Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Well, the sun has just about gone down on the so-called “solar session”.  Today is Sine Die — the last day of the legislative session.  Friday night, HB 1243 — solar’s last lifeline — was killed on the House floor.

Earlier in the week, Rep. Warren Chisum called for a strict enforcement of the House rules on germaneness.  As you may recall, last week we were pretty excited around here that the solar and electric coop reform bills were tacked onto the net metering bill because they were related enough to be considered germane.

But they weren’t germane enough under STRICT enforcement of the rules, so the bill was killed.

I waited to break the news, because we still had a chance to amend SB 545  to the energy efficiency bill, SB 546… but that didn’t work out either.  The House and Senate authors of the bill (Anchia and Fraser) simply could not agree over the size and scope of the solar and efficiency goals, so the bill never made it out of conference.

Its all rather depressing.  Feel free to join my Tom Waits/ James McMurtry/ Leonard Cohen Pandora radio station and wallow in grief.  Leave a comment and I’ll send you an invitation.  But no need to worry about Citizen Sarah getting dangerously down in the dumps… I’ve left my Townes Van Zandt CDs in the car, and am headed out to the river tomorrow.  Will be back to my chipper self before too long.

Plus… the session wasn’t a total loss.  It just wasn’t all that we dared hope for.  As of right now, here’s a list of bills that passed both bodies and will go to the Governor:

  • Green fleets legislation to promote low emissions and plug-in hybrid vehicles for fleets of major State Agencies (HB 432)
  • Legislation allowing cities to create financial districts to loan money for renewable power and energy efficiency (HB 1937)
  • Legislation setting a ‘no regrets’ strategy for greenhouse gas reduction in the State; a study of the state’s energy use to find ways to reduce our emissions and save money at the same time (SB 184)
  • A coordinated green jobs strategy including funds allocated for child care programs, vocational training initiatives, energy efficiency measures, the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and/or any other recovery funds (passed as a Rider to Article 12)
  • Green fee bill passed allowing governing board of public colleges and universities to institute an environmental service fee once approved by student body election

Even now there is still good legislation pending that could maybe possibly potentially pass… but I’m just not at a point where I can get my hopes up anymore.  Check in later this week for an update.

For you policy nerds out there, I’m willing to get further into the nitty gritty politics of how all this went down if you’re interested.  Leave a note in the comments and let us know what you’d like to hear.

Read Full Post »

US_mapClimate change is clearly an important issue, and there is a lot that needs to be done about it at all levels of society. Fortunately there have been individuals and localities that have made great efforts to reduce their carbon footprint, and this should be applauded. I want to focus on a particular success in the area of local effort to reduce emissions and improve efficiency: The Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. This is an agreement between the mayors of several hundred participating cities, across the U.S to reduce their emissions to 7% below 1990 levels.

The agreement was started on February 16, 2005 by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and there are currently 944 participating cities in the United States that have pledged to reduce their emissions below 1990 levels. The agreement was officially endorsed by the Annual U.S Conference of Mayors in 2005, and the conference has actively encouraged Mayors to sign onto the agreement since. Mayors in participating towns and cities use practices such as vegetation restoration, anti-sprawl policies, emissions controls and efficiency improvement activities to improve their climate friendliness. (more…)

Read Full Post »

We’ve been disappointed by the process that the American Clean Energy and Security Act has gone through recently, so a few weeks ago I went to go see my Congressman during his “neighborhood office hours” (at the Randall’s at the corner of William Cannon and MoPac) and talk to him about climate change.  Then this morning  I opened up my email inbox to find a communique from Congressman Lloyd Doggett.

Needless to say, it made me happy, so I’m sharing it with all of you.  This should serve as an example– contact your leaders and tell them how you feel about issues like climate change.  They do listen!  (Or if they don’t– make them!)

I also think his ideas about the “Safe Markets Development” would be a major improvement to any climate bill.  Read on to find out that experts also think it’s a good idea!

Full text after the jump….

doggett banner

May 28, 2009

Mr. Andrew Wilson

5xxx Little Creek Trl

Austin, Texas 78744

Dear Andy:

Knowing of our shared interest in fighting global warming and creating a robust green jobs economy, I would like to update you about my work in Washington.

This is an exciting time for those of us who have long wanted to make renewable energy affordable. Never before has there been such a push from both politicians and concerned citizens like you to get something done.

We cannot allow the fossil fuel special interests to blacken our chances at achieving a strong, clean energy economy in the same way that they blacken our skies. It is critical that the climate legislation this Congress produces ensure both price stability and environmental integrity.  To this end, I have introduced the Safe Markets Development Act. I designed this act to

-Cap carbon pollution;

-Head off market manipulation;

-And incentivize renewable energy technology.

