Metro Jacksonville

John Mica, Ander Crenshaw, and Cliff Stearns are Representing the Party of NO in our area:

Vote Tally for House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454 Here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477

QuoteBy Daniel J. Weiss | November 3, 2009

On November 3, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to begin debate and vote on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733, sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). At this writing it appears that the committee’s Republican members plan to boycott the debate and votes, thus denying a quorum necessary for these deliberations.

Their real agenda is to block action on clean-energy jobs legislation. Such efforts would please big oil companies and other special interests who are spending millions of dollars to block this bill. For instance, the New York Times reports that “The oil and gas industry in the third quarter outspent all of the other sectors lobbying on climate… Exxon Mobil Corp. led its sector with $7.2 million in lobbying work, more than the total of the entire alternative energy sector.”

While the obstructionists attempt to block progress, they will also stop many provisions that would benefit Americans. The list below describes a number of important benefits that government and academic analyses determined about ACES that also apply to the Clean Energy Jobs Act. This list is part one, with more reasons to follow. They provide ample evidence for senators planning to block consideration of the Clean Energy Jobs Act to reconsider, and allow this critical legislation to move forward.

S. 1733 is very similar to the House-passed global warming bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454.

1. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will enhance national security

In 2007, the Military Advisory Board of CNAâ€"a distinguished panel of retired high-ranking military officersâ€"determined that global warming posed a direct threat to the United States’ security. Their conclusion was that “projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security… Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.”

On October 28, 2009, Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John Warner (R-VA) testified before the Senate Environment Committee, urging “this committee to take action [on climate change].” He warned that “If left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. …We ignore these threats at the peril of our national security.”

Warner noted that the Clean Energy Jobs Act “has established a beachhead. Now is the time for Congress to move forward.”

2. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will create jobs

The House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to a new state-of-the-art economic model developed by the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and Yale University.

The study predicted that from 2010 to 2020, H.R. 2454 would lead to:

A net increase of up to 1.9 million jobs.
Growth in average real personal income per household up $1,175 compared to business as usual.
A higher gross domestic product of up to $111 billion higher, which is a .7 percent increase compared to doing nothing.
These findings are consistent with “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy” by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts and sponsored by the Center for American Progress. This study projected that H.R. 2454, combined with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, would produce a net of 1.7 million clean-energy jobs.

Since S. 1733 is very similar to ACES, it is a safe bet that it too would create a substantial number of jobs and spur additional economic growth.

3. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will increase American competitiveness

A book about the last eight years of our government could be called “While America Slept.” We have done little to invest in the development, commercialization, or production of the clean-energy technologies that a carbon-constrained world will want. Meanwhile, many of our foreign competitorsâ€"Germany, Japan, China, Spain, and other nationsâ€"have invested heavily in them. The United States went from making nearly half of the world’s solar photovoltaic cells to making 10 percent of them, while China is now the leader.

Venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt warn, “There is still time for us to lead this global race, although that window is closing. We need low-carbon policies to exploit America's strengthsâ€"innovation and entrepreneurs.”

CAP President and CEO John Podesta testified about competitiveness measures in the Clean Energy Jobs Act before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on October 29. He noted that the Clean Energy Jobs Act puts a price on carbon pollution, which would

“…level the playing field between the prices of dirty and cleaner energy sources … [and] combined with companion measures before the Senate, would create a clean-energy investment program that would cut greenhouse gas pollution, spur clean-energy technology innovation, create new jobs, and increase American energy independence.”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that reducing global warming pollution would boost competitiveness and provide an economic stimulus.

“A commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short to medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity.”

4. The EPA finds the Clean Energy Jobs Act is affordable

Because the Clean Energy Jobs Act is very similar to ACES, EPA’s analysis determined that “the impacts of S. 1733 would be similar to those estimated for H.R. 2454.” Most importantly, EPA found that “the average loss of consumption per household will be relatively, on the order of hundreds of dollars per year.” In fact, EPA estimates the average annual household cost of H.R. 2454 to range from $84 to $110 in 2020.

EPA concluded that differences in the bills produce “relatively small differences in estimated costs and may even cancel each other out.”

5. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will save oil

The National Wildlife Federation, using data from the Energy Information Administration, estimates that ACES would reduce oil use by the equivalent of 590,000 barrels of oil per day in 2020, rising to 948,000 fewer barrels per day in 2028. From 2012 to 2030, the United States would use 4 billion fewer barrels of oil, and save $658 billion dollars. This is a savings of $5,600 per household.

