Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Let the news storm begin.  For those thirsting for more information on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a few recommendations:

Watch Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, weigh in on Democracy Now! — Environmental Groups See Divide over Landmark Climate, Energy Bill Weakened by Industry Lobbying

Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current takes Charlie Gonzalez to task for his efforts to weaken ACES (look for a cameo quote from our very own Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director here at the Texas office — Gonzalez bombs climate change bill

The Washington Post’s business column op-ed: Climate-Change Bill Hits Some of the Right Notes but Botches the Refrain

The Economist breaks down the Handouts and loopholes

And to close out, words from the President:

I commend Chairman Waxman and the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for a successful effort to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill out of their committee today. We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America. The bill is historic for what it achieves, providing clean energy incentives that encourage innovation while recognizing the concerns of sensitive industries and regions in this country. And this achievement is all the more historic for bringing together many who have in the past opposed a common effort, from labor unions to corporate CEOs, and environmentalists to energy companies. I applaud the committee for its action and look forward to signing comprehensive legislation.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen disappointed by process as Big Money works to weaken, kill bill

Statement by Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Texas Office

This evening, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed HR 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES or ACESA), sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), by a margin of 33 – 25.

We would like to thank Gene Green (D-Houston) and Charlie Gonzalez (D-San Antonio) for their support of this step towards clean energy and saving the climate from runaway global warming. It is unfortunate, however, that they chose to weaken the energy efficiency and renewable energy sections of the bill, as stronger mandates would mean more local jobs and more savings for Texans.

They also supported giving away billions of dollars worth of carbon credits to polluters for free, despite knowing that these giveaways hurt low income households the most.

Big money was the deciding factor in this process, with the energy industry donating a total of $3.1 million on all members of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the 2008 campaign cycle, with nearly $2.3 million of that going to committee Republicans, who presented nearly monolithic opposition to the bill and attempted to weaken it at every turn. Ranking member Joe Barton (R-TX) received $406,887 in campaign contributions from the energy industry, the largest amount of any member on the panel, and orchestrated the GOP opposition. Notable opposition to the bill came from Jim Matheson (D-UT), who received $103,097, Charlie Melancon (D-LA), who received $125,100, John Barrow (D-GA) who received $88,743, and Mike Ross (D-AR) who received $59,800. The first three of these received more money from the energy industry than any other Democrats on the panel, while Ross was the fifth largest recipient among Democrats.

The architects of the compromises which weakened the bill also received large contributions from the energy industry, including Rick Boucher (D-VA) who received $67,300 and was the architect of the plan to give coal-fired electric utilities nearly all of their pollution credits for free. A similar deal was struck with oil refineries, whose donations to Gene Green (D-TX) and Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) along with other energy industries was equal to $84,500 and $51,250, respectively.

Unfortunately, the bill leaves the committee weaker than it came in. It has moved to a short term reduction of CO2 emissions of only 17%, even though the research by the Nobel Prize winning IPCC shows that target needs to be closer to 30%. This bill is also potentially a budget buster, as it has moved away from President Obama’s original position of auctioning all of the pollution credits to giving away credits worth billions in revenue to industry for free. By giving away 85% of all carbon credits to industry, the Congress has also limited their ability to help low-income consumers and invest in efficiency, renewable energy, and international programs to aid lesser developed countries. Furthermore, they have added unlimited loan guarantees to the nuclear industry, even though the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that it is likely that more than 50 percent of all nuclear loans will fail. The loan guarantees would be used to

Even worse, by giving away too many credits to special interests, we will repeat the mistakes of the European carbon market, where too many credits were given away at the outset and actual carbon reductions did not occur. Utilities still passed on “compliance costs” to their customers and prices increased, which led to the EPA’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey draft that any giveaways to industries are “highly regressive.”

A well designed cap and invest program with strong efficiency and renewable energy standards would save the average Texas household $900 per year according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. We fear that by weakening the bill, as the Energy and Commerce Committee has, this savings could evaporate.

