Writers on this blog have not been the only ones to take note of BP buying “AdWords’ from Google.  This PR strategy means that a search for “Gulf Oil Spill” or a related topic yields a page with a paid link from BP right at the top.

So here is a suggestion for Mr. Brin, Mr. Page, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Cerf and the rest of the leadership of Google:  Announce that revenue from BP will be donated to a good cause.  The options for what to do with the money are depressingly vast.

You guys decide.  Give it to advocacy groups like ours who work on preventing this kind of disaster and promoting clean energy.  Give it to the “Keeper” groups who are the first line of defense against the spill.  Give it to a local charity on the Gulf, like the this one in New Orleans, or someone else you find.  You could even just funnel it out the door as a grant to build energy efficiency or renewable energy through Google.org.  Or divvy it up among these different causes.

The point is – we are all accomplices in the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico because or gasoline consumption drives forward offshore drilling, tar sands development and similar dangerous behavior but Google has a chance here to shed a little bit of that accomplice liability by giving away some of BP’s money.

And of course if Google announces it is taking this step the rest of us will feel compelled to get on our computers and use Google to search for “Gulf Oil Spill” and click on that BP ad, sending the money to a good cause – transforming Google from accomplice into a good guy, a conduit for donations.

If you agree that Google should donate it’s revenue from BP, click the “like” button below to share this message with your friends on Facebook.

While the oil continues to gush out of the wounded well on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico a group is gathered here in Boston today to try to head off development of an important tool that would help move us away from oil.  In fact, these folks want us to shift to an even dirtier fuel that requires even more energy to extract than oil and has a whole different set of bad side effects for the public health and the environment.

The group in question is the Consumer Energy Alliance an infamous “astroturf” group that acts as a public face for the oil industry.  The fuel they are promoting, working with certain elements of Canadian provincial government, is oil produced by a messy and fuel intensive process from a gooey mixture of sand, clay, water and a tar-like substance called bitumen known as “oil sands” or “tar sands.”

And the policy they are opposing is the Low Carbon Fuel Standard – a reasonable policy that would gradually reduce the “carbon content” of the fuels that power our vehicles, helping to make the transition to cleaner fuels like clean bio-fuels and electricity from renewable sources.

The oil industry does not like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard because it is a tool for finally beginning the process of phasing out their enormously profitable product as the sole fuel for our transportation sector.  And the folks in the business of squeezing oil out of sand REALLY don’t like this standard because their product is really ghastly from a global warming perspective – putting at least 3 to 4 times as much global warming pollution into the atmosphere than conventional oil.   And just as the citizens and wildlife of the Gulf of Mexico suffer from continuing harm from oil production there is pollution that threatens the public health and environmental damage associated with production of this “unconventional oil” from tar sands.

A consortium of Northeastern States are working on moving the Low Carbon Fuel Standard forward.   The governors and environmental agencies of New England need to hear from their citizens that this a positive path forward and they will be hailed and supported for moving forward towards climate protection and away from dirty and dangerous oil.

Climate advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief today when the U.S. Senate rejected Senator Lisa Murkowski’s resolution to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions with a vote of 53-47. Backed by big oil lobbyists, the defeat of the bill signified the triumph of science over politics—at least for now.

Earlier today, I discussed this ridiculous debate that occupied the Senate all day on the radio.  There was some interesting press in the run up to the vote.

And when the dust cleared, CLF issued this statement:

“The decision by the United States Senate to reject the Big Oil Bailout is a victory for science, the environment and efforts to build a new clean economy,” said Seth Kaplan, CLF’s Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy. “Senators Dodd and Lieberman of Connecticut, Senators Reed and Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senators Leahy and Sanders of Vermont and Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire have all taken a stand against big oil and in favor of protection of our environmental, economic and public health and national security. We are hopeful that Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire and Senator Brown of Massachusetts will realize they have made a mistake and join the effort to protect our environment and grow clean energy jobs.”