The American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy estimates similar oil savings due to ACES. It predicts that Americans would consume 640,000 fewer barrels per day in 2020, and 1.4 million barrels per day less in 2030. In addition to reducing global warming pollution, lower oil use would enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It would also shrink the dollars sent to other countries to buy their oilâ€"often from unfriendly regimes. These funds could be used more productively at home. In 2008, the United States spent an estimated $1 billion per day buying foreign oil.

6. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will produce income for farmers

Both the Clean Energy Jobs Act and ACES provide an opportunity for farmers to increase their income by sequestering carbon pollution in their land via farming practices. EPA’s analysis found that ACES would create up to nearly $19 billion annually in net benefit to farmers from offsets. This is an average of $9,500 per farm. The Senate version would allow 50 percent more domestic offsets, which creates an even bigger opportunity for farmers.

The offsets program enables polluters to pay farmers or others to capture or store carbon pollution instead of reducing their own emissions. Since such offsets can be cheaper, they can reduce pollution at a lower cost. The offsets must be measurable, additional, and verifiable. Farmers can create offsets by employing farming practices that store carbon in the Earth, such as no till plowing, erosion prevention, soil conservation, reduced tillage, planting perennial trees and shrubs, utilizing rotational grazing and methane capture with livestock, applying less fertilizer, and restoring watersheds.

According to Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases notes that “increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity…while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluated ACES’s impact on farm income. In the short run, it would have less than one cent per dollar impact on net farm income. USDA notes that “Other studies…find that H.R. 2454 leads to higher agricultural incomes, even without offsets.”

The Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group also predicts a more profitable future for agriculture under a policy that reduces global warming pollution. “Analysis indicates the increase in farming income from offsets, biofuels, and commodity prices resulting from a cap-and-trade system more than offsets any potential increase in the price of fuel, fertilizer, or other inputs for the agricultural sector,” the organization has reported.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/11/reasons_ceja.html

Surprised? Party lines.

Wow, if Mica keeps doing all of this evil he might indeed be The Antichrist. Someone told me at night he leaves his car running with a garden hose from the exhaust to his bedroom window. Just wild about dirty air, but then aren't we all?

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: copperfiend on November 19, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
Surprised? Party lines.

Yeah, it's amazing that our congressmen cannot think for themselves until they leave congress:

QuoteOn October 28, 2009, Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John Warner (R-VA) testified before the Senate Environment Committee, urging “this committee to take action [on climate change].” He warned that “If left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. …We ignore these threats at the peril of our national security.”

At the current rate of cooling experienced over the past 5 years, our planet will be covered completely by ice within 63 years.

Something must be done.

Why did Mica, Crenshaw, and Stearns actually vote against the act?  Is it because they HATE clean energy?  Are they just evil men who have removed their catalytic converters so they can pollute the earth?  Why I bet they leave the faucet on while brushing their teeth.  I am betting they even hate those cute coca cola polar bears in the xmas ads... ::) :D

They want to keep getting their special interest money and get re-elected. That is all any politician cares about.

That must hold true for those that voted for the Act then also... :o

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 19, 2009, 03:40:13 PM
That must hold true for those that voted for the Act then also... :o

Come on BT,......if you read up you'd realize where the money is:

Quote“The oil and gas industry in the third quarter outspent all of the other sectors lobbying on climate… Exxon Mobil Corp. led its sector with $7.2 million in lobbying work, more than the total of the entire alternative energy sector.”

Alternative energy is still struggling to make it in the US, and BIG OIL is buying Congressmen to represent the Will of the Oil industry. Sigh,...............what happened to the will of the people!!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 19, 2009, 03:40:13 PM
That must hold true for those that voted for the Act then also... :o

I am sure Ed Begley writes checks to Pelosi.

I'm rather certain the will of the people is to avoid a cap and trade bill that will impose large taxes on the producers of energy and therefore cause their personal energy expenses to go up, not to mention a loss of jobs and activity elsewhere in the economy.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111vs42bh::

In case you want to know what they are actually voting on.

QuoteCome on BT,......if you read up you'd realize where the money is:

Then answer the question faye.  The assumption of the article is that the reprersentatives voted against this because they are against clean energy.  Really?  Even you do not think this is true.  I'm guessing there are aspects of the bill that they consider bad policy.  EVERYONE wants clean energy.... even those baby seal killing republicans.  You crack me up faye... :D

Clearly those who lobby for such legeslation have no vested interest in "green" technologies.

HAVE NO FEAR COMRADES, the people have not only spoken, hell they sang!

http://www.youtube.com/v/RXOLUrIXqxw&hl=en_US&fs=1&

SMILE!

OCKLAWAHA

Not sure what Ock wants to imply.

