Here is a related memo leaked from oil companies trying to drum up support for rallies in opposition to the American Clean Energy and Securities Act (Waxman Markey Bill) due to hit the floor in late Spetember. Thought you might appreciate some insight into the planning behind clean energy opposition. Though it does not mention NJ specifically, things seem to be heating up in NJ with interested parties eyeing the Governorship and looking to develop energy like the Purgen One coal plant in Linden, NJ.
I hear opposition often citing an MIT study as proof of the cost, but according to this article the MIT study in question has nothing to do with Waxman Markey and in fact the only current financial projection study on Waxman Markey is the one done by the EPA which actually forecasts the average household will realize a net benefit from the bill.
I was thinking a pro ACESA counter-argument could actually be all the coal and oil givebacks in the bill intended to protect consumers from the very economic backlash opposition is claiming will result. Givebacks I’d actually like to see removed for environmental reasons but I recognize as valuable political fodder in the debate. I welcome anyone else’s thoughts on a strong counter argument. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. Thanks.
Things have changed. If anyone has a summary of the latest version that passed the House on 6/26 please post a link in the comments section.
In short. The bill stinks 5 ways to Sunday but… I blame all those who did not get off their ass and call their Congressman and Senator as much as I blame our Reps for listening to the interests of Coal and Oil who obviously did lobby. If you did not make a call or write a letter or OPED a newspaper you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. That said I do think we need to have something on the books before the fall run up to Copenhagen. (Man I wish it were better though). So here’s my plan. The bill now goes back to the Senate for one last round. I’m going to lobby every Senator I can reach as hard as I can to make these changes http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-06-23-02-39-15-news.php God help us all if we blow this!
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Congressman Pascrell about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:
Dear Congressman Pascrell,
I’m thrilled to have the first real carbon legislation back in the House for a vote this Friday. I presented the The Climate Project last night at Bloomfield College and had occasion to discuss the ACESA with the 28 people who attended the event. I would like to share the many criticisms of the bill that were expressed. Ultimately, if we can strengthen the bill in a few key areas I feel the bill still deserves a “Yes” vote. Here is what my audience expressed they would like to see strengthened (and I agree) in order of priority:
1) The EPA’s authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act must not be rescinded. This was a major ruling it gives any environmental policy teeth. The provision removing this authority must be removed from ACESA.
2) The amount of money committed to Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) development. Coal is dirty even without carbon emissions. One need only look at the toxic coal sludge spill in Tennessee last year or the fact that dozens of coal ash sites have been classified to protect them from terrorist attacks to illustrate this well-known fact. The CCS approach most energy companies are pursuing:
a) require energy
b) are expensive
c) are unproven
d) are just another form of toxic dumping
By contrast renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal are well-proven and comparatively non toxic as compared to coal (geothermal). More development capital should be directed to these technologies. Renewables pose no terroristic threat. In fact the distributed nature makes them a unappealing target for terrorism.
3) It is my position and the position of many environmental groups that the current provisions for scientific review and assessment once every 4 years leave too much time before adjustments can be made. With such a sweeping act of legislation and so much at stake we would like to see the review term shortened to once every two years. Our justification is that the negative impacts of climate change have been unfolding at the highest extreme of scientific projections for over a decade. Our scientific understanding of the causes and effects of climate change expands greatly every year. Additionally there remains much uncertainty about what the realized reductions will actually be from ACESA as it stands. If the bill proves to need modification, action must be taken quickly to address oversights, abuses or shortcomings so we achieve tangible carbon reductions. For this reason we need to shorten the scientific review term from 4 to 2 years.
4) Allowances. I understand the political justifications, not wanting to overly burden energy companies or financially burden consumers. We need a bill that changes the way we produce energy. The allowances as they are exert little pressure to change in the next 10 years. Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates we need to be more aggressive.
5) Offsets. We come dangerously close to allowing this bill to become a numbers game in absence of real change. No trickery of carbon accounting is going to solve the climate crisis. I have serious concerns about the ability of the USA to legislate here something that requires us to monitor reforestation campaigns in a far of country. Offsets are better incorporated through our involvement in the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty. By working together with other nations we have a better chance of crafting a World policy on Offsets. Reforestation is vital as we can yield up to a 20% reduction in global carbon levels though careful forest management. My concern is that the Offset provision of ACESA will be abused because we lack the capacity for appropriate oversight.
Please. We need to get this right. We do not have time for half measures. Every moment we delay equates to increased financial burdens in the form of the costs of climate change adaptation and squandered opportunities in reaching a cleaner, safer, more economically beneficial, renewable-energy-powered future. I’m happy to discuss this in greater detail if you want any further clarification.
Thank you for your service to our community and Nation.
Today I took part in a National Day of Grassroots Lobbying called by Repower America. I’ll be posting a short video soon. I was joined by representitives from local environmental groups, NJ’s Green Party, and renewable energy business owners, and together we spent over an hour with the Congressman’s District Director, Jackie Grindrod discussing the need for meaningful renewable energy legislation. I would categorize Jackie’s position as sympathetic and she left us with several action items for follow up. Here are my notes from the event:
