Skip to main content

The White House roof remains without solar electric panels despite Administration promises that this would have occurred well before now.  While putting a few kilowatts (or even a few tens of kilowatts) of solar systems on the White House will have miniscule direct impact on the nation's energy system, the symbolism remains important.

With this in mind, not surprising that one of the videos surrounding President Obama's second inauguration relates to putting solar panels on the White House roof. While the rest of the family celebrates otherwise,

First Dog, Bo Obama, powers up his inauguration party with solar energy to celebrate another four years on the White House lawn! Good boy, Bo! Go to Solar White House to see what Bo is planning for his 2nd term.

While Bo's celebration certainly looks more comfortable than the likely chilly weather Monday, it would nice to see Bo's and his masters' houses both sporting solar panels.

Last week, the petition below went up at the White House site calling for the Administration to put solar panels on the White House roof.

Put solar panels back on the White House, as a testament to our country's commitment to a green energy future.

President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the White House in 1979, and Ronald Reagan had them removed. President Obama committed to installing modern solar panels capable of producing 19,700 kilowatt hours of electricity a year -- more than twice the total energy consumed by the average DC home -- by the Spring of 2011. It is now 2013, and the White House remains without solar energy.

This petition is to urge the President to prioritize green energy and environmental responsibility in his second term. The White House should be made into a model for energy efficient home design, by integrating all available green energy technologies and thereby setting an example for home renovation and new home construction nationwide.

Created: Jan 15, 2013

Issues: EnergyEnvironment

On seeing (signing) the above petition, I discovered something: the threshold required for driving an Administration response has changed.  Until quite recently (just days ago), the threshold was 25,000 votes.  This petition requires 100,000.

Related posts:

Originally posted to Kosowatt on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 02:35 PM PST.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Throw us a fricking bone here. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, Glen The Plumber, xaxnar
  •  Oh definitely! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, A Siegel, xaxnar, Lujane, BYw

    And have Jimmy Carter there to flip the switch!

    And zombie Reagan to.. just be himself.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:24:17 PM PST

  •  I don't mind a bone... (6+ / 0-)

    I do mind, very much, any tradeoff in which the fossil fuel companies walk off with the steak and environmentalists are thrown a bone.

    The White House needs to put solar on its roof because it's the right thing to do.

    The White House also needs to stand up to the fossil fuel companies because it's the right thing to do. That means revoking Shell's permit to drill in the Chukchi Sea and denying a permit to the Keystone XL pipeline, for starters.

    It's time to unfrack California before it gets fracked. @RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:36:07 PM PST

    •  you realize (0+ / 0-)

      taht for at least teh next decade if not next two or more we are going to be stuck with fossil fuels to varying extents?

      •  Of course she does ... (5+ / 0-)

        but "stuck with fossil fuels" doesn't mean that we can't be weaning ourselves from the addiction ...

        All I ask is five percent ...

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:56:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  :shrug: (0+ / 0-)

          I am just saying that because some of the comments somtimes make me wonder if people believe that we can somehow just stop using fossil fuels right now and not have our economy and way of life crumble to dust

          •  That's NRA-like slippery slope logic (6+ / 0-)

            I have NEVER seen a renewable advocate proposing shutting off all fossil fuels immediately; nor have I seen a serious proposal to confiscate all guns.

            What we have been saying is: start phasing out fossil fuel dependence  ASAP, dirtiest first, and shifting investment to efficiency and renewables immediately.  The untapped potential for renewable energy is enormous - do a little homework.

            There is a threat to our way of life, but its from business as usual: Our economy and way of life will variously become dust (southwest) or under water (coastal regions) unless we make the transition from fossil foolishness with the urgency  required.

            There's no such thing as a free market!

            by Albanius on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:25:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  um yeah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              A Siegel

              maybe next time make your point without throwing around insults?

              I'm all for serious investment in renewables but let's also not lose sight of the immediate picture. That's all I am saying

              •  Actually ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BYw, radical simplicity, Zinman

                I don't see Albanius as 'throwing around insults'.  The analogy did seem appropriate to me.

                Look, we can't get wording 100% right 100% of the time.  Your comment to RLMiller was / is easy to read as quite insulting and dismissive although that might not have been your intent.

                There is no serious person engaged in the discussion of clean energy / renewables who is 'back to the caves, but no fires allowed' with starvation / death of perhaps 95-99% of humanity associated with this.  There are advocates for massive investment for getting off carbon ASAP that go beyond my five percent per year but I would tell you that the vast majority would be celebrating in the streets if 5% per year were agreed on -- and that is highly achievable globally.

                Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                by A Siegel on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:32:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's NRA-like slippery slope logic (0+ / 0-)

                  is fairly insulting

                  And let me say what apparently Albanius won't or can't, my comment was not meant to be insulting. If you or RLMiller or anyone else were insulted you have my sincere apologies for that.

                  As I said else where the only point I was trying to make is that fossil fuels will be a part of our lives for the next couple decades easily. Thus if not the keystone xl we will need something like it. Enivromental concerns of course should be our first pirority but we have to keep in mind energy concerns too

                  •  My point ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    duhban

                    is that your comment could be read as insulting even as you didn't mean it that way and Albanius could be read as insulting (as you did) even if it wasn't meant that way.