Certainly we all believe in Lincoln's famous phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Unfortunately it's largely been replaced by:

1.  "government of Big Oil, by Big Oil, for Big Oil"

2.  "government of Big Pharma, by Big Pharma, for Big Pharma"

3.  "government of Big Insurance and Banking, by Big Insurance and Banking, for Big Insurance and Banking"

4.  "government of War Industry, by War Industry, for War Industry"

Where the heck is Main Street in all of this?

1. Slogan
2. Slogan
3. Slogan
4. Slogan

Main street does not believe for one micro second that Mica et al are against clean american energy.  Main street understands that they are simply against THIS bill.

Main Street understands that Mica et al are bought and paid for by the industries they represent.

In 2009, lobbying expenditures by industry:

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $199,323,702
Insurance $122,065,251
Oil & Gas $120,669,855
Electric Utilities $108,163,536
Business Associations $92,696,817
Computers/Internet $88,847,937
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $84,363,782
TV/Movies/Music $77,861,927
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $77,465,842
Education $73,913,389
Air Transport $65,222,973
Securities & Investment $64,048,548
Civil Servants/Public Officials $62,214,865
Health Professionals $59,328,887
Health Services/HMOs $52,834,453
Real Estate $48,877,077
Automotive $46,789,615
Misc Issues $45,674,321
Telecom Services & Equipment $41,141,263
Misc Energy $40,478,642

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2009&indexType=i

Can you back up your statements?

Or another way of looking at it is lobbyist-client numbers by issue:

Issue No. of Clients*
Fed Budget & Appropriations 39,185
Health Issues 17,948
Taxes 17,261
Defense 16,879
Transportation 14,232
Energy & Nuclear Power 10,895
Education 10,577
Trade 10,360
Environment & Superfund 9,650
Medicare & Medicaid 8,346

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=u

So you mean that you won't take a campaign dime or 5 minutes for an interest group (industry, hospital etc) if your elected? Do you or did you run a campaign from your own pocket? Nobody donated? Nobody that donated worked? Perhaps they agreed to give up their jobs in the interest of redistribution of the "wealth"? I'm here to tell you it doesn't work, there isn't enough wealth and THAT is a simple Marxist style plan that would result in the equal distribution of poverty nationwide. I do note that the Democratic Party doesn't take a dime from any labor or industry group... NOT!

Well there it is folks, if Faye runs again, donate, donate, donate, but resign your own "Special Interest" first! Yeah Faye, that explains WHY you will never get elected in NE Florida.


OCKLAWAHA  

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2009, 11:09:59 AM
1. Slogan
2. Slogan
3. Slogan
4. Slogan

Main street does not believe for one micro second that Mica et al are against clean american energy.  Main street understands that they are simply against THIS bill.

He cares about John Mica getting re-elected.

Quote from: copperfiend on November 20, 2009, 11:49:20 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2009, 11:09:59 AM
1. Slogan
2. Slogan
3. Slogan
4. Slogan

Main street does not believe for one micro second that Mica et al are against clean american energy.  Main street understands that they are simply against THIS bill.

He cares about John Mica getting re-elected.

So true. Campaign contributions by industry do come with strings attached. Both parties have been bought and paid for, that's why about 25% of us do not belong to either party, and many are calling for public financing of campaigns.

Well here is what Senator LeMieux e-mailed me ( a friendly form letter):

QuoteDear Ms. Armitage:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding how our nation should address climate change issues. The issue of climate change and attempts to mitigate its impacts by controlling greenhouse gas emissions is highly complex. Having grown up in Florida, I have a great appreciation for our state’s natural beauty and the fragile nature of our ecosystem. I’m also aware of the impact new regulations can have on economies and families.

Our nation can be a leader on mitigating the impacts of pollution and carbon emissions by investing heavily in alternative energy and clean technologies. I support wind, solar, and nuclear power, as well as other renewable sources of energy. By making the necessary investments now, the United States can lead a clean energy revolution and demonstrate energy independence in a matter of decades.

On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). H.R. 2454 would place an absolute cap on greenhouse gas emissions covering the energy, transportation, and commercial services industries. Over time, the emissions allowance would be reduced and covered industries would be required to buy, sell, or trade pollution credits in order to remain compliant with federal environmental policy.

Recently, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) with no amendments offered. The Senate bill sets a more stringent emissions reduction target of 20 percent by 2020, compared to 17 percent in the House bill. I am reviewing the proposal passed by the Environment and Public Works Committee and the House-passed bill, but I am concerned about the difficulties it will put on working families and those on fixed incomes in Florida through increased energy prices and higher utility bills.

