NATIONAL SECURITY, THE ECONOMY AND NEW ENERGY

National security hawks to rally support for Clean Energy Act; U.S. House lawmaker: 'The largest energy tax in the last decade has been the war in Iraq.'
John Tomasic, July 20, 2009 (Colorado Independent)
and
A Dozen Reasons for Clean Energy
Daniel J. Weiss and Eric Goad, July 20, 2009 (Center for American Progress)

SUMMARY
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, will present what is expected to end up being the Senate’s energy and climate legislation when the Senate returns to to Washington, D.C., after the August recess.

Aside from generalities about a distribution plan for emissions allowances to ease emitting industries and ratepayers through the transition to a cap&trade system, Boxer has equivocated on how much her Senate legislation will resemble H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), passed by the House of Representatives in May.

Written by Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass), Chair of the House Energy Subcommittee, ACESA would enact the first-ever national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), requiring regulated utilities to obtain 15% of their power from New Energy sources by 2020. It would also enact the first-ever national cap&trade system to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050.

The Waxman-Markey legislation stirred controversy when, to get through the partisan bickering of the House, compromises weakened the RES and the cap&trade provision that would auction GhG allowances to generate revenues to fund emissions cuts and New Energy infrastructure.

Why are the politicians bickering? (click to enlarge)

Opponents of Waxman-Markey on the conservative end of the spectrum call it “cap and tax” and dismiss it as an ineffective government boondoggle. Opponents of Waxman-Markey on the progressive end of the spectrum simply dismiss it as an ineffective government boondoggle.

Because of its breakthrough RES, its breakthrough cap&trade system and its other provisions, ACESA also has a long list of supporters on the right and the left who want Senator Boxer to follow its lead in designing the Senate bill.

A group of conservatives have started a move to support Waxman-Markey for national security reasons. They say the bill is a first step toward a new era of freedom from dependence on imported energy and contend it is too important a law to turn away from for mere partisan political reasons. They are defying fellow conservatives’ characterization of the bill as a “career killer” and supporting it because they believe it is vital to pass an energy bill that will put a price on emissions and move the nation away from imported energy.

Can he make them listen and act? (click to enlarge)

They, in turn, are supported by Americans United for Change and its leaders former Deputy National Security Advisor Donald L. Kerrick, Congressman/Air Force Reserve Major John Boccieri (D-Ohio), Iraq War veteran/VoteVets.org Co-Founder Jon Soltz and Iraq War veteran/ Truman National Security Project Opertaing Officer Jonathan Powers.

The goal of moving the U.S. away from dependence on imported energy echoes the spirit of the Lexington Project advocated by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) during his 2008 Presidential campaign.

T. Boone Pickens built his enormously successful populist movement for wind energy on the nation's readiness to stop importing energy. (click to enlarge)

Support for ACESA from the other end of the political spectrum comes from the progressive Center for American Progress (CAP), which listed 12 reasons for Senator Boxer to stay with Waxman-Markey:

(1) It would create 1.7 million new jobs;
(2) It would reduce oil use;
(3) It would reduce electric bills;
(4) It provides special protection for low-income households;
(5) It would cost the average household a postage stamp per day;
(6) It would spur investments in clean energy;
(7) It would create new income streams for farmers;
(8) It would protect farmers from energy-related price increases;
(9) It would protect energy intensive, trade-sensitive industries;
(10) It would cut greenhouse gas pollution;
(11) It would create a safety net for displaced workers; and
(12) The American Clean Energy and Security Act is widely supported.

Some American patriots have had enough of this and want New Energy. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
Both CAP and Americans United boost the enormous potential for job growth in the House legislation. CAP says it will create 1.7 million New Energy jobs by drawing investment to the industries the bill supports.

Opponents of Waxman-Markey have pointed out the ~$4 billion it assigns to assist those who lose jobs in the Old Energy industries as proof it will not create jobs. In fact, a University of Massachusetts study found it will reduce the nation’s unemployment a full percentage point while providing for those who must make a transition as the U.S. develops a New Energy economy. It funds workforce retraining programs, health insurance premium payments and allows a worker to apply for up to 70% of lost wages for up to 3 years.

From the Environmental Protection Agency. (click to enlarge)

The same kind of provisions were included in the Clean Air Act of 1990 to help coal workers move away from work that was causing acid rain. Opponents of that program predicted enormous job losses and human suffering. Job losses were 75% less than predicted.

An American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) study showed H.R. 2454 will eliminate at least 240 million barrels of oil use per year, or almost 5% of U.S. foreign oil imports, with one stroke of the President's pen. And that’s before the large-scale transition to battery electric vehicles.

Both Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports show the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill would improve energy efficiency and lead to reduced electricity consumption. That translates into lower utility bills. EPA said the average family would spend $84/year less. CBO calculations also show the lower-income 20% of U.S. households profiting from the shift to New Energy and Energy Efficiency provided in ACESA. CBO shows the average household paying an extra $175 per year, less than 50 cents/day.

From the Congressional Budget Ofice. (click to enlarge)

Many of the biggest and most influential companies in the U.S. have testified individually and through business alliances that they would be able to operate successfully under the terms of a cap&trade system such as the one created by the Waxman-Markey bill. The list of endorsers below is pretty comprehensive.

Business in the U.S. is chomping at the bit to have clear and definitive rules, prices, caps and a marketplace for GhGs so they can get on with doing what they do. Both the cap&trade system and the RES established by Waxman-Markey guarantee businesses’ investments in New Energy and Energy Efficiency will have value. The bill also channels revenues from auctioning GhG allowances into the building of New Energy infrastructure to support private investment.

Much was made of the “sell outs” to “Big Agriculture” made by Representatives Waxman and Markey during negotiations with moderate Democrats. There is some truth in those accusations. But, in the short run, the bill provides incentives for farmers big and small to start practicing the kind of agriculture that will reduce emissions. In the long run, those provisions must be tightened up.

Emissions allowances will be auctioned to raise revenues. But how many will be auctioned? (click to enlarge)

As much as $60 billion in capital investment will go to into wind projects in rural regions. The opportunities to farmers and rural landowners in New Energy is estimated to be worth $1.2 billion in new income and likely to create 80,000 new jobs. A single wind turbine can generate $3,000 a year for a farmer.

An Ohio State University study found that proper soil management by U.S. farmers could reduce the nation's GhGs as much as 1/3. Such management, as a byproduct of going for the green of dollars, would also likely make the soil better, more fertile and more productive.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates emissions offsets of the kind provided for in Waxman-Markey could be worth ~$24 billion per year to farmers and rural landowners. As an added incentive, Waxman-Markey contains provisions protecting farmers - who, after all, perform a service of national importance - from GhG reduction requirements and provides cash refunds to them should energy prices become too onerous.

The RES requires progressively larger portions of utilities' power to come from New Energy sources. (click to enlarge)

The much-resented compromise of the percentage of allowances to be auctioned made by its authors to get ACESA passed by the House was done to bring energy intensive, trade-sensitive U.S. industries (like cement, paper, chemical, aluminum, and steel) around. Although the allowance giveaway to industry is likely, if the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) experience is repeated, to compromise the early effectiveness of the cap&trade system, it does protect crucial businesses and industries while they face the harsh realities of a transition into an economy in which their GhG spew begins to cost them and progressively costs them more and more.

In 2020, the total value of the allowance pool is projected to be $100 billion, with $13 billion going to the protected businesses and industries.

The return on this investment, in addition to all the national security and economic benefits already enumerated, will be a 17% reduction in U.S. GhGs by 2020.

Waxman-Markey also provides incentives to U.S. businesses and industries to invest in programs to stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, a serious factor in the rise of GhGs.