I have also introduced the Green Transit Act, which would require metropolitan planning organizations to consider greenhouse gas emissions in long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. Transportation is an integral factor in the transition to a clean energy (more…)

Read Full Post »

Inside a Hog Confinement

Inside a Hog Confinement

I would like to discuss an issue that has been important to me for several years, but does not get much attention outside the Midwest or agriculture heavy states like North Carolina. In these states much of the landscape is covered by large indoor animal feeding units. These confinements, or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOS), hold thousands of hogs or turkeys and are typically disliked by the people living near them.

Unfortunately, CAFOs are also common here in Texas. The last several years have seen an increase in the number of CAFOs in Texas. McLennan and Erath counties are home to many CAFOs that house cattle and chickens, and their is a major hog confinement industry in much of the panhandle.

Regardless of what kind of animals are produced in CAFOs they inevitably generate several tons of animal waste, which is accompanied by persistent and strong foul odors that are easily detectable miles away. This also generates spills and runoff that contribute heavily to water pollution, making local rivers and lakes undesirable for fishing, swimming and most other purposes. The confinements are often owned by absentee land owners, including some of America’s largest corporations, who are frequent recipients of government money which is used to expand their operations.

Here are some of the facts:

1. A typical hog confinement can hold up to 10,000 pigs.

2. Confined livestock produce an estimated 500 million tons of excrement per year.

3. CAFOs release Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, particulate matter and other highly toxic pollutants into the air and water.

4. These pollutants are detrimental to human health and individuals living near these have high levels of: diarrhea, excessive coughing, sore throats, fatigue and depression.

5. Workers in CAFOs are found to be at high risk for respiratory diseases: asthma, acute bronchitis, sinusitis, rhinitis, and pulmonary endema.

6. Manure from these is stored liquid forms in lagoons that spill and leak into soil and water.

7. A spill from a single lagoon in North Carolina once released 25 million gallons of liquid hog waste into local water ways. Hundreds of smaller spills of thousands of gallons occur each year. EPA estimates: 35,000 miles of contaminated rivers. (more…)

Read Full Post »

If you’ve been following the Texas Legislature at all over the weekend, you’ve probably heard the term “chubbing” at least once.  Yesterday marked the deadline for all bills that originated in the Senate to pass second reading — which means that any bills that didn’t make it through the House by midnight last night are dead for the session.  One of the bills on that list was the contentious Voter ID bill, which would have required Texas voters to present a valid driver’s license to vote.  In order to block this bill, which would have suppressed voter turnout across the state, House democrats adopted the “chubbing” tactic — talking bills to death — to avoid getting far enough down the bill list to have to vote on Voter ID.

Unfortunately, this stalling technique killed a tragically long laundry list of bills that were scheduled after Voter ID.  Among these were many of the bills we have been pushing hard this session to improve air quality in Texas, increase our energy efficiency standards, reform electric coops, and encourage solar development.

Missing Tuesday’s deadline is an enormous set-back, but not all hope is lost.  Bills that died last night can still be revived as amendments, which can be tacked on to House bills that are alive in the Senate.  As the Austin American Statesman reports,

Legislators now have two ways of bringing proposals back to life. The first option is for senators to tack dying proposals onto other related bills that did not fall victim to the voter ID fight in the House. For example, Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, said Tuesday that he may be able to salvage some, but not all, of a comprehensive air quality bill that he has worked on for two years.

“I’ve come to expect tragedy at the end of the session, and tragedy always appears,” Averitt said.

The other option is for the House to take a two-thirds vote to bring up bills.

The two-thirds vote is a pretty enormous step, and highly unlikely for most of the bills we’ve been working one, but the amendment strategy is tried and true.  We’ll be scrambling this week to salvage what we can — it ain’t over til its over, and you can bet we’ll be doing everything we can to fight for what matters for Texas.

Thanks to all you citizens for all your hard work, e-mails, and phone calls to representatives this session.  In the next few days, we’ll be needing your help more than ever.  Stay posted, and we’ll let you know what you can do to help save solar power, air quality, and energy efficiency.

Read Full Post »

While we at Public Citizen Texas are fighting the building of new coal power plants in Texas and the surrounding states, the focus has largely been on the CO2, sulfur and other pollutants emitted into the air by the burning of coal, not to mention its inefficiency as a fuel source. We often over look or neglect to think about the huge environmental destruction associated with getting coal out of the ground, as well as the history of health and safety risks associated with coal mining.

Historically these issues were brought up as some of the biggest objections to the use of coal as an energy source. One just needs to listen to John Prine’s “Paradise” or read any of the works by Wendell Berry on the topic (both document destruction caused by strip mining in Kentucky) to see how important the impact of coal mining was to environmentalists of past generations. This shift in focus has in no doubt been due the transfer of mining away from more populated regions to remote regions like the Powder River Basin, in Wyoming.