I am closely following the legislative proposals addressing climate change and will make the best decisions I can for the people of Florida and the United States as a whole. It is an honor and privilege to serve the people of the great State of Florida in the United States Senate. I take great pride in being a native Floridian, and I look forward to the tremendous opportunity to better the lives of all Floridians. I assure you I will work hard to represent our state to the best of my ability in the U.S. Senate. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

George S. LeMieux
United States Senator

bolding mine. Will check into the 17% vs 20% reduction target by 2020.

Higher energy users generally pay more for levels over a certain base amt, so it wouldn't necessarily mean higher utility bills for the poor. High end users should be paying for their excessive use. Besides Dems are generally very attuned to the plight of the poor........., so it likely is just rhetoric used by the opposition to the bill.

Meanwhile the US is not adequately investing in Clean Energy, and keeping us dependent on Imported Oil.

We need a forward looking approach to this. What happened to the Bold Leadership the US was known for in the past?

It's no different for either party. Alot of Democrats were upset that Biden voted for bankruptcy law changes a few years back. But he is from Delaware and he knows who signs the checks.

I'd be happy to sell you guys some carbon credits.

QuoteMain Street understands that Mica et al are bought and paid for by the industries they represent.

::) :D  No they arent!  What you are describing are bribes.  They happen to be illegal.  Are you contending that Mica and others have been bribed to vote against your bill?  Pretty bold statement by someone who is running for office.  Can I quote you on that? 

Are republicans the only ones who are getting the contributions you list?  Are you contending that those industries are not allowed to have a say in legislation or be allowed to contribute to political parties or campaigns??

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Cartoons%20and%20Fun%20Stuff/Freedixieflasher.gif)

For those that believe this is another Ocklawaha joke post, I assure you, the sentiments are quite real.

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 10:49:31 AM
Not sure what Ock wants to imply.

Certainly we all believe in Lincoln's famous phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Sorry Faye, I'm going to check out on this. I NEVER want it to be suggested that I am one of the "we all" that quote Lincoln.  What the man said and what he ultimately did are two different worlds. No government that burns, rapes and kills it's citizens is of, by, or for the people. A Union by force is not a Union, it is a form of indirect enslavement. Federal troops that laid waste to the South were not representative of anything I would want to claim. Frankly, Lincoln was the "Rebel" and Booth quite possibly the hero.

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Cartoons%20and%20Fun%20Stuff/FreeDixieBoothFlashing.gif)

Boy I bet I've pissed off every lemming and minion of a despotic government! I figure you just got a bunch of robotic friends on line.

OCKLAWAHA
DEO VINDICE Y'ALL!(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Cartoons%20and%20Fun%20Stuff/FreeDixiestarsandbars.gif)

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 12:07:36 PM
Campaign contributions by industry do come with strings attached. Both parties have been bought and paid for, that's why about 25% of us do not belong to either party, and many are calling for public financing of campaigns.

Requoted for BT,......I guess you missed this.

Hmmmm, starting to worry about the tea you drink at those tea parties Ock ;)

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 01:27:16 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 12:07:36 PM
Campaign contributions by industry do come with strings attached. Both parties have been bought and paid for, that's why about 25% of us do not belong to either party, and many are calling for public financing of campaigns.

Requoted for BT,......I guess you missed this.

Hmmmm, starting to worry about the tea you drink at those tea parties Ock ;)

BTW, if you want the feds out, doesn't that apply to John Mica, Ander Crenshaw and Cliff Stearns too? They are after all part of the federal government. Let's be consistent here!

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 01:27:16 PM
Hmmmm, starting to worry about the tea you drink at those tea parties Ock ;)

Some people think it was the 3,592 acid trips I took, but not really, it could be I am just UNreconstructed, as was/is my whole family. Not to worry Faye, tea parties were in Boston, I wouldn't be caught dead doing anything they do.  

OCKLAWAHA ::)

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 01:30:54 PM
BTW, if you want the feds out, doesn't that apply to John Mica, Ander Crenshaw and Cliff Stearns too? They are after all part of the federal government. Let's be consistent here!

Sure, and the horse they rode in on too! I said I know Mica, think he's a nice guy and gave him the commuter rail plan similar to Sunrail. That doesn't mean I like the fact that we are an occupied country.  

OCKLAWAHA

QuoteBoth parties have been bought and paid for,

Its just a bumper sticker faye...

So who should be allowed to contribute to the political process faye? 

BT, you already know the answer: Publicly financed campaigns with equal time in the form of PSA type messages on tv.