                    In additional, worth noting difference between direct attack on individual and suggesting that how one makes an argument/analogy/otherwise might fall short.  One is a personal attack, other is engaging in debate.  

                    E.g., Albanius didn't write something like "you are an NRA stooge ..." which absolutely would have been an attack.

                    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                    by A Siegel on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:43:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  sorry but that's splitting hairs (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm willing to grant that there's a way to view my comment as insulting because it was short and open to some interpretation.  That's on me because I didn't take the time to write as much as I should have.

                      There's nothing ambiguous about Albanius' work in my mind and if he or she disagrees they are welcome to say so. But I'm not going to argue the intent of a poster with another poster.  I believe the reasoning of that should be apparent.

                      Frankly either way it's still an attack, just a passive aggressive one as it stands where in he or she can fall back on 'well I didn't really call you that. On any other forum I'd call that trolling having seen a lot of it, here idk maybe that's just how they really are. Don't know and not sure I care to know that much.

                      This is going to be my last reply on this because I rather feel bad about dragging your diary off topic. As it is I've persisted only really because of the twin reasons that you are the author in question and because I wanted to give my best effort at communicating an idea that I think is important even while thinking it's an idea that might not go over too well with some.

                      Anyways it's been interesting,

                      cheers

                  •  Careful, you're making a leap there (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    A Siegel

                    Just because fossil fuels will remain part of our economy for the foreseeable future does NOT mean that we need Keystone XL or "something like it".  This is what RLMiller, A Siegel, and Albanius are trying to make clear.  

                    Our economy will be perfectly fine without Keystone XL.  Our economy will not be fine, however, if we fail to address climate change.  Look at Superstorm Sandy.  The damage it caused will look like a minor hiccup in the future if we fail to act.  Now is the time to decisively begin the transition away from fossil fuels.  

                    •  perhaps but not unreasonable one (0+ / 0-)

                      Canada's oil production will be a big part of the 'final phase' of our oil dependence. Right now they have 2 choices, ship it though the US to the refineries there or ship it west to Russia or China. Personally I'd rather it go though the US with the major caveat of course that it is environmentally safe

                      I totally support A Siegel's 5% a year, I think it doable and a goal we need to have but there are both long term problems to solve (demand  compared to when for example solar is avialible) and short  term problems like tranistioning away from oil, rebuilding our power grid.

                      Let me also add that noone really knows what climate change will do to the earth it's like russian roulette with an infinite chamber and reloading bullets.  But then again to me that's more then enough reason to not press our luck on that issue

                      •  So ... (0+ / 0-)

                        1.  The path west looks very unlikely due to domestic Canadian opposition.

                        2.  We don't "know" what climate change will do but we have some strong basis for understanding that this will be quite bad for humanity.

                        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                        by A Siegel on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:47:30 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  with all due respect (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm begining to feel like you're purposefully ignoring the multiple times I've flat out said climate change is both real and dangerous, what more do you want? Because if you're waiting for me to utterly and mindlessly agree with your exact viewpoint I hope you have a lot of time on your hands

  •  Would This Be New Gear or the Carter Era Gear? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:46:56 PM PST

  •  the thershold changed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    becuase of the star wars death star petition

  •  would rather them on every suitable (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, A Siegel, Lujane, BYw

    flat surface roof buildings across the entire southern tier of the US.

  •  Signed, thanks! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    There are no Christians in foxholes.

    by Odysseus on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:36:02 PM PST

  •  White House Solar Barnraising (5+ / 0-)

    I'd still like to see Obama do a White House solar or weatherization barnraising with the participation of "This Old House," the DIY Channel, "Extreme Home Makeover," the Home and Garden Channel, NatGeo and any other TV stations that want to get involved.  Do it so that a whole series of energy education PSAs can be made from the footage.

    Been asking for that since Obama was elected but I can't even get support for the idea from any of the enviros here.  Once again, I stand alone, a deluded dreamer.  After all this time, it's my preferred position, joyfully accepted.

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at solarray.

    by gmoke on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:01:43 PM PST

  •  It's that damn Solyndra (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, A Siegel, radical simplicity

    The White House isn't going to do anything that will get the Republicans beating that dead horse again.

    Once more substance is trumped by spin.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:15:37 PM PST

  •  Solar panels? I did it. Why not the POTUS? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    I personally designed my home system, paid for it, and put it up about 12 years ago, and I'm just another modest income person.

    The failure to have a solar power system on the White House is due to the lack of ecological leadership and insight by the POTUS.

    Lots of intermediate priorities have no doubt consumed the creative vision which could have led to a solar powered White House, but that is no real or acceptable excuse. Really, how much time would it have taken for the POTUS to order the design and creation of a White House solar system? My guess is that would have taken well under 60 minutes. So why didn't it happen?

    I'm sitll waiting, and I'm still disappointed.

    Eradicate magical thinking

    by Zinman on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:16:58 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site