Traditionally coal mining has taken place underground and has been done by miners with shovels and picks (often exposing workers to dangerous and health compromising conditions). This is still the image of coal mining that resides in America’s popular consciousness. However this image is no longer accurate, as 67% of America’s coal is now extracted from the earth above ground. Surface mining techniques have become very popular for coal production since the development of steam shovels in the early twentieth century. Surface mining techniques revolve around removing the layers of Earth (overburden) above with large machines to expose the coal field to the surface where workers can easily extract it. This technique can be used to extract coal that is up to 200 ft deep within the Earth. (more…)

Read Full Post »

US_House_CommitteeLast week we saw the Waxman Markey bill go to the Energy and Commerce committee. Watching the markup process increased my interest in the role special interest money plays in the political process.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is responsible for oversight in legislation concerning: telecommunications, energy, international commerce, public health, consumer protection and much more. The Energy Department, Health and Human Services, the Transportation Department to the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and Federal Communications Commission all fall under this committee’s jurisdiction.

Being that this is the committee that was given the responsibility of approving the Waxman Markey bill (the legislation that will determine our future energy policy); I was particularly interested in the amount of influence the energy industry had on shaping these positions of its members. The only way I could actually come close to measuring this is by looking at how much energy companies contribute to these candidates and how much their votes reflect the contributions they receive. As a control for this highly informal quasi-experiment I compared the contributions Energy and Commerce Committee members received from the energy industry the amount of contributions members of the Ways and Means Committee (which deals with taxation and welfare) received from the same industries. I limited this to congressmen who received $10,000 or more in contributions from energy companies during the 2008 election cycle.

I found that in the 65.52% of energy and commerce committee members received energy contributions above $10,000, while 58.53% of Ways and Means members received contributions above $10,000, during the 2008 campaign season. On average Energy and Commerce members received $53,972, while Ways and Means members only received $35,986, on average. The biggest recipients of both parties on the Energy and Commerce Committee got substantially more than their counterparts on Ways and Means Committee. In fact the biggest recipient on Energy and Commerce got $267,559 more than the largest recipient in Ways and Means. The Democrats in both committees received fewer contributions from these industries than the republicans, but the biggest recipient among Energy and Commerce Democrats, Louisiana’s Charlie Melancon, received $40,176 more than Charles Rangel the biggest Democrat recipient on the Ways and Means committee. It should be noted that a bigger percentage of Republicans on both committees received contributions above $10,000 in Energy Contributions. 100% of Republicans on Energy and Commerce received $10,000 or more while only 44% of Democrats did. (more…)

Read Full Post »

government_uncle_sam_go_greenThe House has been moving very slowly in an effort to kill a Voter ID bill, but it appears the logjam has been broken. Now we have to pass our key solar and clean air bills before midnight Tuesday, May 26, which is the deadline for the House to pass any bills from the Senate.

We need YOU to pick up the phone and call your representative to say that you support solar energy and clean air.

Click here to find out who represents you, then call their office at the Capitol. Tell them:

I support SB 545, which would give homeowners incentives to put solar on their rooftops and create new green jobs.

I also support SB 541, which would support more large scale solar projects and repeat the success of our wind industry.

I also support SB 16, which would improve air quality through reducing auto emissions, better building codes, more energy efficiency, and plug-in hybrids. **If Texas does not adopt these 2009 IECC building codes, we could miss out on hundreds of millions in federal stimulus funds for weatherization.

Please support these bills in order to create tens of thousands of new green jobs in Texas and ensure a cleaner, cheaper, cooler energy future.

There are dozens of dirty energy lobbyists working to try to kill these bills as we speak. Will you stand up to them? Will you make your voice heard?

Call your Representative now!

Read Full Post »

As expected, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved climate change legislation last night and sent it along in the legislative process. We strongly urge lawmakers to make major overhauls to this bill or go back to the drawing board.

The problem? Oil, coal and nuclear industries had far too much say in its shaping, and it shows.

Now more than ever, Public Citizen needs you to tell your representatives that climate change legislation should not be weakened by the corrupting influence of big money.

Those who say this bill is the best the legislative process can produce are wrong: The American people demanded strong climate legislation, and polluters are subverting these goals.

Public Citizen supports strong, effective climate legislation, but this bill won’t achieve it. We can talk about hoping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, but this bill won’t do it.

It creates a legal right to pollute for industries and gives away credits for free to allow companies to meet those targets without having to pay for them. That is not going to spur the kind of investments we need.

We must act fast to influence lawmakers to fix this piece of legislation. Please take action so that our voices can be heard loud and clear over those of the oil, coal and nuclear industries.

For more information about the climate change bill and how it needs to be fixed, visit our Web site and watch Tyson Slocum explain Public Citizen’s position in an interview on Democracy Now!

Take action today, and let your representatives know you want them to put interests of consumers above those of the energy industries.

Read Full Post »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »