John Podesta: Clean Energy Bill Is ‘Imperfect In Its Means,’ But ‘Revolutionary In Its Intent’
John Podesta: Clean Energy Bill Is ‘Imperfect In Its Means,’ But ‘Revolutionary In Its Intent’
John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, is calling on progressives to support the passage of “revolutionary” global warming legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). The bill has received some criticisms from progressive bloggers and activists. A vote in the House of Representatives is expected this Friday, June 26th.
Once again, Mick Jagger is right: “You can’t always get what you want/ But if you try, sometimes you just might find/ You get what you need.” The House of Representatives is poised for its first ever floor debate on legislation to reduce global warming pollution. This landmark bill is revolutionary in its intent and, while imperfect in its means, deserves the support of progressives.
For about the cost of a postage stamp per day, the bill would lay the foundation for a thriving clean energy economy, by establishing greenhouse gas pollution limits, setting the first national renewable electricity and efficiency standards for utilities, and improving efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.
The original draft included a more aggressive 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target and a higher renewable electricity standard, which if restored would create more clean energy jobs than the current compromise.
Unfortunately, Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult, and the Senate Energy Committee is off to an inauspicious beginning by passing an energy bill that would do little to boost investments in renewable electricity. The Senate bill is weak, toothless, and unacceptable.
The Congressional will to act lags far behind the scientific evidence that there is little time left to avert the worst impacts of global warming. But passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week by the House will give us a chance to start the critical transition to a low-carbon economy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If the people that oppose this kind of legislation oppose it because of their greed; why not appeal to their greed by highlighting the potential for the new business opportunities it would afford.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pmFrom TPM:
Latest on Health Care
Wouldn’t mind seeing TP blog about the failed leadership and the obstructionist attitudes of “dems: like feinstein.
With her husdand’s ties to military-industrial complex, that family has literally made millions off the treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Liberals/progressive/and the majority of the Democratic constituency need to clean house.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pmbackup – while that sounds like it might work, you are overlooking the fact that the folks that fight against this the hardest are the ones that are most-heavily profiting from the energy business based on existing fuels and technologies.
And don’t kid yourself, OIL is a major component of the military-industrial complex, so you are talking about the most entrenched of all special interest groups.
But you are right – that is a great way to frame the issue for the rest of us. We do need to realize what we are up against, however, to see meaningful change.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:43 pmOn the Climate Progress blog, “Joe” wrote:
If that’s the best that bill supporters can say, well, I am not impressed. Our political system cannot deliver meaningful change on important issues.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pmAnother Joe, aren’t you a little concerned about becoming a self-parody?
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pmralfie – don’t have to worry – you beat me to the punch!
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pmWhat’s the matter, ralfie? Can’t stand a link or tip from a popular blog by a real journalist – someone that understands the need to balance “red meat” to fire up your base with something of substance?
What’s the matter? You throwin’ hissy fits because people don’t mindless key the drivel you seem to spur?
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 pmInteresting. You give the statement of this blogger enough credence that you’re willing to base a judgment on it.
I wonder if, had the blogger written that he saw a 70% to 80% chance of averting catastrophe, you would give it as much credibility? Or do you base your assessment of credibility on how closely it aligns with your preconceived ideas?
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pmNo, AJ, what’s the matter is just what I suggested; your predictable obsession with the issue you think TP should cover IN EVERY THREAD is becoming more than a little absurd, and rendering you nothing more than a punch line.
If you’re cool with that, then so am I.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 pmThe NW already has renewable electric power, hydro-electric, wind and solar is being pushed heavily.
My remodel of a house (one of my rentals) I am having to move into (thanks to the recession) now has 100% efficient Radiant heaters, tankless water heater, and am in the process of installing 3 solar panels.
Old electric bill in January – $200 month
New electric bill in January – $35 month (projected to wattage used)
And it is on a bus line, so more savings can be had.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Interesting. You give the statement of this blogger enough credence that you’re willing to base a judgment on it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
______________
So would I – Joe Romm is a very influential and well-informed voice on the politics of climate change. I think the quote was a bit selective, though – his main gist was that if we pass up this opportunity, we may not get another chance to cap emissions and get on the right path to avoid catastrophic climate change by the end of the century.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmJoe thinks he knows a real journalist….heh.