What is truly amazing is continuing denial about the science of climate change among the 47 senators who supported Murkowski’s resolution. The National Research Council, at the request of Congress, delivered yet another report (well, really a series of reports) that make it crystal clear that global warming is real, is caused by humans, is causing real harm and will cause very great harm unless action is taken. Meanwhile, senators and representatives continue to support initiatives that will back big polluters and limit the power of the EPA.

CLF acknowledges the 53 senators whose votes amounted to today’s victory, and thanks all of our members who responded to our Defend the Clean Air Act action alert.

As recently as this morning the Coast Guard was asserting that oil from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had not entered the “loop current” that travels around the tip of Florida over to the East Coast.

And now it appears the oil is hitting Florida as tar balls appear in Key West . . . they are being tested to determine to determine their origin.

Some commentators have, appropriately, noted that in addition to banning drilling in sensitive areas off our own coasts we need to appropriately regulate drilling that is underway and, to truly solve the problem, we must gain control and dramatically reduce our use of oil – a process that will involve building livable, walkable communities centered around transit.

Sadly, efforts are afoot in Washington to push in exactly the opposite direction – tell your Senator not to back Senator Lisa Murkowski’s Big Oil Bail-Out which would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to crack down on global warming pollution from oil and coal.

Comprehensive energy and climate legislation, combined with strong federal and state action using current law, can point us towards a cleaner and safer world where we don’t have to worry about tar balls on our beaches . . .

Only Rush Limbaugh’s fevered imagination could have hatched the idea that environmentalists caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill:

RUSH: I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. Since they’re sending SWAT teams down there now this changes the whole perspective of this. Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.

Really, he said it.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has a different suspect:  God. An observation that has been treated with some derision even in Texas.

While the list of direct suspects is long and includes government regulators, British Petroleum, the actual operators of the drilling rig and Halliburton.

However, it is very clear that all of us who drive cars bear some responsibility here. The fundamental truth is that as long as humanity is in the business of piercing the protective shell of the earth and pulling out oil there will be calamities like the one  currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.  As Lisa Margonelli of the New America Foundation, correctly, recently wrote in the New York Times: “All oil comes from someone’s backyard, and when we don’t reduce the amount of oil we consume, and refuse to drill at home, we end up getting people to drill for us in Kazakhstan, Angola and Nigeria — places without America’s strong environmental safeguards or the resources to enforce them.”

Yes, we need to stop drilling off the shores of the United States.  But we need to also recognize that so long as we consume oil in anything like current quantities there will be spills somewhere and (not incidentally) we will continue to put dangerous greenhouse gases causing global warming into the atmosphere.

And where do we use oil in the U.S. ?  The federal government reports that the answer is that 71% of our petroleum use is “for transportation” – in our cars, trucks and airplanes.

As CLF noted in our “5 Steps in 5 Years” Climate Vision, the state and federal governments are literally paving the way  towards a car-dependent future by spending 75 percent of our transportation capital budgets on roads and highways and 25 percent on transit.  To be blunt, the old hiker slogan has some truth to it – that “The Road to Hell is Paved.”

So the next time you are in the drivers seat of a gasoline powered vehicle take a look at yourself in the rear view mirror and stop to consider your own complicity in what is unfolding in the Gulf.  But don’t be paralyzed by guilt – take action.  Urge your elected representatives to pass comprehensive climate legislation and to make a massive investment in transit and smart, livable and walkable communities.

Understandably, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (which seems to be the first oil spill to have a Facebook page) has been the subject of intense interest on this blog (repeatedly), in New Orleans (which incredibly finds itself in the cross-hairs of ANOTHER disaster) and in nearby Florida, where brilliant and acerbic environmentalist Carl Hiaasen (buy his books, especially the ones for kids) makes his mark on the subject.

But here is a different angle on the disaster. Consider the recent episode here in New England where a quarter of the population of Right Whales were spotted feeding in an area where whales are not normally found. This reminds us that putting an inherently dangerous activity like oil and gas drilling anywhere in the ocean is like playing Russian roulette with the lives of the animals that live in the ocean and our oceans generally.  A lesson that is playing out among the sea turtles who rely on the Gulf of Mexico as a safe place to reproduce.

