roger hollander

Kucinich: “Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow”- June 27, 2009

Dennis Kucinich

www.opednews.com, June 26, 2009

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act
of 2009.  The reason is simple.  It won’t address the problem.  In fact,
it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term,
and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. 
It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be
on its way out”” coal “” by giving it record subsidies.  And it is
rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense.  There is $60
billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables
coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. 
Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the
planet.  Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic
levels of warming.  But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions
beyond current levels until 2030. 

“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to
claim that we cannot do better.  I respectfully submit that not only can
we do better; we have no choice but to do better.  Indeed, if we pass a
bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away
with only an illusion.  The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take
substantive action. 

“There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.

1.      Overall targets are too weak. The bill is
predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a
target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science
suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects
of global warming.

2.      The offsets undercut the emission reductions.
Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims
of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended
adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do
not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3.      It kicks the can down the road. By
requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and
requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the
action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming
the long term targets will remain intact.

4.      EPA’s authority to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our
best defense against a new generation of coal power plants.  There is no room
for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5.      Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead
of phasing it out.  Nuclear power
is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my
own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem. 
A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to
$4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate
the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6.      Dirty Coal
is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out.  Coal-based energy
destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most
other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams,
creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will
not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist
weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates,
mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic
compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and
pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters.  In contrast, several times more
jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal
investments.

7.      The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research
and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China,
India and Russia to slow and stop their power
plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that
pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may
or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent
10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those
who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any
leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now. 

8.      Carbon markets can and will be manipulated
using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial
crisis.

9.      It is regressive.  Free allocations doled
out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale
in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests.  The
financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to
large corporations.  And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives
market will help Wall Street investors.  Much of the benefits designed to
assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations,
on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10. The Renewabble
Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES
standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11.  Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable“-:
The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.”- 
Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic
substances.  These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and
low-income to the toxics.  Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a
fuel source are also defined as “renewable.”- Under the bill,
neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global
warming.

12.  It undermines our bargaining position in international
negotiations in Copenhagen

      and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to
take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other
countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the
international context.

13.  International assistance is much less than demanded by
developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the
pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation.  Developing
countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources
for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill.  This
will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that
collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point.  All
amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House.  Three amendments
endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of
achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of
failure to reduce emissions “” increasing emissions in some cases “”
while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their
well being.

“Three other amendments would have made the federal government a
force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from
renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to
electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar
panels on government rooftops and parking lots.  These provisions would
accelerate the transition to a green economy.

“Another amendment would have moved up the year by which
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025.  It
would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced
opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by
a third each year.

“The last
amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of
renewable energy.  Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of
environmental injustice in the country.  It a primary source of compounds in
the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases.  These
facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities
of low income.  Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of
electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

“Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy
tomorrow,”- said Kucinich.