Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘charlie gonzalez’

A recent poll shows that voters are more inclined to vote for a candidate that voted for the Federal climate change and renewable energy legislation than for those who didn’t. This is interesting in a time in which many conservative groups are advocating that climate change is a hoax and humans don’t need to intervene to save the planet.  Or, that (even worse) voters just know.. they just KNOW that policies like cap and trade are just a hidden energy tax and they won’t tolerate it at the ballot box.

This poll should be eye-opening to many of the Texas local and federal candidates (and it is worth noting that both of the competitive US House races in Texas are ones where the incumbent voted NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act). Even more surprising, very few candidates campaign on clean energy in a state where energy makes a great deal of the revenue. And despite how much the governor boasts about Texas leading in renewable energy, Texas is falling behind to a couple of other states, notably California.


Although it seems a scarce phenomenon, a few Texas candidates have climate change and clean energy as part of their campaign. We wanted to highlight the campaigns of a couple of these candidates. *

Last month, Bill White, gubernatorial candidate, announced his energy plan and he explicitly said that clean energy (solar in particular) will be the future of Texas.

Texas can remain the energy capital of the world if we lead in new energy development. That’s why we must educate Texans for high-demand, high-paying clean energy jobs, promote job growth in construction and manufacturing, and invest in science and technology research,” said Bill White in a speech in Lubbock last month.

Mark Strama,  who is running for re-election for his seat in the Texas House of Representatives, has been airing a campaign ad where he says “For the past hundred years, Texas has prospered as the leader of energy, but promising new energy technologies are being developed in other states and other countries.” Strama, who chairs the Technology, Economic Development & Workforce Committee, introduced a couple of green bills in the last legislative session and it looks like he will continue this effort during the forthcoming session. Yesterday, he facebooked about “a promising development” of a Bastrop clean energy park.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9hldvAQ3Cs&feature=player_embedded]
On the Congressional level, Representative Charlie Gonzalez includes clean energy and climate change on his legislative agenda. According to his website, in order to “address threats faced to our country and our planet by climate change, America needs an energy policy that relies on resources that are both clean and efficient.” Gonzalez points out that the issue of climate change is tied to the nation’s energy policy.
Texas needs more politicians to come out for renewable energy and those who tell their constituents that it doesn’t create more jobs and revenue for the state, they are simply ignoring the facts facts. According to a recent report, a robust renewable energy market in Texas can create as many as 23,000 jobs and almost 3 billion in revenue every year for the next 10 years. Strama is right, Texas does have a future in renewables and it is time for Texas politicians to “put solutions above ideology and Texas above politics.”

* Public Citizen does not endorse any political candidate and/or party. Nothing in this opinion blog ought to be construed as an endorsement of any kind. The author’s words are his own.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Today, the US House Administration Committee voted the Fair Elections Now Act out of committee.  San Antonio Representative Charlie Gonzalez cast a decisive vote in favor of the bill, putting a bill that would give optional public financing to all Congressional candidates for further than it has ever gone before.

Tell Charlie Gonzalez how you feel– thank him for his vote and leadership by calling his office at (202) 225-3236 (DC) or (210) 472-6195 (San Antonio).

Unfortunately, in the Senate, Republicans continued to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act.  They did this a few months ago, too. At the time Public Citizen’s Craig Holman had this to say about it, and we think it’s still apt.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsCSjRslmm4]

Texas Senators Cornyn and Hutchison voted in favor of corporate special interests who want to hide how they’re pulling the strings in Washington, and I think you should tell them so.

And because no punchbowl for Fair Elections would be complete without some corporate tool laying a dookie in it, enter Texas Rep. Joe Barton, who you may remember apologized to BP, feeling the oil-spilling giant had been mistreated by Congress.  Well, he’s still apologizing to corporations, now saying that his committee should hold hearings on Fair Elections Now, which he’s already made up his mind on (hint:  he ain’t fer it.) This is nothing more than a massive delay tactic, just like the time he made a rule that all amendments to Waxman-Markey be read aloud in committee, so the committee hired a speed-reader.

In any case, we still have a lot to be happy about.  There is some possibility we could get a full vote on Fair Elections Now before the end of the year in the House– if your member of Congress hasn’t publicly stated they will support it, they need to hear from you!  And if they have stated their support, call them anyway and thank them for standing up to special interests.

By the by, I’ll be at the National Coffee Party Convention in Louisville the next few days, where I’ll be presenting on a couple of panels about these very issues.  If you want to participate virtually, you can!  From Coffee Party’s email:

The big news today is that we are LIVE STREAMING the convention from Louisville starting at 8:30 AM ET tomorrow (Friday). Convention participants, both in person and via webcast can interact via Twitter (#CoffeeParty), Facebook, on our convention website, main website and on our newly created Ustream channel.

CLICK HERE for today’s press release about added speaker John Avlon, and HERE for Monday’s release about Lt. Dan Choi and Fair Elections Now.

We are especially excited about livestreaming the Mock Constitutional Convention on Saturday from 10:30am-4:30pm co-chaired by Lawrence Lessig and Mark McKinnon.

To read about the speakers, CLICK HERE. To review the schedule of events, CLICK HERE. To read about the break-out sessions, CLICK HERE.

You can still REGISTER online. You can also register in person at the registration desk when you arrive at the Galt House.

We are currently raising funds for the following purposes: $5,000 for Audio/Visual expenses, including production and live-streaming costs that are allowing us to document as many workshops and panel discussions as we can, which will become on-line educational tools available to the public.

It would be tremendously helpful if you could donate for this. $5, $10, $20, any amount would help.

DONATE

The convention and the web cast will wrap up Sunday night with a viewing party of MTV Networks’ television world premiere of “9500 Liberty.” This is the film that Eric Byler and I co-directed that documents how the extremists dominated the debate over immigration in Prince William County, VA in 2007 & 2008 and how the silent majority organized and restored balance to the government. On Sunday, the film will be broadcast to 100 milion homes across America.

This video explains how the lessons of 9500 Liberty inspired the creation of the Coffee Party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8sQUYarTig

See you in Louisville, or, we’ll see you online! And, thank you so much for being part of the Coffee Party community.

Good night, good luck, and see you around the coffee pot.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

As early as the time of Socrates, people have identified money as a corruptive influence in politics, specifically in democracies.  Elections now cost double and triple what they used to, which means more and more of our Senators’ and Representatives’ time is spent dialing for dollars.  The average member of the House of Representatives will want to raise and spend over a million dollars (that’s $1,000,000) to insure victory on Election Day.  In a competitive race, it can be much, much more than that.

So why do we subject our leaders to this grueling and wasteful misuse of their precious time and energy? And why are we surprised when Big Money holds more sway than the Common Good and Reasoned Argument? Ultimately, we get the government we deserve- because we force our politicians to raise money this way, and so we shouldn’t be surprised when campaign “donors” think that their “donations” mean that they should get special favors or special access.  More than ever, voters feel dissillusioned and cynical about government and feel disconnected from their leaders. (And can you blame them?)

So what is the answer? Why not allow those who represent us to circumvent this whole process?  One piece of legislation designed to do this is the Fair Elections Now Act.

What is the Fair Election Now Act? This bi-partisan bill was introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Arlen Specter (PA) in the Senate, and by Representatives John Larson (D- CT) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R- NC)  in the House of Representatives. It will provide public funding for office seeking political candidates who qualify, in addition to small private donations up to $100 dollars. Also, all qualifying candidates get a reduction rate on media fees for campaigning purposes, as well as media vouchers that they can exchange for cash if they prefer.

This bill will provide an equal playing field for political candidates, as money differences will play less of a role in the campaign, and therefore provide lesser-known candidates a more fair chance to compete in political races. Public Funding has already been successfully tested in several states, and it can hopefully achieve the same success on a federal level.

Who will qualify for Public Funding? The amount of public funding that each individual candidate receives will depend on the office they are seeking or holding, but each candidate must first qualify by raising a set amount of small donations. For example, House Members running for office must receive 1,500 contributions from their state, and $50,000 altogether. All candidates must therefore prove that they have the ability to raise money for their campaign and thereby demonstrating their competitive ability in the race before they can receive public funding.

Why you should support this bill and how to help get this bill passed! Simple: the status quo is broken. Everyone understands that lobbyists and corporate institutions (PACs, bundlers, etc)  benefit from the current system where big money buys big access.