Now that the committee process has ended, it is now the responsibility of every Texas Representative to strengthen HR 2454. The bill needs to move back to scientifically and economically based goals in order to protect consumers and create a green jobs future for every family in the country.

Read Full Post »

Excellent news from San Antonio!

One:  According to a new poll by the Willie Velasquez Institute, the majority of Texans are in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), the big cap and trade bill currently being debated in Congress.

Two: Latino leaders and organizations in San Antonio have formed a coalition called Tejanos for a Better Future to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation from a Latino perspective.

Hope Texas leadership **cough, cough Charlie Gonzalez and Gene Green** is listening because it looks as if ACESA will be voted out of committee tonight, and these Congressmen’s’ opportunity to hold heavy sway over this legislation is fast reaching an end.

WCVI Calls for Congressmen Green and Gonzalez to Vote for Landmark Climate Change Bill

San Antonio, TX – The William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI) recently completed a flash poll of registered voters in Texas Congressional Districts 20 and 29 and the preliminary findings imply strong support for the landmark Climate Change bill, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA).

WCVI, which held Latino Leadership meetings in San Antonio and Los Angeles on April 25th and in Houston on May 21st to discuss this bill, is urging community members to contact Representative Charlie Gonzalez’s and Gene Green’s Offices to support the bill. As members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, they hold important swing votes, which could be scheduled as soon as today.

Further, WCVI, along with other Latino leaders, have formed Tejanos for a Better Future, a coalition of leaders and organizations in San Antonio. Its goal is to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation from a Latino/Hispanic perspective.

The climate crisis will disproportionately impact Latinos. ACESA, now being discussed in Congress will create new economic opportunities for our community through green jobs and a new green economy.” said Antonio Gonzalez, WCVI President.

Preliminary survey data shows 58% of voters support the ACESA. An overwhelming 87% of voters want to see Texas increase its production and use of renewable energy and 95% want to see the state become more energy efficient. And finally, 55% of voters believe green house gases can be reduced while creating economic opportunities and jobs at the same time.

Added Gonzalez, “The work of Tejanos for a Better Future is very timely with the climate change legislation moving through the US House of Representatives this week. This bill is vital to our planet and to Latinos, and we have high expectations that Congressmen Gonzalez and Green will support a strong bill that protects the environment and our community.”

WCVI plans to hold additional Climate Change briefings in Arizona, California and Texas. For more information, call 210-922-3118 or visit www.wcvi.org.

Read Full Post »

Over the weekend we had a little more time to look over the language in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and have found it wanting.  Check out this thoughtful statement from our Energy Program Director for the skinny on the bill and what went wrong:

Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen

The climate change legislation that will be debated this week is a huge disappointment. Not only will it prove a boon to energy industries, but it won’t protect consumers and may very well not even curb global warming. The first draft, penned months ago, was on track to accomplish these goals, and we applauded it as a great start. Since then, however, lawmakers have met in secret with representatives of the coal and oil industries and facilitated industry efforts to gut the bill.

The Obama administration got it right when officials released a budget that would auction 100 percent of pollution allowances. As long as pollution allowances are auctioned, the government will have the revenue necessary to mitigate energy price increases through rebates while having money to invest in the sustainable energy infrastructure we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels.

This was further reinforced by President Obama’s selection for the new chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, who said that “we may not need any” new nuclear or coal power plants because we have yet to harness the capacity of renewables and energy efficiency.

But the House of Representatives has not followed the administration’s lead.

When Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released a draft climate bill in March, we praised it as a great first step but noted that it needed to be improved during the committee mark-up process.

But instead of a transparent process involving debate and voted-upon amendments, committee leadership conducted closed-door negotiations with polluters. The result: The bill was radically altered to accommodate the financial interests of big energy corporations while giving nothing new for the environment or for working families. This is hardly the transformation this country needs to jump-start its economy and curb climate change. This is more of the same old wait-and-see, special-interest-bailout approach that has gripped Washington for ages. (more…)

Read Full Post »

This afternoon Waxman and Markey finally formally introduced H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Up to now, they’ve just been circulating an unofficial ‘discussion draft’, but now that we’ve got some actual language (932 pages of it), we’ve got a better idea of the bill’s specifics.