Here clear evidence that the Dems are also beholden to  Big Oil, Coal and major Energy Industries:

QuoteThis month, another milestone was reached in the passage of climate legislation. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) voted in favor of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Unfortunately, the bill still fails to hold polluters accountable and falls short of empowering locally controlled sustainable energy.

And we think we know why - In addition to the $100 million lobbying campaign undertaken by dirty energy groups to influence climate legislation, recent research by Public Citizen and our allies have found that energy industry officials have also dominated witness tables at hearings on climate legislation.

Of the 88 witness that gave testimony on climate issues this year 33 were energy industry executives. A mere two witness advocated for consumers protections.

Big Energy has had the Senate's ear for too long! Urge your senators to stand up to polluter influence and support bolder provisions that let not just their constituents, but world leaders, know that the U.S. is serious about addressing climate change.

As we approach the final weeks leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, it is critical that the U.S. send a clear signal that we are moving toward a transformative clean energy and climate bill.

Let your senators know that their constituents and the world are watching. The current bill still contains billions of dollars worth of free giveaways to the coal and nuclear industries, and fails to include real incentives to promote locally-owned, small scale wind and solar. We need a strong bill that achieves carbon emissions reductions mandated by leading climate scientists, establishes better incentives for renewables and energy efficiency, and limits that amount of free allowances given to polluters.

Thanks for all you do,

Tyson Slocum
Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program

P.S.: Next month, Public Citizen is launching a new Climate and Energy Blog! Got a great idea for a blog post? Want to brand our blog? Submit ideas here.

Send a message to your Senators here:

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=28091

I don't want my Rep or Senators voting for "cap and tax".

Aha rolling out that perpetual tax boogeyman.

To heck with reducing our dependence on Oil, and supporting alternative energy sources such as wind and energy. It's that short term thinking that has caused the US to lag behind other advanced nations.

Let's stop the short-sightedness that is holding up the creation of high-paying green jobs that we so desperately need. Sorry to burst your tax fear bubble:

QuoteIn their faux search for more information about the Clean Energy Jobs Act, opponents of the bill aren’t seeing its myriad benefits. Now that the Senate Environment Committee has passed the Clean Energy Jobs Act, perhaps other senators will take a look.

Earlier this week we outlined six benefits of the bill and explained why the bill should be passed by the committee. Here are nine more benefits as the legislation moves forward.

7. The Clean Energy Jobs Act is an “all of the above” bill

Many public officials have said they favor global warming solutions that include “all of the above” energy sources. In September Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) endorsed the “’all-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy,” that includes “development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements.”

The Clean Energy Jobs Act embraces this notion. Its meaningful, declining limit on carbon pollution would, in effect, establish a price on this pollution. The bill includes provisions to protect ratepayers from electricity price spikes, and it would generate revenues from polluters that could be used for clean-energy initiatives. The price would level the playing field between currently underpriced, cheaper electricity generated from dirty, old coal-fired power plants and newer, cleaner sources of electricityâ€"regardless of whether these cleaner sources come from renewables, nuclear, natural gas, cleaner use of coal, or other technologies.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act also has other provisions that would spur investments in a number of clean-energy technologies. These include:

Incentives for wind, solar, and other renewable sources, and energy efficiency (Section 161 to Section 164).

Worker training and waste recycling programs for nuclear power (Section 131 to Section 133).

Ten years of incentives for coal-fired power plants to employ carbon capture-and-storage technology to reduce emissions (Sections 125 and 181).

Economic incentives for utilities that switch to cleaner natural gas (Sections 181, 182, 773).

A “Clean Vehicle Technology Fund” to help our auto manufacturers produce the low-emissions vehicles of the future (Section 201).

8. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will reduce electricity bills  

The EPA’s recent comprehensive analysis of S.1733 predicts that with or without the climate bill, “household consumption [of energy] will continue to grow” and that clean-energy legislation would only slow this growth by about one or two-tenths of a percent on average by 2030, with substantial net gains in the short run, and very modest costs spread out in the future.

Consumers are protected in the bill by the allocation of 30 percent of the revenues from the pollution reduction program to regulated local electric distribution companies, which are required to use the money to “protect consumers from electricity price increases” (Section 772).

Every large emitter of greenhouse gas pollution must have a permit for every ton of pollution. In the early years of the program some of the allowances are given to electric utilities for free, who must then return the value of these allowances to their ratepayers. Heating oil, propane, and regulated gas distribution companies will also receive some free allowances to protect their consumers against increases in heating costs.