So what can we do? The first thing is to not open up even more of our coastline to drilling, especially as part of a climate bill that is intended to protect and restore our environment. But the ultimate answer is to reduce use of , and therefore demand for, oil. And that means, more than anything else, reducing our gasoline consumption. How do we do that? Building smart walkable communities with transit options and using far more efficient cars would be a great start.

We have the seen the enemy and it is us . . . but it doesn’t have to be that way forever.

In the spirit of the Federal rebates for efficient appliances discussed in a prior post this  message just came in from Jack Ruderman, the Director of the Sustainable Energy Division at the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission:

Friends – I am delighted to report that the Commission is now accepting applications for the residential solar hot water rebate program.  Two rebates are offered:  a State rebate of $600, $750, or $900 depending on system output, and a federal appliance rebate of $750 per system.  The State rebate is funded by New Hampshire’s Renewable Energy Fund, while the federal rebate is funded with federal stimulus funds made available by the Office of Energy and Planning.  There is enough funding available from both sources to provide rebates for up to 660 systems over the next two years.

We anticipate that this program will lead to a surge in demand for solar water heating systems and will create new jobs in the alternative energy sector, while also reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses.  This program will complement the Commission’s existing rebate program for residential solar electric and wind systems, which to date has received 285 applications for renewable energy systems across the state, and has created new business for 129 alternative energy businesses and electricians.

The Commission’s Order approving this program is attached.   The rebate applications are posted on the Commission’s website and can also be accessed directly with these links: State Solar Water Heating Application; Federal Solar water Heating Application; Step 2 Solar Water Heating Application

Many thanks to all of the stakeholders who participated in the public comment process and provided valuable input and feedback on the design of this program.

And please stay tuned – we will be bringing additional rebate programs on line over the next several months – one for commercial scale renewable energy systems and another for residential wood pellet heating systems.

Happy Earth Day!

Note that Mr. Ruderman tells us that only 660 systems will be paid for across New Hampshire by this program so if you want to heat your water without burning some fossil fuels then act now.

As implementation of the energy efficiency funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act continues to roll forward a window is about to open that will allow buyers of energy efficient appliances to receive substantial rebates.

There is real concern that these programs could prove so popular that the window for getting the rebates will open and close very quickly.  Some states, like Massachusetts, are offering the opportunity to reserve a chance to reserve the rebates  ($250 per dishwasher, $200 per refrigerator, $175 per clothes washer and $50 per freezer) in advance – the Online Reservation Tool to make that happen is scheduled to “go live” at 10:00 AM on April 22, although you can check at the same web page to see what stores are pre-qualified (pretty much all appliance sellers, although note that Boston neighborhoods like Dorchester are listed separately in the alphabetical list of stores) and what models will earn you a rebate.

Some states, like Rhode Island, have given out all their rebate funds – in that case people replacing appliances ruined in flooded basements may have played a role.

To see what the story is in your state click on your state on this map on the U.S. Department of Energy Website.

And if you are buying an energy efficient appliance after these particular rebates are exhausted (they only work in pre-qualified physical stores) or just want to pick up some really cool light bulbs be sure to take a look at the CLF online store operated by the Energy Federation featuring the best of all such stuff and where every purchase benefits CLF.

If President Obama can make the case that “insulation is sexy stuff” in a moment captured on video then we can say that providing the residents of Massachusetts with the chance to save money while staying warm in the winter is sexy as well.

The situation is simple – the federal government sets minimum efficiency standards for furnaces.  If a state wants to have tougher rules, ensuring that furnaces sold in that state use less fuel and produce less global warming pollution, it must ask permission from the feds to do so.  Massachusetts has done so.

CLF submitted a letter in support of this request by Massachusetts.  Among other things we noted the high numbers of renters in Massachusetts compared to the national average and how renters can’t choose the furnace that heats their home, making minimal efficiency standards all the more important.

Ok, we admit this isn’t really sexy.  But it is very important and CLF is proud to be doing this kind of effort in alliance with the consumer advocates at the National Consumer Law Center (who happen to be housed in offices right across the street from CLF’s Boston office) and the experts at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.