I don't think there are many people left who really question that we need a major transformation in the way we produce power, the disaster in the Gulf being the latest wakeup call for anyone who was still sleeping. It was the most recent reminder that 40 years after Richard Nixon started talking about "energy independence," we're still stuck or moving backwards -- our economy constantly rattled by the volatile price of oil, our planet's climate increasingly unstable thanks to the pollution we're pumping into the atmosphere.
And, oh yes, we're sending billions of dollars a day overseas, with the global oil market enriching some of the most autocratic and anti-American regimes around the world. Here's one fact to stiffen the spine: as my friend Jon Powers and his band of veterans remind me, every day we keep going with what we're doing makes Iran $100 million richer and takes over a billion dollars out of our economy. Every single day.
That's why I'm doubling down on the proposal I'm rolling out today with Senator Lieberman, a work product that reflects six months of contribution from Lindsey Graham, and hundreds of meetings with our colleagues: major energy and comprehensive climate change legislation that meets this big challenge. It's a practical pathway to finally end our addiction to oil, put Americans back in control of our own power production, and release the innovation and ingenuity of Americans to build the clean energy economy we need to build prosperity in the 21st century.
It'll help us create nearly 2 million new jobs, develop new products, and support the research and development to help us maintain leadership in the global economy. And it'll even reduce the deficit by about $21 billion in nine years.
And we've got to pass it this year.
I'm asking you to look at it on the merits, but also knowing that we have to find 60 votes in a tough atmosphere in Washington, on an issue where even a lot of good Democrats have been reluctant to act over the years.
The big details:
In the bill, we finally start to bring down carbon pollution by sending a clear price signal on that pollution. This market is tightly controlled, with only folks who need the permits able to buy the permits in the initial auction. No Wild West of speculation, no big banks coming in to buy up permits. Then the corporations who buy those permits can trade among themselves, so if a company makes great strides in bringing down their carbon pollution, they get the benefit of being able to sell off their permits, and if they don't, they need to buy more. It's simple, fair, and rewards those American companies who work hard to bring down their emissions of carbon pollution. And much of the proceeds of that carbon auction get sent straight to the American people, helping out consumers with their energy bills. Bottom line: it does what President Obama told the world we'd do -- it reduces greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2005 levels at 2050.
We also set up a tough, WTO-consistent border adjustment mechanism so that there won't be any "carbon leakage" of companies manufacturing things overseas in countries that don't manage their emissions. Imports from those countries will have to pay a fee at the border. This will protect American industry and make sure jobs stay here at home. And we threaded that needle in a way that President Obama can support -- you'll remember he was concerned about the way it's been handled in previous bills.
Next, we know we're in the middle of a major catastrophe in the Gulf, and we need to learn all the right lessons. The big lesson? Get us to the day when oil spills are infinitely less likely because we're not scrambling to pump every last barrel of oil out of every inch of the earth. You do that by transforming energy in America.
But there's more we do in the short term. This bill starts tightening up federal law around offshore drilling, adding two major reforms. First, any state can veto drilling less than 75 miles off their coast. Second, each new rig needs to be studied for the effects of any potential spill, and any state that could be affected has the right to call a halt to the project. This creates important local control over the beaches and waterways of our country.
And here's what I get excited about as a true-believer on climate and clean energy: We also make major new investments in clean energy research and production. We need to make our country a leader in the production of clean energy technology, from cars and batteries to wind and solar technology to technology we haven't even dreamed of yet. And we direct local, state and federal authorities to take carbon pollution into account when planning new transportation projects. With these new policies and the price signal on carbon pollution, we can finally end our oil addiction and give the wind, solar, and other clean fuels the level playing field they need to grow.
Look, it's long, long overdue for America to lead. Economically, we need to get out in front of the clean energy economy of the 21st century to become the leader on technologies that will power the world. Other countries aren't waiting on this. China just raised their auto-efficiency standards to over 36 miles a gallon, and last year, for the first time, China's investment in clean energy exceeded ours. We can't let this continue. I want to close the energy gap with China, not let a lack of political willpower allow it to grow.