Here are a few different predictions for what consumers might save under the efficiency and consumer protection provisions in S. 1733:

The EPA’s analysis of the House version of the bill found that it would cause no increase in energy prices for the next 20 years, and that average household energy costs would actually decrease by 2 to 7 percent over the next 10 years due to increased energy efficiency.
Using figures from the EPA and EIA modeling, the Environmental Defense Fund found that impacts on household utility bills in 2030 would range from a $5.60 per-month savings to a $2.80 per-month increase.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimated that savings from short- and long-term efficiency measures in the House version of the bill could save American consumers even moreâ€"as much as $750 per household per year by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030. Since the Senate Environment Committee does not have jurisdiction over many efficiency programs, such provisions should be part of the energy bill that the entire Senate will debate.

9. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will train workers for the clean-energy jobs of the future

Growing new industries for clean technologies like advanced nuclear plants, renewables, and energy efficiency will require workers with the skills to design, build, and maintain this new infrastructure. The Clean Energy Jobs Act establishes two nationwide worker assistance and job training programs: one for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and another specific for nuclear industry worker training. These programs will help American workers transition from outdated, inefficient industries to new industries that produce or deploy the clean-energy technologies of the future, and they would help ensure that our economy can remain competitive in the race for clean energy markets.

10. The Clean Energy Jobs Act would protect the most vulnerable people

The bill distributes a significant portion of allowances from the pollution reduction programâ€"15 percent initially, rising to 18.5 percent by 2029â€"to pay for direct rebates to low-income households. This would ensure that these households do not suffer from increases in energy prices or other goods due to global warming pollution clean-up costs.

The Congressional Budget Office’s most recent analysis of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act predicted that the combined effect of consumer protection measures in the bill would actually result in an average net income gain of about $125 per year per household for the least well off 20 percent of Americans.

11. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will drive competition and innovation

In addition to finally putting clean-energy technologies on even footing with dirty sources of energy, the bill actually creates incentives for innovation, knowledge sharing, and the transferring of clean-energy technologies from laboratories to assembly lines. It allocates up to 4 percent of allowances competitively to “energy innovation hubs,” where companies, knowledge institutions, scientists, entrepreneurs, and government laboratories can collaborate to develop and commercialize new clean-energy technologies, manufacturing processes, and business models.

A recent study by CAP shows how the regional innovation clusters that this policy would help foster would “create jobs, create businesses and, of course, stimulate long-term economic growth.”

12. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will give a much-needed boost to our manufacturing sector

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are very sensitive to the impact that pollution reduction efforts may have on energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries. The Clean Energy Jobs Act therefore provides assistance to such industries, including steel, glass, paper, cement, and chemical companies. The bill would allocate 15 percent of allowance revenue in 2014 and 2015â€"and decline after until 2050â€"to help manufacturers retool and invest in more efficient process and equipment.

The bill would also help American auto plants retool to manufacture the super-efficient cars of the future by providing 4 percent of allowances for clean-vehicle technologies. Finally, allowances for the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program and “clean energy innovation hubs” will help U.S. manufacturers produce clean-energy and energy efficiency components more efficiently, cheaply, and quickly.

If other countries do not do their part to help avert dangerous global climate change, an additional border measure in the bill that is “consistent with international obligations” will protect against “carbon leakage”â€"or making pollution reductions in the United States only to see increases in other countriesâ€"and ensure that clean-energy manufacturing jobs stay in the United States.

13. The Clean Energy Jobs Act has public support

Many recent polls show that Americans continue to view climate change as a serious threat, and they support clean-energy legislation. Here are just a few examples:

Support for clean-energy legislation is strong, especially in critical swing districts. The Pew Environment Group commissioned a just-released poll of likely voters in swing districts in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. The poll, by the opinion research firm the Mellman Group, found that over 70 percent of voters in all four states believe "global warming is either happening now, or will happen.” Between 68 and 77 percent of these swing district voters supported the United States taking action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses, while only 15 to 23 percent were opposed.

The same Mellman Poll found that Independents in swing districts also overwhelmingly support congressional action to reduce pollution by margins of +20 percent or more in Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio, and by a margin of +53 percent in Virginia.
The McCain for President polling firm of Public Opinion Strategies conducted a poll of Missouri voters with Mellman for Pew and found that “over two-thirds [of likely voters in Missouri] support the combined proposal to reduce emissions and require clean energy sources…a plurality believe that reducing global warming will create new jobs.”

A mid-October CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that 60 percent of Americans supported a “cap-and-trade” program that “would limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that companies could produce in their factories or power plants”, while only 37 percent opposed it.

A recent Washington Post poll found that Americans by a 2-to-1 margin support efforts by President Barack Obama and Congress to enact clean-energy jobs legislation.

A September poll of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 from the Benenson Strategy Group, a public opinion firm, showed support for clean-energy jobs legislation is even stronger among youth, with 75 percent of young Americans in favor of the Clean Energy Jobs Act, and only 15 percent opposed. Support for the bill among youth runs across party lines, with young Republicans 58 percent in favor, young Independents 78 percent in favor, and young Democrats 87 percent in favor.

14. Business leaders want clean-energy reform

Many American businesses leaders are advocating for comprehensive energy legislation that includes a declining limit on global warming pollution. They understand that a clean-energy economy will help their businesses grow, and they are putting their money where their mouth is.

In an open letter signed by 181 global financial institutions representing $13 trillion in capital (equivalent to nearly one-fifth of the globe’s annual gross domestic product), entrepreneurs and investors implored world leaders to “reach a strong post-2012 climate change agreement” that sets “a global target for emission reductions of 50-85 percent by 2050.” The Clean Energy Jobs Act sets a target of 83 percent reduction by 2050.

Major businesses such as Apple, PG&E, Exelon, and PNM Resources have quit the Chamber of Commerce over its staunch opposition to clean-energy legislation. Other major chamber members such as Nike, Duke Energy Corporation, and Cisco Systems have publicly supported reform and rejected the chamber’s views. Meanwhile, Fortune 500 companies including BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, General Motors, Siemens, Shell, and General Electric formed the United States Climate Action Partnership, calling for immediate action to reduce global warming pollution. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership plan forms the basis of the Clean Energy Jobs Act.

15. Inaction will harm the economy

Thousands of scientists, economists, and business understand that our unsustainable energy system threatens our economy, public health, and environment. A recent poll of 144 economists who have published about climate change in the top 25 economics journals found that 94 percent favor the United States joining an international climate agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 92 percent wanted a cap-and-trade system to establish a price on carbon, and 84 percent agreed that global warming’s effects “create significant risks” to the economy.

In addition to producing global warming pollution, the combustion of fossil fuels exacts huge public health and economic costs. A recent exhaustive analysis by the National Academy of Sciences found that an average of 54 Americans die every day due to breathing air made dirty from fossil fuel pollution. This hidden impact costs $120 billion per year.

On top of the health costs, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that failing to deal with climate change will cost our economy an average of $27 million to $375 million every day from now until 2050. These figures are based on an ongoing interagency effort by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation to accurately value the economic cost of carbon pollution, but the report warns that these estimate are “very likely to be underestimations.”

A report authored by economists at Tufts and Cambridge Universities and released by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the increased hurricanes, droughts, floods, infrastructure damage, and higher heating and cooling bills due to global warming will cost Americans an average of $1.3 billion per day by 2050â€"$506 billion annually, or 1.5 percent of GDPâ€"if we do not reform our energy system and slash global warming pollution.

None of these numbers take into account the irreversible climate change-driven damage to our nation’s natural heritageâ€"our glaciers, rivers, wetlands, and arboreal and ocean ecosystems. The National Resources Defense Council suggests that putting a price tag on these difficult-to-value ecological impacts would cause the price tag for climate disasters to double.

Between the $120 billion of hidden annual health costs that are predicted to increase until 2050, the $350 billion per year sent abroad to buy foreign oil, and the $506 billion necessary to deal with weather, infrastructure, and increased energy demand, doing nothing to solve our energy problems today means dumping at least a $2.6 billion daily bill on the next generation by 2050 and beyond.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy and Sean Pool is Special Assistant for Energy Policy at American Progress.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/11/reasons_ceja2.html

I support drilling for oil and natural gas here in the United States.  We should also clear the way for many more nuclear power plants.  I don't believe anyone that says taxing Utilities and making them use wind and solar will reduce my bills.

Quote from: JMac on November 20, 2009, 04:35:47 PM
I support drilling for oil and natural gas here in the United States.  We should also clear the way for many more nuclear power plants.  I don't believe anyone that says taxing Utilities and making them use wind and solar will reduce my bills.

Based on what,.......your gut feeling?

Sad to see the US so behind:

QuoteSpain’s variable wind and stable electricity networks

16 Nov, 2009 11:58 pm
Enlarge text  Reduce text size  Send this article
One of the frequent criticisms of wind energy is that national distribution systems (‘the grid’) cannot cope with large number of turbines because of the variability and unpredictability of their output. Grids need to match supply and demand precisely, the critics say, and because wind varies so much it causes huge problems. Recent data from two meteorologically unusual days in Spain â€" the world leader in the management of renewable energy supplies â€" shows this assertion is almost certainly false.


