MARKEY what happened to your bill?(The American Clean Energy and Security Act)

Comments

1. cleanpowernow says

   May 15, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    – When Edison Electric Institute’s CEO endorsed the bill, when three of the largest oil companies support the bill, when the second-largest coal company supports the bill, when [General Electric] and dozens of Fortune 100 companies endorse the bill, it is clear that the lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry have been allowed to hijack the bill and include provisions that would satisfy their own interests at the expense of the public good.  We believe the Markey Waxman bill should be drastically changed or dropped.

   <

   p>-Barbara Hill
   Executive Director
   Clean Power Now
   cleanpowernow.org

   • charley-on-the-mta says

     May 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm

     I’ve been trying to find that out.  

     • barbara-hill says

       May 16, 2009 at 11:07 am

       In its current state, the bill falls far short of the policies needed to transition from a dirty energy economy to a clean energy economy. Despite the changes sought by the electorate in 2008, nothing has really changed in Washington. Lobbyists for the fuel and coal industry have been allowed to hijack the bill and include provisions that would satisfy their own interests at the expense of the public good.

       <

       p>The Markey Waxman bill should be drastically changed or dropped.

       <

       p>Dump the cap and trade provisions and carbon capture and sequestration provisions as they currently stand.

       <

       p>Pass a federal Renewable Electricity Standard that mandates at least 25% renewables by 2025.

       <

       p>Pass a federal Energy Efficiency Resource Standards that requires at least a 15% reduction in energy usage by electric utilities by 2020.

       <

       p>Pass separate climate legislation that forces the auction of allowances or imposes a carbon tax on polluters and gives the proceeds to the public (a revenue neutral carbon tax).

       <

       p>Here’s where the bill fails

       <

       p>It provides $10 billion in research for carbon capture sequestration (CCS) research signaling to the coal industry that Congress envisions an energy future based on coal.

       <

       p>The requirements that polluters create energy from renewable energy sources. They are so weak that they will make little to no difference in the deployment of renewable energy technology.

       <

       p>The cap on emissions is too weak and loopholes further erode the ability for the US to adequately address global warming.

       <

       p>The bill’s provisions favor the utility and oil industries over ratepayers and consumers by giving these industries hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon allowances while providing no protection for electric utility ratepayers for rate increases related to the sale and cost of allowances.

       <

       p>The legislation provides for the appearance of a moratorium on coal plants. In reality, the bill exempts 45 coal plants that are in various stages of permitting or approval.  

2. johnd says

   May 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm

   He can do anything he wants in this state.

3. charley-on-the-mta says

   May 15, 2009 at 8:33 pm

   FWIW:

   <

   p>

   While some in the environmental community have expressed disappointment in the Waxman-Markey bill, Gore was optimistic.

   “I think they’ve maintained the integrity of the bill,” he said. “In its current form as I understand it, I have no doubt that it will accomplish the result we need to begin this transition toward renewable energy, conservation, efficiency, and renewed U.S. leadership in global negotiations.”

   Gore praised Waxman’s and Markey’s efforts to reach compromise, which addressed the concerns of moderate Democrats from the South and Midwest. “One cannot discount the importance of having a broad base of support for this legislation,” he said. “Were it to be perceived as unbalanced regionally, unduly harsh in its impact on important sectors of the economy, then its chances for passage in the House and Senate would be sharply diminished.”

4. jack12 says

   May 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm

   Don’t want to pay an additional $1k to $3k for energy costs if this Cap and Trade lunacy passes. Like all low life politicians, they want to get re-elected and backing Waxman and Markey is a political loser.
   This idealistic, global warming hoax bill is DOA