And it looks like some of the specifics are significantly watered down from the original draft, largely thanks to Texas’ own Congressmen Charlie Gonzalez and Gene Green.  According to a CongressDaily article, “Waxman To Release Draft Text After Striking Late Deals,”

Eyeing the start of the bill’s markup Monday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman struck a deal early this morning with Texas Reps. Gene Green and Charles Gonzalez that strips out a low-carbon fuels mandate and hands out credits to petroleum refiners amounting to 2 percent of all emissions under the bill’s cap-and trade-program from 2014-26. The deal might be enough to get Green, Gonzalez and perhaps other oil-patch Democrats on board. Green called the deal “a reasonable first step to protecting our energy infrastructure and keeping good-paying jobs here at home.”

The thrust of the bill, and how it differeniates from the drafts, is as follows:

  • 17% emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020 (instead of 20%)
  • giving away 85% of allowances and auctioning just 15%

Unfortunately, this kind of means that no one has to really cut their emissions for 20 years.  Which is disappointing, to say the least. You can see how these allowances will allocated here.

The good news is that, though the bill is compromised… we’ve got a real carbon bill introduced! The bad news is… it isn’t nearly strong enough to create the economic revolution we need to really address the carbon crisis.  Now, the bill won’t go through markup until early next week, which could mean that there is a chance it could be strengthened… but it is more likely that in order to pass the whole House, it may be weakened even more.

Heavy news for a Friday, I know.  It can’t be all good news all the time.  We’ll keep you updated on the status of this bill through markup.

Have hope, my friends.  It ain’t over til the fat lady sings.

Read Full Post »

Check out the following statement from Common Cause railing on the energy industry for exerting undue influence over the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  I can’t say I’m surprised to hear that energy interests gave an average$107,230 in campaign contributions to Energy and Commerce committee members, nearly twice as much than any other member of the House — but I can say that I’m disappointed.  When our leaders receive this kind of money from the very industries they’re supposed to regulate, you’ve got to wonder who they’re really working for.  Cheers to Common Cause for not pulling any punches.

On eve of climate debate, energy industry opens wallet

Statement of Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause, on energy industry influence on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

As the House Committee on Energy and Commerce begins debate on a draft energy bill, an immediate and intense battle over whether this bill can pass in Congress is likely. Energy and climate change issues are high on the minds of the American people and were debated aggressively during the 2008 elections. The public demands action and deserves it.

The energy industry has already been active, though, and the American people similarly deserve to see how the industry – whose profits and future depend on decisions made in Congress, particularly the Energy and Commerce committee – has exerted tremendous influence over this debate already through targeted campaign contributions and massive lobbying expenditures.

A Common Cause analysis revealed that major energy interests contributed more than twice as much to Energy and Commerce committee members’ campaigns, on average, than to other members of Congress. Committee members received an average of $107,230 in campaign cash from the energy sector in the last election, while their non-committee counterparts collected an average of $46,539, a difference of over 130 percent.

The largest player in the energy sector, electric utilities like Southern Company and Duke Energy, had the most pronounced targeting of its campaign contributions. The average Energy and Commerce committee member received $49,495 from electric utility interests alone in the 2008 cycle, while a non-committee member received an average of $18,579, a difference of over 160 percent.

It’s an old adage that money follows power in Washington, but that refrain takes on new meaning – and potentially dangerous consequences – when the wealthy special interests are clearly poised to exert enormous influence over a decision as crucial as how to tackle energy independence, green jobs, and a warming planet. (more…)

Read Full Post »

untitledFor more information on the Carbon Caps = Hard Hats campaign, check out thecapsolution.org

Read Full Post »

As we’ve said before, there are a lot of good reasons to support a federal cap and trade bill: it would address the looming threat of global warming, create thousands of new green jobs while kick-starting a the clean energy economy, increase national security by achieving energy independence, and done right could even address long-entrenched social inequalities.