And, in terms of our planet's climate, we need to lead the way -- or, at this point, finally join the parade.
There's very tough politics in the Senate, no doubt. But we've made sure that states and Senators that have been uncomfortable with this issue for decades have an unprecedented opportunity to take part in the new, clean energy economy and that's why we make strong investments in clean coal technology. And we make sure that nuclear power also has a fighting chance by streamlining and reforming the permitting process and making loan guarantees available. Many Senators have worked together to make sure these provisions are strong, fair, and don't compromise the environmental integrity of the bill. And there's a reason why people and American businesses that have always opposed and fought against previous legislation -- quite successfully! -- are standing behind this one.
My bottom line: Al Gore and I held the Senate's first climate change hearings in the Commerce Committee way back in 1988. Since then, precious little progress has been made and ground has been lost internationally, all while the science has grown more compelling. I can barely even count any more the number of international summits I've attended, or press conferences we've held after losing climate change votes in the Senate where our message was: "Next year, we can get this done -- don't give up on the United States or the Senate." Two Congresses ago, we had 38 votes for a bill. Last Congress, we had 54 votes for cloture out of 60 needed -- and we said then -- me, Joe, Barbara Boxer -- that this Congress we could get to 60 and pass a bill. Now we can do it -- if we find the will. And we damn well better, because I don't want to attend another event, this year or next year, where I have to look anyone in the eye again and say, "Next year we can do it."
No, this is the year. This is the moment. Half-measures won't cut it; now is the time for the full-court press to make it happen.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
We need two incentives to encourage choice of efficient LDV. 1.) A significant revenue-neutral tax indexed to the cost of the fossil component of fuel (32%, as of 1/4/1999) and 2.) a significant revenue-neutral "Feebate" (Fee on purchases of new WOV rebated entirely as a credit on purchases of new, efficient LDV).
Gasoline price of $4.12/gal demonstrated that consumers will change their driving and purchase habits with increased fuel price. The Cash for Clunkers demonstrated consumers will choose efficient if given financial incentives. The corollary is more important, financial incentive will cause movement away from the inefficient WOV!
This can begin immediately. It will likely reduce our demand by 2-3%/year with a cumulative effect on the fleet average. This can reduce oil demand by more than 2 million barrels/day within 7 years! Improving our economic competitiveness while retaining $60 billion/year payments to foreign countries.
What are we waiting for?
"This market is tightly controlled, with only folks who need the permits able to buy the permits in the initial auction."
It's still no Cantwell-Collins
http://cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm
but until the CLEAR Act gets enough co-sponsors for a floor vote, perhaps the Kerry bill *is* better than nothing, after all.
But wouldn't that just increase the risk or another disaster?
And as for each rig to be "studied for the effects of a potential spill," that's already happening right now, isn't it? Of course, according to Rachel Maddow, the oil companies are writing the regulations and the rigs are being registered in the Mariana's and places where safety requirements are lax.
Put it this way, your article is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Shame on you.
Recent Supreme Court decisions establish a very extensive "eminent domain" right of the community over any particular legal entity.
Selling carbon credits does absolutely nothing to reduce the output of CO2. If there is a real reporter out there would you ask Mr. Kerry how much CO2 output gets reduced in his plan. Be prepared for a song and dance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412204831.htm
ScienceDaily (Apr. 13, 2006) — Earth's plant life will not be able to "store" excess carbon from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as well as scientists once thought because plants likely cannot get enough nutrients, such as nitrogen, when there are higher levels of carbon dioxide, according to scientists publishing in this week's issue of the journal Nature.
That, in turn, is likely to dampen the ability of plants to offset increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
"We found that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may rise even faster than anticipated, because ecosystems likely will not store as much carbon as had been predicted," said Peter Reich of the University of Minnesota, lead author of the study, which was conducted at the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Cedar Creek Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Minn.
"As a result, soils will be unable to sustain plant growth over time [as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase]," said plant ecologist David Ellsworth of the University of Michigan.
We are not fooled.
