|
Why Kucinich voted against the Clean
Energy & Security Act (HR 2454)
Kucinich's reasons for voting against the American Clean Energy
and Security Act (HR 2454):
From: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43960
Kucinich: "Passing a weak bill today
gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow"
WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 26, 2009) -- Congressman
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today issued the following statement after
voting against H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security
Act of 2009:
“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American
Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple.
It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the
problem worse.
“It sets targets that are too weak,
especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets
through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to
one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its
way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And
it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer
expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may
or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep
warming the planet at least another 20 years.
“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework
that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon
enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade
or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming.
But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond
current levels until 2030.
“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise,
which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully
submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but
to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the
illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an
illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take
substantive action.
“There are several aspects of the
bill that are problematic.
1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill
is predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts
per million, a target that is arguably justified in the latest
report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but
which is already out of date. Recent science suggests 350 parts
per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects of
global warming.
2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions.
Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with
fraudulent claims of emissions reduction; they create environmental,
social, and economic unintended adverse consequences; and they
codify and endorse the idea that polluters do not have to make
sacrifices to solve the problem.
3. It kicks the can down the road. By requiring
the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term
and requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only
failing to take the action when it is needed to address rapid
global warming, but we are assuming the long term targets will
remain intact.
4. EPA’s authority to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded.
It is our best defense against a new generation of coal power
plants. There is no room for coal as a major energy source in
a future with a stable climate.
5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead
of phasing it out. Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major
safety issues including a near release in my own home state in
2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem.
A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9
trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear
reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from
energy efficiency and renewables.
6. Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead
of phasing it out. Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains,
kills and injures workers at higher rates than most other occupations,
decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams, creates
ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security
will not disclose their locations for fear of their potential
to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the air and water with
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic compounds
that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and
pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several
times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than
comparable coal investments.
7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon
Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money
for basic research and development in the bill. We should be
pressuring China, India and Russia to slow and stop their power
plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot
create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on
a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not
work on the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting
more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who
will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to
stem any leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or
1000 years from now.
8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated
using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the
financial crisis.
9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled
out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest
means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters
and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and
unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations.
And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market
will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed
to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other
large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.
10. The Renewable Electricity Standard
(RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES standard would be achieved
even if we failed to act.
11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”:
The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable
energy.” Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases,
but also emit highly toxic substances. These plants disproportionately
expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass
burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also
defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source
of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global
warming.
12. It undermines our bargaining position
in international negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the
biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to take
action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of
other countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility
in the international context.
13. International assistance is much less
than demanded by developing countries. Given the level of climate
change that is already in the pipeline, we are going to need
to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing countries
will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much
more resources for adaptation and technology transfer than is
allocated in this bill. This will also undercut our position
in Copenhagen.
“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored
two more that collectively would have turned the bill into an
acceptable starting point. All amendments were not allowed to
be offered to the full House. Three amendments endeavored to
minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of
achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up
a history of failure to reduce emissions – increasing emissions
in some cases – while displacing people in developing countries
who rely on the land for their well being.
“Three other amendments would have
made the federal government a force for change by requiring all
federal energy to eventually come from renewable resources, by
requiring the federal government to transition to electric and
plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar
panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions
would accelerate the transition to a green economy.
“Another amendment would have moved
up the year by which reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were
required from 2030 to 2025. It would have encouraged the efficient
use of allowances and would have reduced opportunities for speculation
by reducing the emission value of an allowance by a third each
year.
“The last amendment would have removed
trash incineration from the definition of renewable energy. Trash
incineration is one of the primary sources of environmental injustice
in the country. It a primary source of compounds in the air known
to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These facilities
are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities
of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide
per unit of electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.
“Passing a weak bill today gives us
weak environmental policy tomorrow,” said Kucinich.
###
|