Mike Signer's response to my question over at the
NLS liveblog earlier this afternoon illustrates how difficult it is for politicians running statewide in Virginia to take stands which would make environmentalists 100% happy. My question was straightforward:
Do you support or oppose:
*offshore oil drilling in Virginia
*mountaintop removal mining
*a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard
*"decoupling" Dominion Power
Now, here are Mike Signer's responses with my comments in italics.
...achieving leadership on the environment is one of my major platform issues. The environment runs deep and into almost every other area in Virgnia, from job creation to the sportsmen's community to climate change. And Virginia should be leading rather than following.
Excellent, I completely agree. Energy is inextricably intertwined with Virginia's economy, environment, and quality of life. I have not announced my outright opposition to offshore drilling -- as a general matter, I'm uncomfortable with the prospect, but also understand the need to increase domestic production over time. I'd like to know more about how an actual proposal could work and how it would impact tourism and the environmental health of the ocean and shore. More fundamentally, any dramatic shift like this really ought to be incorpoprated in an overall strategy -- I think we have been terribly hurt by short-term thinking, particularly when it's impacted by political determinations (i.e. we should not be drilling because Newt Gingrich decided, in the mix of a presidential campaign, that our national policy should be "Drill here, drill now"!)
I agree that the production side of the energy equation needs to be part of the "overall strategy," and I also agree that this shouldn't be driven by politics but by the science, economics, national security and environmental considerations. I'm not meaning to criticize Mike Signer here particularly, it's just that so many politicians are unwilling to simply say, "no offshore drilling, certainly not before we've exhausted all of our energy efficiency and renewable energy options." As an environmentalist, and also as someone who understands - as does oil man T. Boone Pickens - that we can't "drill our way out of it," frankly it's frustrating. As a general matter, I think we should move away from mountaintop removal mining -- the effects on run-off and local environmental health can be devastating and it's not the direction we should be moving in the energy/environment nexus.
I'm not sure what "as a general matter" or "move away" mean, exactly. This one's a no-brainer, except possibly from a political perspective - stop mountaintop removal mining now, stop it everywhere, stop it forever. It's an abomination. End of story.I strongly support mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard. When I was a law student at UVA, I actually tried to buy green energy from Dominion but was told none was available! This was because it's voluntary.
Excellent, it looks like we're moving towards a consensus on the issue of mandatory being better than voluntary. The question is, how HIGH should the mandatory RPS be and what should be included in that RPS. I'd love to hear Mike Signer's - and other candidates' - thoughts on that."Decoupling" Dominion Power
This is one of the most exciting (even if it sounds boring) ideas out there for the environment. This policy breaks the linkage between increased demand an increased profits for energy companies, meaning that Dominion would have an incentive to get customers to conserve and to get Virginia on a smart grid. I saw a shocking statistic recently -- .2% of Virginia's households have smart meters that allow people to control their usage and feed power back onto the grid. That's bad, embarrassing, and an urgent reminder of the need for policies like decoupling.
Excellent, Mike Signer definitely "gets it" on this issue! I'm thrilled to see this, and would urge any politician who does NOT "get it" on decoupling to go talk to Mike so he can explain it to you. :)
