unfortunately, this is made difficult as a result of such factors as drought and lack of property rights for farmers in many African countries. If these problems can be overcome, however, the African continent could quickly move simultaneously toward growing its own food and securing its economic, energy and environmental future.

As food prices continue to rise, various theories have emerged as to the underlying forces driving prices higher. BBC News reported today on the growing debate about the role biofuels might play, and highlighted a vigorous rebuttal from the President of Brazil.

Brazil, in particular finds itself defending the biofuels industry at a conference of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Brasilia. Both Brazil and the U.S. are heavily invested in the production of corn and sugar-cane-based fuels, with Brazil being the world's largest exporter. BBC News reported Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's comments:

"Biofuels aren't the villain that threatens food security," said President Lula.

"On the contrary... they can pull countries out of energy dependency without affecting foods."

He said that rises in food prices came because people in developing countries like China, India and Brazil itself are eating higher up the food chain--shifting from grain to meat--as economic conditions in those countries improved.

An interesting argument. Could there be a connection between rising obesity levels and rising food prices? It's something to think about, and it's another reason to follow through with that diet you've been thinking of doing. We already know that our food consumption habits affect far more than our dating prospects.

So Brazil says it's simply a supply and demand situation, others note that agriculture is highly dependent on petroleum and that skyrocketing oil prices are a primary cause of food price increase. And as I continue to read these kinds of stories, as well as OECD reports that weigh the pros and cons of biofuels, it is apparent that there is no single cause or villain, and that we haven't seen the last of the debate.

Today the New York Times, and quite a few other papers, picked up on reports published yesterday in Science that suggest "almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels." The Times did sneak "today" into that first sentence, but, all in all, the coverage took an incredibly short view on renewable fuels.

Judging renewable fuels on a snapshot of what they're capable of now is like judging aviation based on the Wright brothers' flyer. Within 65 years, we'd broken the sound barrier and landed on the moon. In the last five years alone, we've been able to increase switchgrass yields by 50 percent. Everyday, less and less land can be used for more and more fuel, promising to reduce the carbon footprint dramatically. In less than a decade, it is highly likely that converting that grass to fuel will become economically viable and therefore widespread. Similar technology could be used to produce fuel from waste like yard clippings, brush, animal fats, scrap paper, algae, and sawdust -- all of which requires no additional land use. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Up to this point minimal resources have been devoted to research. Unfortunately, narrowly crafted coverage of scientific articles threatens to keep it that way by not giving the public the complete story on renewable fuels, which endangers the political consensus necessary to maintain and increase funding to innovative technologies.

In addition, the future promises the ability to better use abandoned agricultural land to grow fuel crops, which a second study published in Science yesterday (and not covered in the Times) has said would offer "immediate and sustained [greenhouse gas] advantages."

The simple matter is that second generation renewable fuels, along with increased efficiency, better urban planning and increased mass transit, hold tremendous promise for sating the world's ballooning demand for fuel, for which there appears to be no other viable solution. And, clearly you can't have a second generation without the first.