He thinks he has a base…….
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pmIn the ways of DC Pols/parties, passing this legislation WON’T lead to any further reductions.
The energy corpoRats will argue they’ve suffered enough, and the Congress will inevitably shirk its responsibilities to present and pass ever more stringent meaures, and this piece of crap–by the time iit is reconciled with the Senate side– will give them cover.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pmI haven’t been posting, but I’ve been reading for the past few weeks. Ralph, I’ve got to tell you – your spot on.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pmHow many people on this board speak Turkish?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pmA show of hands please…
Here is what needs to happen, regardless of the Clean Energy bill’s passage or not:
1. Any new technology needs to increase energy efficiency. We need to learn how to equip buildings with means to lower energy usage, as 70% of our energy goes to operating them. We also have to push for conserving as much heat/energy loss as possible when producing energy.
2. We need to use this additional energy efficiency to the fullest, and that means not overproducing/overconsuming energy. We already use a ton of energy per capita, and even if countries like those in the Middle East do not cut down on their own energy consumption, we need to convince other countries that we are willing to cut our own wasteful consumption down.
A bill to enforce laws regarding cleaner energy is one thing, but cutting back on wasteful consumption should be the proper way.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pmMy remodel of a house (one of my rentals) I am having to move into (thanks to the recession) now has 100% efficient Radiant heaters, tankless water heater, and am in the process of installing 3 solar panels.
Now here’s where the simulus could be spent with good and immediate effect.
I dunno how much your efficiency-remodel set you back–$4-5,000?–but you should get a one-for-one tax credit for every dollar you invest in renewable/non-carbon based energy systems.
But the problem with that is that it won’t benefit the BIG Money, and everything that passes Congress absolutely HAS to have some piece in it to make the BIG money richer…
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pmDoes anyone have a link to recent studies that estimate how much clean energy could save the country in future health care costs and improved productivity due to a healthier workforce?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pmAs well, if we were less dependent on crude, defense spending could be reduced and combined, this must be a considerable amount of $$$.
I respect Podesta’s “take action” approach – he is a public servant that does more than talk – glad that Obama put him on this.
He is largely responsible for the release of THOUSANDS of documents during the 1990’s, changes in the way classified information is kept – I only hope obama picks of Podesta’s work to move the government to more openess and transparency.
So far, it isn’t lookin’ good in that regard, but am glad to see Podesta is getting some stuff done.
You know, he has some interesting stuff to share about UFOs and what the government knows but withholds too!
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pmreggie – the folks that don’t want to see “clean energy” are also the same folks that benefit from excessive healthcare costs. We need to remember that the reason the current system is broken is because some are making out like bandits skimming money off the top and doing what they can to see that care isn’t delivered.
It would be nice if “clean energy” could be connected with healthcare savings, but don’t expect that to generate any support among the people that say NO YOU CAN’T!
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pmraphie – you don’t have a clue, but pretend that you are directing the show and if people would just play the little roles you write, everything would be wonderful.
Hey – don’t you have some backwash politician in some widely unknown and irrelevant position that has said something that isn’t 100 percent literally true that you could post about?
Can’t we get the monkey king and queen ready to throw some more bananas at the crowd during your festival of ignorance?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pmHakaN. HakaN. Haka….
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmHakana Matuda?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pmAnother Joe:
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pmDoyou have a clue?
Another Joe says:
It would be nice if “clean energy” could be connected with healthcare savings, but don’t expect that to generate any support
I am only one lone voice in the wilderness. but if I can convince a mere dozen people that clean energy is cost efficient over time, then I have accomplished something.
Now if those twelve could each convince another dozen,and so on and so on, progress can be made.
Joe, you are a defeatist and your being here adds nothing productive. Why not be part of a real grassroots movement and advocate for change, rather bit**ing about backwash?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pmWho the flock is Another Joe, parachuting in here to tell us what we should be reading?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pmSomeother Joe is the superior one. His opinion is to be accepted, and yours rejected. Only he is qualified to tell us what we need to know. Right Joe? Got some plumbing jobs to do or traffic tickets to pay>?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pmeven if global warming was a croc, do you realy think the government could fix it?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:47 pmJune 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/19/20090619junelovely0619.html
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pmHow come no one even bothers with FreethinkingMan? I think I know…
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pmdbadass Says:
How come no one even bothers with FreethinkingMan? I think I know…
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
____________
Because an idiot who can’t tell the difference between weather, climate, and a crocodile is not worth bothering with.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pmOr worse. An idiot that thinks government can do anything about the weather or the climate.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pmAll right folks let’s start that list of people that have told Another Joe to give it a rest, shall we?
Let’s see I’ll start….
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pmLook, cutting back on greenhouse gasses through fuel conservation and/or efficiency increase will not plunge the U.S. into the next ice age. But it will help us conserve fuel, cut back on atmospheric pollution in general, and allow us to stretch our resources a little further.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pmFreethinkingMan Says:
Or worse. An idiot that thinks government can do anything about the weather or the climate.
But the government can control the weather. They’re testing their rain-making device in the Northeast U.S. this week. Why do you think Bill Ayers chose the name “Weather Underground”? It’s all a plot to flood Alaska…
Crap. I’ve already said too much!
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 pmdbadass Says:
All right folks let’s start that list of people that have told Another Joe to give it a rest, shall we?
Let’s see I’ll start….
1) dbadass
2) shayne
3) me
4) toasterhead
5) ralph
6) rucerious
But, we’re all “fringe” participants, we’re not “real” participants like Ahole Joe.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:13 pmA new ice age. No. This bill will only give the government more power, increase the cost of energy for everyone, and not do a thing the environment.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmFreethinkingMan Says:
Or worse. An idiot that thinks government can do anything about the weather or the climate.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
___________
True. That would be pure idiocy. Everyone who has any understanding of policy and environmental science knows that it will take more than just government action to solve the climate crisis. Companies and individuals will also need to be making better energy choices.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pmFreethinkingMan Says:
A new ice age. No. This bill will only give the government more power, increase the cost of energy for everyone, and not do a thing the environment.
You say tomato, I say arugula. I say it will help.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
All right folks let’s start that list of people that have told Another Joe to give it a rest, shall we?
Let’s see I’ll start….
1) dbadass
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm2) All of the above from 38 and several of us months ago…..
What you say is only true when people who say government can’t work get in power and then set out to prove it….ie the gop.
Did you not notice that we had an election? Only an idiot would think that government couldn’t have prevented the economic downfall of America……regulation over both will go a long ways towards fixing our economy and putting us on the right path with the climate change and energy problems.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pmFrom TEXAS: Received an update from the STATE Comptroller complaining about CAP/Trade cost to the Oil industry, but she actually listed the data (as before I thought she pulled the numbers from…..) anyhow, it is from the Pew Charitable Trust and here is the link to the data…which does not bode well for her, as she must have only read the first page, saw something about TX and wrote her blurb:
Although the data is only up thru 2007, it does indicate that Clean Energy etc. is growing…and good legislation is needed to continue with that growth.
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Clean_Economy_Report_Web.pdf
Pretty obvious that legislators in TX don’t read much!
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:06 pmThese are some articles on energy. The first one involves Nikola Tesla. In the late 1800s to the middle 1900s Tesla designed most of the electrical devices we use today. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Tesla’s_Pierce-Arrow
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pmThe second involves Henry Morey.
http://www.cheniere.org/images/people/moray%20pics.htm
People might wonder why these inventions are not in production? They both involve O point energy or Aether energy, basically energy that flows naturally around us. The scientists at the US patent office do not acknowledge the existence of Aether energy; therefore no device will be patented that claims to use it. My point is, Renewable energy is far more advanced than windmills or solar panels. For more information look up Tom Bearden. Cancer Viral diseases like aids were cured using Scalar Electromagnetic energy. 2 15-minute exposures 2weeks apart reverses the cells back to an earlier healthy state. Bearden’s site has more on that.
There are three planets in our solar system that have CO2 in their atmospheres. The atmosphere on two of them is mainly CO2.
Now take a look at the average and min-max surface temperatures:
Venus: 855 degF Avg. (67 mill mi. from the Sun)
Earth: -128 degF to 136 degF (91 mill mi. from the Sun)
Mars: -200 degF to 32 degF (128 mill mi. from the Sun)
Now tell me again the effect CO2 is having?
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 pmSesli Chat
Sesli sohbet
Thanks
June 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm