More diverse support for climate legislation: military vets, GE and Rio Tinto
Posted April 29, 2010 in Solving Global Warming
More diverse support for moving forward on climate legislation is visible today.
Generals and Admirals: National Journal reports that
More than 30 retired military generals and admirals are in Washington this week pushing Congress and the administration to pass the Senate trio's "American Power Act," despite the fact that the bill has not yet been introduced.
Jonathan Powers, COO of the Truman National Security Project, said at a press conference this morning that the national security challenges posed by inaction on climate legislation -- including U.S. dependence on foreign oil and global instability caused by climate change -- will help restart the stalled negotiations.
A letter signed by the generals and admirals and appearing as an ad in Politico, Roll Call and Military Times reads 
America's billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes. A substantial amount of that oil money ends up in the hands of terrorists. Consequently, our military is forced to operate in hostile territory, and our troops are attacked by terrorists funded by U.S. oil dollars, while rogue regimes profit off of our dependence. As long as the American public is beholden to global energy prices, we will be at the mercy of these rogue regimes.
General Electric:
During a presser before his company’s annual meeting, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt discussed climate and energy legislation with reporters, as the Houston Chronicle reported:
While the rest of the world invests in renewable, nuclear and cleaner energy sources, the U.S. continues to fall further behind, General Electric's chairman and CEO said Wednesday in Houston.
In an interview before the company's annual meeting, Jeffrey Immelt said the situation eventually could put the nation at a competitive disadvantage.
“We just seem to be stalled,” he said.
Over the next five years, China will have installed five times more than the U.S. in power capacity, Europe is moving aggressively into offshore wind power, and Asia is focusing on solar energy, he said.
…
Immelt called for a comprehensive government effort to put standards into place so businesses can invest in technologies that have a solid future.
“Some leadership in Washington would be helpful,” he said, emphasizing that he's not focused on any one technology.
If the United States doesn't do it, GE will have to go overseas. “We have to go where the action is,” he said.
…
“We've all done a disservice to the debate by hanging it as a ‘green initiative' when really it's about energy security, energy productivity and pollution reduction,” Immelt said.
And, E&E News reports that mining giant Rio Tinto sent its own letter up to the Hill, saying
All indications are that the senators' heavy lifting has taken us significantly farther towards a balanced and comprehensive policy solution," wrote Preston Chiaro, the company's group executive for technology and innovation. "Neglecting its promise will not only delay the actions necessary to address the climate imperative, but will increase, rather than reduce, the uncertainties for businesses like Rio Tinto as we face a more rigid and expensive regulatory process under the Clean Air Act.”
UPDATE:
More than 50 organizations just sent a letter to President Obama urging him to continue to demonstrate his leadership on clean energy and climate legislation, saying
This must be the year that the United States passes comprehensive climate and energy legislation into law in order to create jobs, strengthen our national security, and reduce carbon pollution. As a nation, we cannot afford to delay action any longer; we urge you to work closely with Senate leaders to ensure the full Senate takes up a comprehensive energy and climate bill in June.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Luther E. Franklin — Apr 30 2010 02:06 PM
Sigh . . . The Bottom Line:
Even the most vigorous efforts to develop Energy sources CANNOT POSSIBLY keep up with the energy needs - because of our Exponential Population Growth.
Thas' a fac'
Kent Otho Doering — Apr 30 2010 02:52 PM
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.
As an ex-pat vet working in the sustainability sector in Germany, I may add there is another key economic factor. While clean tech is more expensive to install up front, they eliminate the costs of fossil fuels.
There are no better arguments for clean tech than memories of 2007 - 2009 peak oil and peak coal prices which also had their negative impact on the global economy.
G.E. and its biggest global competitor, Siemens (Siemens-Westinghouse U.S.) are well aware that "cutting edge" technology that cuts consumption and costs for customer benefit are the bottom line of "Greentech." GE CEO Imelt was right in noting it is all about energy security, energy production, pollution reduction" And I add and stress - slashing fossil fuel costs.
It is a copyrighted and registered ad claim of mine for a German client - "Why burn money?"
Germany is comparatively well off. Munich uses 60% less fossil fuel energy per-capita than the U.S. with a much higher productivity ratio per-inhabitant. The economic success is there in the lowered energy costs per produced unit. Germany has the lowest labour and energy costs per produced unit in Europe, which spells "MARGIN" in big fat capital letters.
That 60% less fossil fuel consumption also means retention of capital in the local, regional, and national economy for further investment in domestic production and jobs, and consumption.
Cutting consumption in both the public and private sectors also mean lower deficits.
Now, several European countries are considering a proposal of mine.
TALLY - Tax as Liquid Leveraged Equity.
The bank derivate disasters leave very little in the way of equity for much needed investment in "sustainable technology".
And banks are doing it again, lending each other capital for releveraging for re-lending at rates of up to a point a month, compounded. We have that shortage of private equity for forward financing "sustainability industies"
The TALLY proposal calls for taking 20% of the 5% German net eco-carbon tax and leveraging it through their three tiered
Bismarckean, parallel public banking system on a 1 to 10 basis to forward finance, at less than one percent interest, production set up, production, and installation of a broad synergy of available and emerging technologies to keep cutting fossil fuel consumption and costs at rates of up to 10% a year. That is where the margins are.
The program will return 4 Euros in other taxes for every Euro of eco tax put into the leveraging program, directly cutting deficits.
Social costs of unemployment will be cut as people are put back to work in the sector.
The indirect benefits to both government and the private sector are systematic and progressive reduction of fossil fuel consumption, emissions, and costs in the governmental, business, and private sectors.
This is a non-deficit program which carries and amortizes itself by cutting fossil fuel consumption, emissions, and costs.
The bottom line is always margin. And what better argument do we have for clean, safe, sustainable technologies than "why burn money?" (copyright - 2006ö-2007 Tm)
by
Kent O. Doering
PS:
We can RALLY the markets with TALLY. Non-deficit sustainability stimulous programs.
It would call for establishing a similar three-tiered parallel public banking system in the U.S., on leveraging a modest
2 to 2.5 % net eco-carbon tax on a 1 to 10 basis to provide rapid equity capitalisation to those much now badly needed parallel public banks, and kick off the "`clean´" re-industrialisation of America. (As it stands, the U.S. seems to be drifting off to the status of the globe`s number one "consumer colony") Sustainability is the coming growth sector which will make internet and past dot.com booms pale by comparison. And the national, state, and local governments can play a key role there by legislating the creation of parallel public banking systems financed by leveraging a modest eco-carbon tax to give non-deficit stimulous to growth in sustainability.