Voters will first and foremost benefit, because they can be sure their Representatives are ONLY representing them, and basing their votes on what is best for their constituents, not what makes their donors happy.  Furthermore, we will have a fair and wide range of politically qualified candidates to choose from in each election– areas that have enacted public financing, such as Maine and Arizona, have seen a more diverse group of candidates run, resulting in representation that looks more like the population.

The candidates themselves will also benefit, because they can focus more on policies that their constituents favor and their political message instead of constantly raising money for their campaign. In addition, the main contributions are increasingly coming from big donors that come with strings attached. With the Fair Election Now Act, the people have the chance to take back the power of democracy and away from corporate interests!

It is the responsibility of each citizen to ensure our freedom and democracy,and YOU can help the pass this bill for the sake of those crucial values. If you are interested in supporting this bill, you can take one easy step and click here to sign up for a petition. For more detailed information about the bill, please click here.

You can also call your member of Congress and ask them to co-sponser this bipartisan piece of legislation.  Click here to get contact info for who represents you.  As of now, six members of the Texas Congressional Delegation have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.  If you’re lucky enough to be represented by one of them, call their offices and express your thanks for standing up to Big Money interests.

Gene Green (Houston)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (Houston)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (Dallas)

Solomon Ortiz (Corpus Christi)

Silvestre Reyes (El Paso)

Lloyd Doggett (Austin)

By Harrison

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 »

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 »

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 »

We’ve been putting a lot of effort into pressuring US Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to support a strong climate change bill, but according to an article in the Houston Chronicle this morning, Congressman Gene Green from Houston is another key swing vote on cap and trade:

A 17-year veteran of Washington politics known for his low-key style and behind-the-scenes approach to legislation, Rep. Gene Green has seen his popularity skyrocket in recent days — at least with lawmakers eager to write new climate change rules.

The celebrity status comes courtesy of Green’s role as one of a handful of moderate Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee. His support is crucial to advancing a sweeping energy and climate change bill.

Looks like Gene Green wants to vote for the bill, but won’t support it without some pretty significant concessions to industry.  Shocking.

The good news for Waxman, Markey and other proponents of the so-called cap-and-trade plan is that Green believes “the United States has to lead” in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The bad news? Green worries about the potential price tag for oil refiners along the Houston Ship Channel he represents.

“I’d like to vote for a bill,” Green said. “But I’m not going to vote for one unless I think it’s going to be good for the area I represent.”

Green has become the main lawmaker pushing for free allowances for refiners, as one of just four Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee representing states with big refining operations. The others are Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

In order to support the bill, Green wants to give away 5% of pollution permits to refineries for free, and hand over 40% of allowances to utilities.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, GIVING AWAY ALLOWANCES IS A TERRIBLE WAY TO WRITE THIS BILL.

As I wrote a few weeks ago in a blog post scolding Charlie Gonzalez on this same issue,

Charlie Gonzalez just doesn’t have his facts straight on this one. If you’re really concerned about consumers, giving away pollution credits for free is about the worst way you can write this bill. Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions. There is a right and a very wrong way to write a good climate change bill, and Charlie is supporting the wrong way.

EPA’s most recent analysis say 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.

Whether Green can make this bill good for the area he represents depends on what he means by “area.”  If by “area”, Green is referring to his constituency, which is a majority-minority district made up of primarily low and middle income families, Green is going to have to think again.  Giving away pollution allowances to industry sells out working families.  It allows industry to jack up their prices without doing any real work to reduce their emissions and charge families extra for their “compliance costs”.

If this was just our opinion here at Public Citizen, you could dismiss it, but everybody agrees that giving away pollution credits for free hurts poor and working families.  Who?  Well, the Wall Street Journal, for one:

“There are a lot of things in the bill I need to have changed,” said Rep. Gene Green (D., Texas). Mr. Green, whose district is home to the largest petrochemical complex in the world, wants Mr. Waxman to give some pollution permits to oil refiners for free. “If that’s not in the bill, I can’t vote for it,” he said.

Refiners are lobbying to get for free 30% of the pollution permits, an amount that corresponds roughly to the share of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions produced by transportation fuel. Without such allowances, the industry says, it will lose out to refineries in India and the Middle East that ship their product to the U.S. and don’t operate under carbon caps at home.

“The electric utilities want 40%, and if they’re getting 40%, the refiners say ‘Why shouldn’t we get 30%?”‘ Mr. Green said. Mr. Green said he has asked Mr. Waxman to give the refining industry a smaller share of the allowances — roughly 5%.

Economists say generally that consumer prices will rise regardless of whether permits are given away for free, and that giving them away for free will divert money from other purposes in the public interest, such as tax cuts for consumers.

As we mentioned before, the EPA’s analysis showed that giving away credits was “highly regressive.” When both our government’s environmental agency and our nation’s top conservative-dominated-hard-headed-economist-driven-Australian-tycoon-run newspaper agree on something, there’s a consensus, people.

Ok– time to put on our tin foil hats for a moment– but one explanation these actions is that when Gene Green is talking about his “area”, he really means the five refineries and “more chemical plants than (he)  can count” inside his district.  Green received significant campaign contributions from both the Oil & Gas and Electric Utilities industries.  Check out the following chart from OpenSecrets.org:

genegreenchart

To put these numbers in perspective, Green spent a total of $860,643 on his last campaign.  Of that, $139, 949 came from the same folks Green is now trying to score free pollution credits.

If that weren’t enough, it looks like the refineries don’t even know their own business.  They claim that paying for carbon will hurt them and force refining to markets like China who aren’t regulating their environment.  Well, first, a new economic analysis shows that “Cap and Trade Won’t Push Heavy Industries Overseas”.  Second, on what planet does it make economic sense to pump oil out of Texas, ship it literally halfway around the world to China, refine it, and then ship it back?  You would need a PRETTY hefty price on carbon to make that economically feasible.  And lastly, China is beginning to implement export taxes on steel and other carbon intensive products, making it even more unlikely that refining would ever move there.

Bottom line: Green can’t have his cake and eat it too on this one.  He can either protect the families in his district by supporting a full auction of pollution credits that puts the revenue to work in renewable energy, energy efficiency programs, and rebates, or he can fill the pockets of polluters by demanding free carbon giveaways.

And, I do need to give Green some props– he is sponsoring the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a public financing system for Congressional campaigns, freeing him forever from having to raise money from the fossil fuel industries or other special interests whose views may not coincide exactly with the greater good of the people of the 29th congressional district.  We can only hope for such a world– we know Gene Green has to raise money for his campaigns, he certainly can’t get it from the working class people of his district, and we know that when special interests give it is not out of the kindess of their hearts but because they want access and influence.

Read Full Post »

Phillip Martin at Burnt Orange Report reports that VoteVets.org is running a telelvision ad in San Antonio urging Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka the Waxman & Markey bill, the federal cap and trade bill, or, as Trevor over at ReEnergize Texas has taken to calling it, the Bill That May or May Not Save the World — take your pick).

As you may recall, we’ve been pushing on US Congressman Gonzalez lately to support a strong climate change bill ever since we heard he might want to go over to the dark side and  give away free carbon credits to utilities.  Two weekends ago we hit him up at the King William’s Fair in San Antonio to make sure he heard the message loud and clear: No Giveaways for Polluters.

Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions.  This is exactly what went wrong with the European Union’s cap and trade experiment.  They gave away carbon credits, so that industries had a free ticket to pollute — but then industry turned around to consumers, raised rates because they could pretend they had “compliance costs” to cover, and working families had to foot the bill while energy companies made windfall profits.

But according to a new EPA analysis of the Bill That May or May Not Save the World, making polluters pay would actually leave families better off than before:

Assuming that the bulk of the revenues from the program are returned to households, the cap-and-trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers. . . . Returning the revenues in this fashion could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program.

This new VoteVets ad explains how tackling climate change and moving toward clean energy is also a national security matter.  Phil posted the following quote from Patrick Bellon, an Iraq War Veteran from Texas that speaks in the ad,

Getting America less dependent on foreign oil and towards clean energy is a national security matter,” said Bellon, who also is a member of VoteVets.org. “Congressman Gonzalez has a chance to vote for a comprehensive clean energy jobs bill that would lessen those Middle East oil profits that help fund terrorism, and would create jobs right here. As someone who’s fought against insurgents in Iraq, this bill is a no brainer, and we’re hoping the Congressman feels the same way.

Check it out for yourself:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGpwzTtTGqQ]

Word is that the ad will run over 600 times in the San Antonio market, and a similar ad is running in Congressman Gene Green’s district.  Many thanks to Phil at BOR for bringing this to our attention 🙂

It really warms my heart that VoteVets has joined in this fight, adding another crucial voice to the cap and trade choir.  Done right, this bill could reduce our emissions such that the US can steer clear of runaway global warming, jump-start a new clean energy economy and set the standard for strong climate legislation at Copenhagen in December.

There are a lot of good reasons to support this bill, and only two real voices that oppose it: those that don’t believe global warming is real, and the monied interests that benefit from the status quo.  Looking at what we and future generations stand to lose, neither represents a legitimate argument.

On a related note, San Antonio folks have another opportunity this afternoon to show Charlie their support for a strong climate change bill at a MoveOn.org rally.  Details after the jump. (more…)

Read Full Post »

king-williams-parade-pics-048

photo courtesy of Karen Hadden & SEED Coalition

Our ambush of U.S. Congressman Charlie Gonzalez at the King William’s Fair in San Antonio this weekend was both a blast and a great success.

If you couldn’t make it out, never fear — Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current did, and just posted a great blog post with full coverage from the parade.  Be sure to check out the video, featuring our very own Sarah McDonald, ReEnergize Texas’ Patrick Meaney, and cameos from a whole host of Public Citizen, ReEnergize Texas, and SEED Coalition staff and volunteers.

More good news from the Curblog is that Charlie Gonzalez is still listening to both sides of the auction-or-free-allowances debate, Bloomberg article to the contrary.

Harman reports,

Ginette Magaña, a spokesperson for Rep. Gonzalez, said her boss had not committed to either side on the matter of carbon credits.

Not only that, but no letter exists as reported in the Bloomberg article, she insisted.

“There is no letter,” Magaña said. “He’s still looking at the bill and trying to find the best decision. I don’t have anything other than that right now … Charlie had never signed on to that letter … There is no letter.”

Things are certainly looking up.  Check out this diary from Trevor Lovell of ReEnergize Texas fame for another perspective on the parade:

Sorry Charlie, Giveaways Aren’t Green

“This feels like one of the good old campaigns,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, Executive Director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, Saturday afternoon in reference to activists swarming Congressman Charlie Gonzalez’s carriage in the King William Parade that morning in San Antonio.

Smitty may have been showing his age a bit (he’s directed Public Citizen’s Texas office for the last 25 years, and become a local legend and then some in the process), but the sentiments were positive among organizers young and old alike.

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez is the key swing vote on a subcommittee considering the Waxman-Markey bill.  A conservative Democrat, Gonzalez has joined a misguided throng calling for CO2 credits to be given away, a solution deemed unacceptable by environmentalists and economists who point out that such a system would create unfair profits for polluters and cripple any attempt at CO2 real reductions.

Learning late Thursday that Congressman Gonzalez would be in the King William Parade, a Fiesta celebration for the well-to-do and well-connected King William neighborhood of San Antonio, activists at Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, and my group, the ReEnergize Texas student coalition, got together and planned a full scale outreach and publicity action to let the Congressman know that giveaways are unacceptable. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Charlie Gonzalez Update!!

Tomorrow morning at the King William Parade in San Antonio, we’ve got a great opportunity to put some pressure on Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to support strong cap and trade legislation.  Done right, a cap and trade bill would bring San Antonio thousands of green jobs, increased energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy.  Done wrong, it would force families and consumers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without a considerable reduction in carbon emissions.

So far, Congressman Gonzalez has come out in support of the latter 🙁 He is a swing vote on this issue, and how he decides to vote may influence many other important legislators.

Lucky for us, we’ll have him as a captive audience at the parade tomorrow.  He’ll be riding on a float in the parade, and that’s our
chance to make an impact when he least expects it.

Please join us tomorrow morning.  We’ll be meeting up at the 8 AM at the San Antonio Peace Center, at 1443 S. St. Mary’s — but don’t let the early hour scare you, if you can’t make it out before breakfast, the parade doesn’t start until 10.  Come by — we’ll have banners, materials to make a signs, and sign on letters.  Costumes are encouraged — after all it is a party 🙂

Free parking will be available at 1901 S Alamo Street.

For more information on this issue, check out the following statement from Andy Wilson, our Global Warming Program Director on how U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez Wants to Give San Antonio’s Municipal Utility a Free Ride

Read Full Post »

According to a Bloomberg article this morning, San Antonio Representative Charlie Gonzalez has joined

a group of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee (who) want to give utilities free permits for all their existing carbon emissions, according to people familiar with a plan sent to the committee’s chairman.

The article continues:

Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia sent the four-page list of recommendations to Henry Waxman, the committee’s chairman and the author of draft climate-change legislation that some of his fellow Democrats are seeking to temper, said the people, who declined to be identified before the plan is made public. Courtney Lamie, Boucher’s spokeswoman, didn’t respond to e-mail and phone messages.

Waxman’s measure would establish a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits designed to cut carbon dioxide 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. He needs to win the support of Boucher and the other Democrats pushing for changes in his plan because no Republicans are likely to vote for it, Representative Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, said yesterday.

“It’s all about the consumer,” said Representative Charles Gonzalez of Texas, whose San Antonio-area district has oil and gas operations. “It’s also the economic interests of a member’s district or region.”

Charlie Gonzalez just doesn’t have his facts straight on this one.  If you’re really concerned about consumers, giving away pollution credits for free is about the worst way you can write this bill.  Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions.  There is a right and a very wrong way to write a good climate change bill, and Charlie is supporting the wrong way.

EPA’s most recent analysis say 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.  However, an auction fixes these problems.  EPA continues:

“Assuming that the bulk of the revenues from the program are returned to households, the cap-and-trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers. . . . Returning the revenues in this fashion could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program

A good climate change bill will create billions of dollars of revenue by charging large polluters for the dangerous pollutants they’ve been emitting for decades.  This money could then be returned to taxpayers, particularly low-income households, to protect them from any price increases that energy industries may try to pass through to consumers.  Another portion of the money could also be used to pursue aggressive energy efficiency programs, so that citizens can save even more money by using less electricity.  Every dollar spent on energy efficiency will then also help reinvigorate local economy by putting people back to work doing energy audits and retrofitting inefficient homes.

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez needs to hear that what consumers really need is energy efficiency, renewable energy, lower electric bills and less pollution — not more industry giveaways.  So far, it looks like he’s only heard from the lobbyists for the big polluters.  We’ve heard that  Congressman Gonzalez will cast a deciding vote on whether Texans will be given the tools to forge a new, green economy, or left unprotected from the worst effects of extreme weather and high energy prices.

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez is the swing vote on this issue.  Please pick up the phone and call him.  The phone number for his DC office is (202) 225-3236 and his office in San Antonio is (210) 472-6195.  You can also email his office from his website

Read Full Post »

shockingNEWSFLASH!  Carbon Dioxide emissions may represent a threat to public health or welfare.

Shocking, I know.  But what is old news to the rest of us, released in the form of a proposed endangerment finding by the EPA, is actually a really big deal.  Environmentalists and concerned citizens alike have been waiting years for this announcement.  In 2007, as a result of the landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, the court ordered the EPA administrator to determine if greenhouse gas emissions could “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”  The Bush Administration delayed reacting to this order, but Friday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a proposed endangerment finding which identified six global warming gasses that pose a threat to human health.

The finding will now enter a 60-day comment period, and have no immediate regulatory effect, but could give the EPA power to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

According to the EPA’s official statement,

Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

After years of global warming being the elephant in the room that the government would not address, the EPA’s proposed finding finally gives the agency the ability to take action on climate change — though as stated, everyone would rather Congress take care of business.  Hopefully, this finding will light a fire under cap-and-trade negotiations.

Its kind of like when my mother used threaten that she’d clean my room herself if I didn’t get cracking — which I knew meant she would just come in with a trash bag and clear everything out.  The EPA could straight up regulate carbon dioxide — but few people would really be happy with the result, most environmentalists included.  By creating new policy, Congress is simply better equipped to deal with our greenhouse gas emissions than the EPA.

So sorry Congress — no more reading the comics you found with the dust bunnies under the bed.  Go clean up, or Mom’s going to start vacuuming.

But don’t take my word for it.  Andy Wilson (Citizen Andy, if you will), Global Warming Program Director here at the Texas Office, wrote a statement on how this finding relates to the big picture, and Texas specifically.  Check it out!

Read Full Post »