But according to a new ad campaign run by Texas Interfaith Power and Light, a vote for clean energy can also be considered “an act of faith.”

The word, according to their press release:

State religious leaders are calling on U.S. Congressman Charles Gonzalez to show leadership on clean energy legislation that Congress is set to mark up starting Thursday. With calls to Congressman Gonzalez and a San Antonio Express-News ad in his district, Texas Interfaith Power & Light is voicing the faith perspective people of faith bring to the debate over the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

“Texans of faith know that the care for creation and loving our neighbors go hand in hand,” the ad says, asking Congressman Gonzalez to take action on the volatile fuel prices, pollution and global warming that harm “the most vulnerable among us, particularly the poor, the elderly, minorities, and the farmers who provide food for our families.”

Kudos to Texas Interfaith Power and Light for stepping up to the plate.  The greater the diversity of voices weighing in on this issue the more politicians will see that a climate change bill has far-reaching support across the population, and that there will be significant political consequences to inaction.

Read Full Post »

Kudos and many thanks to San Antonio’s outgoing Mayor Hardberger and council members Justin Rodriguez, Jennifer Ramos, Lourdes Galvan, and Phillip Cortez for signing on to a letter urging Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to get with the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act program.

The letter reads:

We have an unprecedented opportunity to put San Antonians to work in new green jobs — building wind turbines, installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, and laying a smarter electric grid that will power our new energy economy.  We also believe it is of the utmost important that we rescue our children, our grandchildren, and the world they’ll inherit from the ravages of global warming.

According to Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current’s QueQue blog,

The cadre adds the weight of local elected leadership to an ongoing campaign working to ensure San Antonio’s representative in Congress (serving on the influential House Committee on Energy & Commerce) pushes for binding commitments to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions quickly while transitioning the economy into a more sustainable direction.

Hopefully Charlie is feeling the pressure and will back away from the polluter giveaways he’s been flirting with as of late.  That’s because, everybody with me now, Giving Away Allowances is a Terrible Way to Write This Bill.  EPA’s most recent analysis says that giving away pollution credits is “highly regressive”, meaning it hurts low-income families the most. At best, this is a bailout and a free ride for the polluters. At worst it will create windfall profits for huge energy companies at the expense of every lower and middle income family in Texas.

Just listen to that broken record spin. No shame here, I’ll say it as many times as it takes for it sink in.

Read Full Post »

Hey hey, looks like ReEnergize Texas was featured in a recent article on the New York Times’ Green, Inc blog.  Check it out:

College Students Clamor for “Green Fees”

By Kate Galbraith

College students often protest when administrators threaten to raise their fees.

But rising numbers of students seem willing to self-impose a “green” fee, to help the environment and purchase renewable energy. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education posts a list of universities that have such fees, which generally hover around $3 to $5 a semester but have increased to $40 a term in the case of Northland College in Wisconsin.

Portland State University is currently voting on whether to establish this kind of fee.

In some states like Florida and Texas, students at public universities have been foiled in their efforts to impose green fees. That is because any fee increase must be approved by the state legislature. The back-and-forth process can easily take four years, according to Trevor Lovell of ReEnergize Texas, a youth coalition pushing for measures to address climate change — by which time the student body will have (hopefully) turned over.

A bill backed by ReEnergize Texas is working its way through the Texas state legislature that would allow university students to impose green fees more easily.

A similar bill in Florida just failed.

“The economic woes of our country coupled with an increase to tuition for state universities, made the members hesitant to enact any more new fees this session,” said Zachary Keith, who coordinated the green-fee effort in Florida, in an e-mail message.

He vowed to try again in the next legislative session, and noted that referendums at big Florida universities have shown solid support.

Texas is trying to avoid Florida’s legislative fate. Amanda Grosgebauer, who has chaired the environmental issues committee at Texas A&M, wrote a letter to the legislature stating that in March, 76 percent of students at her university had favored increased environmental services. “That is more student support for one issue than in the history of the University,” Ms. Grosgebauer wrote, in a letter provided by ReEnergize Texas.

