Americans Need Jobs: That's Why the Senate Will Vote on a Climate Bill
Posted January 7, 2010 in Solving Global Warming
The National Journal recently asked if I thought the Senate would pass a clean energy and climate bill this year. Here are some of the thoughts I shared on the journal’s energy expert blog.
I think the odds are good that the Senate will pass clean energy and climate legislation. It will require a major push from the wide range of Americans who support the bill, but I believe it can happen.
Why? Because more and more people understand that it will make our economy stronger, and because more and more senators are hungry for policies that generate jobs. We simply can't put off the effort of getting our people back to work any longer.
Many of our leaders understand this. President Obama has repeatedly stated his commitment to a clean energy and climate bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly stated his commitment to it. And the House of Representatives already passed a similar bill back in June.
These lawmakers are responding to the business executives, labor unions, veterans, and other Americans who say our country needs the economic jumpstart that clean energy investment will provide. Many Senators realize that making buildings more efficient and manufacturing cleaner cars will generate real job opportunities in their home states.
On top of this support, the agreement reached in Copenhagen cleared a few hurdles out of the way of Senate action.
The Copenhagen Accord was adopted with dissent from just five countries out of 193 participants. The United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Mexico and 181 other countries have pledged to take real action to reduce carbon emissions.
That's historic. It means Americans aren't being asked to act alone. That means something in the U.S. Senate.
At Obama's insistence, the agreement also provides for each country to report on its progress every two years. Those reports can be independently analyzed and reviewed, so we'll know when countries keep their promises. That matters, too, for every U.S. Senator.
More important, however, are the jobs to be created - nearly two million of them, a University of California study shows - through legislation that sets this country on the path to a clean and sustainable energy future. Perhaps that matters most of all to Senators eager to address Americans’ number one concern: the economy.
Still, getting the bill to Obama’s desk this year will be no easy task. It will require a tremendous amount of work to keep the bill in the spotlight and maintain its environmental performance as it moves through the legislative process. The bill's many supporters are already mobilizing for a tough battle.
Yet make no mistake: the time to pass this bill is now. Neither our planet nor our economy can afford delay.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — Jan 7 2010 05:48 PM
To a well intended, usually sensible, but sometimes naive NRDC I suggest that you be alarmed by the recent actions of the EPA under Ms. Lisa Jackson.
I initially reacted to commenters at the Wall Street Journal who seem to not see the difference between controlling smog and controlling CO2.
The EPA has clear charter and sufficient reason to act on smog. Declaring that CO2 is harmful to human health is as absurd as declaring that H2O is harmful to human health; of course both substances are harmful in excessive quantities.
Setting up Ms. Lisa Jackson to declare an endangerment finding against CO2 will turn out to make a mockery of the EPA, and look at how quickly the screwball right starts to peck on this really silly action, like a flock of birds peck on a sick member of their own flock. They know they have a target that will be easily ripped to shreds, with tasty entrails there for all to enjoy. After this, no other bird will call in sick. Similarly, the EPA will be reduced to an agency with no clout.
I support the EPA as a defender of the health environment and I would like to see sensible action to limit CO2. However, this looks like a mistake that will do damage to the overall need to improve our use of resources.
In fact, it seems like it might make the administrate appear so incompetent that it will color the attitude of Congress to the more general climate bill of which you write here. There seem to be some serious flaws there as well, but that will have to wait for a later discussion.
Darren Meade — Jan 8 2010 03:34 PM
Dear Frances,
The technology already exists in which all smoke house emissions could be cleaned of carbon emissions and permanently and irreversibly bind all heavy metals (mercury, cadmium, arsenic, lead) and other toxins without causing any disruption to the ecosystems.
Further, waterways and soil which have been previously damaged can be remediated on a permanent basis. These nanocomposites are organic in nature and made from GRAS (generally recognized as safe) materials.
The issue is a simple one, how to be drive this market innovation forward. We are open to outlicensing the technology to better humanity. I've been trying to have a party either Republican or Democrat to review the technology. We can clean water ways and end the damage to the environment now. No new taxes, our innovations and I am sure others are ready, yet no platform is available to further market innovations. I ask for your guidance and help.
Kindest regards,
Darren Meade
dmeade@kairos-meade.com
(949) 499-1785