The range of ACESA’s endorsers is so broad and disparate there is no point in trying to summarize or characterize it. From electric utilities and energy companies to manufacturers, industries and businesses to labor to farm and agriculture to faith, community, civic, and environmental organizations, here is the list (from CAP):

Electric utilities and energy companies -
Alstom Power
American Electric Power
Austin Energy
Avista
ConEdison
Constellation Energy
Duke Energy
Edison Electric Institute
Entergy
Exelon
FPL Group
National Grid
NRG Energy Inc.
Nuclear Energy Institute
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
PSE+G
Renewable Fuels Association
Shell Oil

Manufacturing, industry and business -
Alcoa
American Chemical Society
Applied Materials
Aspen/Snowmass
BluewaterWind
BP Solar
Business Council on Sustainable Energy
Calpine Corp.
Dow Chemical
Dow Corning
eBay
GE
Genpower
HP
John Deere
Johnson & Johnson
Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
Levi Strauss
National Semiconductor
Nike
Rio Tinto
Seventh Generation
Siemens
Solar Power Industries
Starbucks
Symantec
Labor
AFL-CIO
Boilermakers
Communications Workers
Laborers International
Services Employees I.U.
Steelworkers
UAW
Utilities Workers Union
Farm and agriculture
American Corn Growers Association
American Farmland Trust
Growth Energy
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Farmers Union
Renewable Fuels Association

click to enlarge

Faith -
Baptist Pastors and Theologians
Catholic Relief Services
Evangelical Climate Initiative
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ)
General Board of Church and Society
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
National Council of Churches USA
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office
Progressive National Baptist Convention
The Episcopal Church
The United Methodist Church,
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

Community, civic, and environment -
American Institute of Architects
American Public Health Association
American Rivers
Attorneys General of California, Arizona and New Jersey
CARE
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Clean Water Action
Climate Communities / ICLEI-Local
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
Governments for Sustainability USA
HipHop Caucus
International Forum on Globalization
Izaak Walton League of America
Latino Coalition
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
National Association of Clean Air Agencies
National Audubon Society
National Congress of American Indians
National Parks Conservation Assn
Natural Resource Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Oxfam Oceana
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Pew Environment Group
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Sierra Club
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
Trout Unlimited
Union of Concerned Scientists
United Nations Foundation
US Conference of Mayors
Woods Hole Research Center
World Resources Institute
World Wildlife Fund

From AmericansUnited via YouTube.

QUOTES
- Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif): “The bill will be introduced when we get back…We're going to use the extra time we have to make it the best it can be…I think the majority of the allocations will be spelled out…”
- Congressman/Air Force Reserve Major John Boccieri (D-Ohio), Americans United for Change: “Every GOP candidate last year talked about oil and foreign entanglements…They all said moving toward energy independence was crucial. They all supported the idea at the time…The largest energy tax we have had in the last decade has been the war in Iraq. We wouldn’t be there if not for oil… In the 1970s, people were standing in line for oil. We didn’t act. Today 60 percent of the oil we consume comes from foreign sources.”
- Senator John McCain (R-Ariz), during the 2008 Presidential campaign: “[The plan] is named for the [Massachusetts] town where Americans asserted their independence once before…Let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025…Much will be asked of industry as well– as automakers and others adapt to this great turn toward new sources of power…A great deal will depend on each one of us, as we learn to make smarter use of energy, and also to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good.”

click to enlarge

- Jonathan Powers, Iraq War veteran/ Truman National Security Project Opertaing Officer, Americans United for Change: “This is not just about the future. This is about saving lives. Seventy percent of the [U.S. military] convoys running in Afghanistan and Iraq are carrying fuel in water. Why don’t we have all solar-power generators in Iraq?”
- Jon Soltz, Iraq War veteran/VoteVets.org Co-Founder, Americans United for Change: “To be clear…The sun never sets on the U.S. military. We’re in all four corners of the planet. It’s not sustainable. We have to take these steps, make these decisions now… This is the first bill we’ve seen in Congress that works at all toward energy independence.”
- John Doerr, Silicon Valley venture capitalist: “These policies are straightforward; we've seen them work in states and in other countries. In Denmark, policies, including prices on carbon and building and appliance efficiency standards, have made a huge difference since 1970. It started their wind industry. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark. And Denmark’s energy technology exports were more than $10 billion. That’s from a country with a smaller population than Missouri, Tennessee or Michigan. It has resulted in jobs; last year, the unemployment rate in Denmark last year was only 2 percent.”