“In the past our efforts have hit against a wall of political preferences — environmental issues are seen as a leftist, radical or an unreasonable luxury,” Ms. Grosgebauer continued. “We are tired of hearing that excuse.”

Read Full Post »

Check it out!  Texas Vox is now a proud member of the Texas Progressive Alliance, a group of bloggers, blogs, and Netroots activists.  We demand to be taken seriously (and occasionally dance around to The Final Countdown with knives in our teeth).

Alliance photo

Our membership also means that you can look forward to Weekly Round-Up of tasty posts from Alliance members.  Here’s round one:

The city of DISH, TX is one of several municipalities that have already adopted a resolution calling for the repeal of Big Oil’s exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act. TXsharon gives DISH a high-five and hopes your group, organization, club, city or county will do the same, at at Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is glad the internets have Texas Progressive Alliance! The Republicans have their house of cards and a crazy base.

BossKitty at TruthHugger sees danger in the watered down, dumbed down attempt to educate students by committee. Sanitized History, Truth or Consequences is an example of why education needs serious attention.

Houston political reporter Jane Ely passed away this week. PDiddie collected some recollections of her life at Brains and Eggs.

WhosPlayin was totally absorbed in the municipal elections in Lewisville, and was glad to see conservative radio talk host Winston Edmondson soundly defeated by 30 points in his bid to turn Lewisville into the next Farmers Branch.

Is it a good idea to give TXDOT it’s own taxpayer funded investment bank? Yeah, McBlogger doesn’t think so, either.

Over at TexasKaos, lightseeker thinks it is time to reconsider moral absolutism in politics. He talks about how Obama made progress on this issue nationally and how his tatics may apply in Texas. Check out his posting: Moral Absolutism and Politics – What Obama’s Victory Has to Say to Texas Progressives

Off the Kuff takes a look at the latest polls in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has a wrap-up of the action taken on the TxDOT Sunset bill in the House last week, CDA/PPPís kicked to House Transportation Committee.

Neil at Texas Liberal writes that using Twitter in politics may well have the effect of further isolating a narrow elite from the larger mass of folks.

Vince at Capitol Annex discusses the rightwing’s email lobbying campaign against legislation that would have subjected the State Board of Education to Sunset review provisions.

Teddy (aka LiberalTexan) at Left of College Station was back after a month long hiatus and blogging as one of the newest members of the Texas Progressive Alliance. This week Left of College Station covered the Bryan City Council Election (despite being uncontested), and the College Station City Council election campaign for Place 4 and Place 6.

Read Full Post »

willie V

Read Full Post »

ReadingTime for a Friday wrap-up, all the news that’s fit to link:

The Cost of Climate Inaction, Op-Ed in the Washington Post

An Affordable Salvation, New York Times Op-Ed about the benefits of cap and trade

Carbon Offsets in Waxman-Markey Bill, An Overview, Carbonfund.org Blog

Maryland Passes Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, SustainableBusiness.com News

Cap and trade won’t push heavy industries overseas — study, The New York Times

Net metering: The civil rights movement for solar energy, Photovoltaics World

Who gets tough against companies polluting Texas? Hint: It’s not the state, Houston Chronicle

Utah takes nuclear waste from states with own dump, Houston Chronicle (A glimpse of what could happen in Texas if the Andrews Waste Dump goes through)

Read Full Post »

mothersdaycardYou don’t call, you don’t write… yes, ladies and gentlemen, its that time of year.  This Sunday is Mother’s Day — Don’t Forget!

In fact, while you’re thinking about it, why not send Mom an e-card that keeps Mother Earth in mind, courtesy of Carbonfund.org.

Save the paper from sending a real card, give Mom a grin…  what’ve you got to lose?

Read Full Post »

Our readers in Nacogdoches are invited to join Coal Block activist and Public Citizen’s own Ryan Rittenhouse at a screening of Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars today.

When: Thursday, May 07 2009, 6:30pm – 8:00pm

Where: Cole Art Gallery in Nacogdoches,TX. Located at Main and Church St.

Contact: Denise McDonald dentim@suddenlink.net

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »