Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Opponents continue to obstruct clean energy jobs push in Energy & Commerce Committee debate, which resumes now, 10 am EST, on C-SPAN3

Posted on

"Opponents continue to obstruct clean energy jobs push in Energy & Commerce Committee debate, which resumes now, 10 am EST, on C-SPAN3"

Share:

google plus icon

You can follow the continuing markup of the Waxman Markey bill on C-SPAN3 here.  I am reprinting below a daily update from the Center for American Progress Action Fun:

Here’s what to look for as markup moves in to its second day

WASHINGTON, DC“”Yesterday brought few surprises as opening statements began in the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Opponents of the bill complained about a lack of debate despite more than 40 days of hearings on the issue over the past two Congresses and continued to cite debunked talking points and statistics to try to stop progress on converting America to a clean energy economy. The bill’s supporters discussed the need to get our country off its addiction to foreign oil and create clean energy jobs in states across the country.

Five moderate Democrats announced their support for ACES, including John Dingell (MI), Gene Green (TX), Bobby Rush (IL), Bart Gordon (TN) and G.K. Butterfield (NC), as they recognized the many benefits this bill will bring to districts across the country. As the debate continues, more members are expected to announce their position on the bill.

Today, the committee moves to amendments, and watchers can expect to see more obstruction from the opposition in the form of hundreds of amendments designed to weaken the bill. As CAPAF’s Tom Kenworthy has noted:

“Conservatives on the Energy and Commerce Committee are expected to push an amendment that would include nuclear power in the definition of renewable energy sources. Only one state, Ohio, allows nuclear to be considered renewable, and if adopted by Congress, that amendment would make a mockery of the national RES.

“Nuclear power relies on uranium, a nonrenewable resource that contributes to global warming because mining and processing it requires large amounts of fossil fuels. In addition, nuclear does not make the United States less dependent on other nations, since we import more than 90 percent of the uranium we use. In fact, the United States has only 6 percent of the world’s known uranium reserves. And finally, nuclear is polluting since it produces long-term radioactive wastes.”

Supporters on the committee will offer some amendments of their own – Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI) may offer an amendment to create energy bank to help fund wind, solar and other clean energy projects.

The White House’s announcement today of an agreement with automakers on fuel efficiency and the first ever national greenhouse gas reduction standards highlights the widespread agreement that businesses, government and consumers have on ending America’s reliance on foreign oil and moving towards a clean energy economy.

« »

6 Responses to Opponents continue to obstruct clean energy jobs push in Energy & Commerce Committee debate, which resumes now, 10 am EST, on C-SPAN3

  1. Dayton says:

    “Nuclear power relies on uranium, a nonrenewable resource that contributes to global warming because mining and processing it requires large amounts of fossil fuels.” And what are solar panels and wind turbines made of? Mining products – from holes in the ground and trucked to their final site. How about some sense of reality in the argument?

  2. K L Reddington says:

    In a highly anticipated move, Pacific Ethanol’s production subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection today in federal court in Delaware.
    The subsidiaries operate two ethanol plants in California — closed facilities in Madera and Stockton — as well as one each in Oregon and Idaho.
    h/t Fresno business Journal.
    These closures were announced yesterday may 18. Ethanol is a strong producer of CO2. The brewing process alone is excessve. I realize these alternative fules have a lot of novelty today, but even with heavy government subsidies, they often fail.

  3. Red Craig says:

    Thanks for bringing us up to date on the political status of renewable energy. However, I was disappointed that CAPAF included gratuitous misinformation about nuclear energy.

    Actually, the US has almost 10% of the world’s known reserves of uranium and it has 16% of the known reserves of thorium. We import uranium from Australia because that country can mine uranium cheaper than we can. But about half of the uranium we consume comes from Soviet warheads; consuming warhead bomb material is only one of many benefits nuclear energy gives us. In any event, there is enough uranium and thorium in the US to last well over a thousand years. Please look at http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2179-a/B2179-A-508.pdf and http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/0412_1.pdf.

    The distinction between renewable and milennium-lasting is theoretical at best.

    CAPAF ignores the fact that renewables require as much energy as nuclear does for manufacturing and construction. Please look at http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf for life-cycle comparisons.

    Finally, long-term radioactive wastes are not pollutants in any sense of the term. They are fully isolated from the environment. All the spent fuel presently in storage will be recycled as valuable fuel; the only resistance to this important solution to climate change comes from misguided political groups.

  4. Richard L says:

    I vote that new nuclear plants be built only within the confines/limits of the city to which the plant will serve. This is not practical of course, as no one wants a nuke plant in their back yard. But it illustrates the point that if nuclear is so safe, etc, why doesn’t anyone want one near them???

  5. RunawayRose says:

    Richard L, I have worked next door to a nuclear power plant for almost 30 years. That’s not where I live, because the plant where I work is out in the middle of nowhere, but I would have no problem living next to a nuclear power plant. Better that than a coal plant!

  6. Rick Maltese says:

    Fear of “nuclear” is way out of proportion. The past sins of technology are having long term effects of research and development. Molten Salt Reactors are not dangerous. They must be brought back. A good place to start is with the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor). Japan is working on one and nearly a dozen reactors on the planet recognize the value of Thorium.
    We can’t escape from the fact that dismantling nuclear weapons means using the radioactive material in the bombs. So like the nuclear plant waste dismantled weapons can be burned up entirely to create electricity. So what is stopping development?
    Greed and fear combined with the old reliable cloak of ignorance. The greedy are glad there is fear and that most people no very little about the complexity of the technology so their investments will last if the public remain ignorant.
    An american born technology that was born in the USA has gone into production in Japan and the US has no facilities in development on it’s own soil.

    Kirk Sorenson has suggested to overcome the obstacle of this “not in my backyard” problem to build these reactors as submarines. They are cleaner, safer and cheaper than current Nuclear submarines so why not?