Is there some way we can collapse the spirit of Senator Lieberman's Miranda Rights repeal into the energy bill? Here we are, giving a billion a day to potential terrorists and what do we get in return? Bombs in Times Square! Let's show some spine. Let's stop Mirandaizing terrorists and get on with making our country energy self sufficient. Here's how. Terrorists' lawyers blow smoke in our eyes, and cars blow pollutants into our air. Let's make it illegal for terrorists and their lawyers to drive. Then let's have a new three strikes law. Three strikes and you lose your drivers' license. Let's temporarily suspend the drivers' licenses of all those accused of crimes. Let's restrict Parolees to Yarises and other energy efficient small cars. Let's restrict freed sex offenders to tricycles. There are millions and millions of ex convicts, not to mention active defendants, now driving cars on our streets. Imagine the energy savings if they had to take the bus. As to Mirandizing them, think how much gas will the police save if, instead of a vehicle chase, all they have to do to stop a recidivist is catch up to a clean, natural gas burning bus?
Yours sincerely,
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
New nuclear will be much cheaper but will depend on the US Government changing the onerous legal, finance and regulatory regime more in line with international standards, and factory mass production taking over after the first hundred or so new nukes are on order worldwide. We are close to that threshold now.
We can compete with Korea,Japan and China on many high tech items including wind, solar, autos, and aircraft but on nuclear power we are 3 times the cost and take twice a long. The American Power Act seeks to change that.
I don't care what you say the legislation does, if Lieberman is involved I know it's a crooked deal. Today I heard that your bill actually subsidizes offshore drilling. Please say that isn't so.
AECL Candu 6 Qinshan. $2B/Gw 1.5 cents a kwh.
http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx
Westinghouse AP1000 China $1.2/Gw 1.3 cents a kwh.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
Cape wind $20B/Gw 24 cents a kwh going to 34 over 15 years
New Hydro Site C $20B/Gw
Largest US solar installion Arcadia $32B/Gw or 50 cents a kwh
It is Westinghouse/Toshiba not China building in Texas.
Federal money is a loan guarantee not a loan givening the utility access to lower rates. The cost is paid by a GAO assessment.
Not a single death in a US nuclear accident in 50 years - an unparalleled safety record.
Decommissioning and waste storage costs are paid by a less than a half cent a kwh fee to the NRC.
Nuclear is less than 10% the cost of any not so renewable.
Next time do some research instead of quoting boilerplate from the nuclear disinformation shop over at Big Oil.
I’m quoting Obama’s DOE chief Dr.Chu. Solar is 5 times as expensive as coal or nuclear.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/steven_chu/index.html
Educate your self with facts.
Do you know how many refinery explosions we've had, coal explosions, natural gas explosions that killed many people.
And NOT 1 DEATH from a Nuclear power accident in the US. Not ONE!
source: Nuclear Regulatory Commision
www.nrc.gov
The record of Coal plants, Natural Gas plants and lines, Oil refineries, etc. has not been so good.
Renowned climatologist James Hansen:
“One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.”
http://www.grist.org/article/Dear-Barack-and-Michelle/
That's true for commercial nuclear power.
However, it's not true for the early days of experimental military research reactors. Specifically one reactor - the Army's SL-1 incident. Three men died. However, it is very debatable whether that was an "accident." The evidence makes me conclude that it was not.
Adding to Charles' comment above, fossil fuel technology kills millions of people annually all around the world:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/17345/20100322/un-urges-action-to-fight-water-pollution-deaths.htm
Sean in 60
http://www.seaninsixtyseconds.com
Not only do you create a negative price incentive(WTO compliant protection) but a positive incentive to enter a binding agreement with the US as an opportunity to sell offsets.
Waiting for 2016 on manufacturing is also good as it will let you get those treaties off the ground providing manufacturers whose only sin is using the technology and energy sources available to provide american jobs.
I think you also laid down the gauntlet for green energy if they perform as they promise we will certainly exceed the long term goals.
But creating the positive and negative incentives to enter treaties with us on climate change more than makes up for the slighlty lower 2020 target. We have no chance of winning this battle alone.