This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action [Senator John Kerry and Senator Lindsey Graham, "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)," New York Times, 2009.10.11].
Graham and Kerry "agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security." They agree we need to get serious about kicking our addiction to foreign oil. They agree we need to protect American jobs and competitiveness. They agree we can pass a comprehensive energy security bill this year that can do all that. Most importantly, they agree that passing ACESA is not some wimpy green fantasy but solid pro-America policy:
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk [Kerry and Graham, 2009.10.11].
Take your pick, Senator Thune. Listen to me, listen to Senator Kerry, listen to your fellow Republican Senator Graham. We're all singing from the same page: pass ACESA.
Just another republican waiting to get fired for incompetence in November. Lindsay Graham has been too long in Washington anyway.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, what is ACESA doing to encourage nuclear power?
Perhaps your curiosity will induce you to read the Graham-Kerry letter, in which they make clear their support for nuclear power as a key component in America's energy security.
ReplyDeleteThis Kerry-Lindsay op ed according to the Capitol Journal "marries a committment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases ... with expanding domestic energy production...through nuclear power, off-shore oil drilling and 'clean coal' technology." This is conveniently left out of your discussion here and left out of the present cap and tax bill.
ReplyDeleteDo you support building more nuclear power plants, more off shore and in country drilling, and the continued use of coal? These in themselves would lower dependence on foreign oil and not threaten our security, without the added cap and tax (which has been admitted by a proponent of such to be a way of redistributing wealth globally).
Because Thune does not buy the hype assoicated with Gore's "climate change" does not mean that he is against a clean environment or national security. In fact, it reinforces that he is concerned with these issues but is not looking to make money off them!
I don't like every aspect of the compromise proposed, Linda McI. I suspect neither do Kerry and Graham. But we agree we need to act to protect America's interests.
ReplyDeleteNukes: I remain open. Nukes produce no carbon emissions. They may be one of the cleanest available solutions, if we can afford to build the new plants. I welcome cost-benefit comparisons.
More domestic oil drilling -- I hesitate, as that seems to perpetuate our dependence on fuel that will run out. I would still like to change our consumption habits now and leave more of the fossil fuel stockpile as back up for my grandkids.
Cap and trade does redistribute wealth: It secures a share of wealth from those who are making wealth by polluting without paying for the cost of it to others who are affected by that pollution. Perfectly fair market mechanism... and better than EPA fines, don't you think?
And oil men aren't taking their positions based on their profit motive? Your Gore argument is non-unique at best, and likely a wishful distortion. Al Gore can probably make more money more directly by making speeches than by promoting a complicated piece of legislation that might or might not produce a direct financial return to him... in what? is he planning a wind turbine factory? Is he going to corner the market on carbon credits?
Not that I think this discredits him and more than I think a study done by "big oil" can just be dismissed without any consideration, but Al does stand to benefit tremendously from Cap and Trade:Al Gore's Golden Egg
ReplyDeleteRoger, (1) we've seen what liars Investor's Business Daily are. (2) The comparison in the article to Bernie Madoff is gratuitous and hyperbolic. (3) Gore has 50-tupled his wealth campaigning for enviro-issues. I would think he could maintain his income stream just as well by sabotaging the bill so he could keep campaigning. (4) It is possible that Gore's activism and his business investment may both result from an honest value system. It is possible to base a business venture on one's value system, not just base one's values on a business venture. I hear some Christians try to work that way. (5) The whole country stands to benefit from clean-energy policy -- is our self-interest a reason not to pass it?
ReplyDelete