During part of 8 November, Spain saw over 50% of its electricity come from turbines as an Atlantic depression swept over the country’s wind parks. (They are so big that no one seems to call them ‘farms’.) Unlike similar times in November 2008, when Spanish turbines were disconnected because the grid had an excess of electricity, the system accepted and used all the wind power that was offered to it.


A very different event in January of this year saw unexpectedly high winds shut down most of the country’s turbines with little warning. The grid coped with this untoward incident as well. These two events show that a well run transmission system can cope with extreme and unexpected events even with a large fraction of power provided by wind.


Over the course of this year Spain will generate about 14% of its total electricity from wind and this number is likely to rise to the high twenties by 2020. Spain is showing the rest of the world that these figures are not incompatible with grid stability. Although wind is ‘variable’, ‘intermittent’ and ‘unpredictable’, a well functioning grid system can still use wind to help stabilise electricity costs, reduce carbon emissions and improve energy security.


53% from wind


At some periods on the night of 8/9 November, wind provided 53% of Spain’s need for electricity. This was a new record for the Spanish system. As the country continues to install thousands of new wind turbines a year, this record will not stand for long.

Although Denmark has had similar percentages of its electricity provided by wind, the Spanish numbers are particularly significant. As its electricity transmission company, Red Eléctrica de España or REE, reminds us, the country is unusually isolated from international interconnections. It is ‘a peninsula electrically speaking, with weak electrical interconnections with the European Union’.[1] A country with limited capacity to import or export power has more issues accommodating large amounts of wind power. Denmark has international connections to cover 50% of its electricity while Spain has less than a tenth this amount. (The UK also scores extremely poorly on this dimension.) Spain is able to manage the integration of wind power into its grid primarily because it has reasonable amounts of hydro-electricity and pumped storage.[2] Hydro-electricity can be used when winds are less than expected and pumped storage can assist both when wind is unexpectedly high or unexpectedly low.

One of the main criticisms levelled at wind is that its power is so unpredictable that huge amounts of fossil fuel generating capacity needs to be kept ready to replace it at a moment’s notice. Those antagonistic to wind believe that the carbon cost of keeping power stations in a state of what the industry calls ‘spinning reserve’ is enormous. Power stations, they say, are burning fuel so that they can instantaneously start producing electricity if and when the wind drops.

But is wind so variable that power stations need to provide immediate backup? The utterly superb REE web site provides easy-to-use data to test this theory. I’ve used this data to try to demonstrate that wind production was remarkably consistent during the peak day of 8 November.[3] Not only is wind speed largely predictable with good meteorology, but REE data shows that even in the windy days of early November, the amount of electricity generated only varied gradually.

During this 24-hour period the total generated varied from about 9.3 gigawatts (9,300 megawatts) at the start, to a peak of around 11.5 gigawatts at about 14.30 in the afternoon. For most of the day, the wind output was very stable around 10 gigawatts. (The wind output estimate is provided every ten minutes on the REE website.) The mean percentage variation from one reading to the next was 0.72%. On only three occasions out of 143 observations did the output vary more than 2% between two readings.

http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=3143

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 20, 2009, 02:17:04 PM
BT, you already know the answer: Publicly financed campaigns with equal time in the form of PSA type messages on tv.

Why Faye? It's all touchy feel good fuzzy, but lets say a new candidate is running against Hitler or Stalin?  You still want your tax dollars to fund THEIR campaign?  What if some guy is in the lead and he is all about making things harder for the handicapped?  Your telling me as a mom, you are not going to find someone, Walgreen's, AMA, SOMEONE, who will donate the funds to dump the guy?
I would.

OCKLAWAHA

QuoteBased on what,.......your gut feeling?

Based on the fact that Obama is forecasting to raise close to a trillion dollars in eight years.  That money will come from me and you, sister, and it will ensure the continuation of this terrible recession.

QuoteBT, you already know the answer: Publicly financed campaigns with equal time in the form of PSA type messages on tv.


Why Faye? It's all touchy feel good fuzzy, but lets say a new candidate is running against Hitler or Stalin?  You still want your tax dollars to fund THEIR campaign?  What if some guy is in the lead and he is all about making things harder for the handicapped?  Your telling me as a mom, you are not going to find someone, Walgreen's, AMA, SOMEONE, who will donate the funds to dump the guy?
I would.

Faye... is there ANYTHING that the government shouldnt pay for? ::)

So everyone gets equal time?  Or only who the government decides to actually finance.  Suppose some lunatic starts the BridgeTroll party... does that guy get the same cash for on air ads as Faye and Mica?  How about the Nazis?  Same time?   ::)