Every time a regulation is proposed to improve the health, safety, or well-being of the American people, big corporations respond with predictable scare tactics and bogus impact studies. This time around, one of the most vocal pawns of the Big Oil special interests that oppose job-creating energy reform is Congressman Pat Toomey.
Contrary to Congressman Toomey's "sky is falling" rhetoric, all legitimate studies show that energy reform will create jobs for Pennsylvania and save consumers money.
A rigorous independent study conducted by Yale, the University of Illinois, and the University of California confirmed previous research that found the American Clean Energy and Security Act would create up to 78,000 new Pennsylvania jobs this decade and increase our GDP by upwards of $4.3 billion. Nationwide, it will create up to 1.9 million jobs boost GDP by up to $111 billion.
Energy reform will save Americans money. The Yale study demonstrates that reform will provide up to $1,175 in household energy savings every year by 2020, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates reform will reduce the deficit by $24 billion over the next 10 years.
The bill also includes protections and incentives for Pennsylvania's vital coal and natural gas industries. It will actually increase coal power generation by 17 percent, according the Department of Energy, by investing nearly $240 billion into next-generation coal technology.
Why are the figures Congressman Toomey cites so radically different? Because they are bought and paid for by an energy industry that is fighting hard to preserve the business-as-usual of skyrocketing prices, little oversight, and virtually no accountability for recklessness.
Congressman Toomey cannot point to a single legitimate study to backup his flawed assertions about energy reform. Instead, he touts:
• The National Association of Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group
• The right-wing Beacon Hill Institute, which partnered with an organization funded by Exxon-Mobil
• A study paid for by a consortium of drillers, the Marcellus Shale Gas Committee
• And a "study" referenced by certain members of the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, but not sanctioned by any commission, that refers to an entirely different piece of legislation.
This is an old routine.
When we reduced CFCs, DuPont testified that it would cause "severe economic and social disruption." It didn't.
When we improved tailpipe standards, automakers protested that they were unattainable. American innovation easily met and exceeded the challenge.
When we passed the Clean Air Act, the same industry barons and their representatives in Congress insisted that our economy would grind to a halt. Since the law was passed in 1970, dangerous air pollutants have been cut by 50% or more; lead emissions by 99%; sulfur dioxide by 58%; carbon monoxide by 58%, and so on -- all while our economy grew by more than 200%.
The most stunning success was our fight against acid rain. It was built on a cap-and-trade system that the Bush Administration found brought in $120 billion in benefits at a cost of only $3 billion.
We need jobs. That means we must seize a new initiative, not stick with a failed status quo.
Job growth comes from innovation. We cannot expect to lead the 21st century with 20th century technology. Last year, China passed the United States in investments in clean energy technology. China now boasts the world's largest solar panel industry - which exports 95% of its production, including to the United States.
China gets it. Why doesn't Pat Toomey?
Why would he deliberately mislead the people about the effects of energy reform and flout discredited studies to oppose creating jobs and saving money for Pennsylvanians? Whose side is he on?
Immediately after oil began spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, Halliburton, which was involved in the failed rig, began pouring contributions into the campaigns of corporate politicians. No federal candidate was offered, or accepted, more than Congressman Toomey. He brushed off the contribution, saying that, given his record, it's "not shocking" that he receives money from corporations like Halliburton.
Not shocking, indeed.
The truth is that every President since Richard Nixon has pledged to free this country from foreign oil. "Cap and trade" is a conservative, free-market approach developed in the Reagan White House and first implemented by George H.W. Bush. We're losing the race for next-generation technology to communist China.
We can't afford to fall for the same old scare tactics from Big Oil and their politicians.
Phony studies can't hide the fact that energy reform will be good for our country and our economy. That's why the bill I voted for is supported by major manufacturers and power companies like GE, Ford, Shell, and Exelon.
It's time to take the initiative and put our country, and our economy, back on the cutting edge.
As a former 3-star Navy Admiral, Congressman Joe Sestak is the highest-ranking Veteran elected to Congress and is the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.
Follow Rep. Joe Sestak on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sestak2010
Save money, cut the deficit, employ everyone, cut energy dependence:
Immediately order energy retrofits for all gov buildings.
Rooftop PV Solar, Offshore wind, and Waste Bio char, can supply the worlds energy and fuel needs: cleanly, safely, Forever, within 12 years and cheaper in the long run 2-6 cents now, and 26$ per barrel bio oils.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
about 1$ per Wp solar panels, new.
install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, according to Hardy." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w
Wind: “between two and six cents today, depending on location.12 Wind power approaches competitiveness with conventional generation at this price point. “
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind%20issue%20brief_FINAL.pdf
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/BiofBioproBioref%203,%20547-562,%202009%20Laird.pdf
26$ per barrel bio oil from waste bio char.
and pork projects
because the big fossil and nukes companies get billions in subsides and will stop at nothing to destroy green energy competition.
because it's a nation security imperative to end out dependence on fossil and nukes.
because as green energy succeeds, fossil and nukes will drop their prices to fire sale levels.
That's why.
How is Spain's economy working? Last I checked, unemployment is over 20%. Would we be able to implement it better than them without ruining our economy?
As the congressman points out, ever time a piece of legislation is passed or proposed the crybabies come out of the wood work to scream that the sky is falling. And of course history, has proven them wrong ever time.
Maybe you should confine your comments to scholastic arguements of theory, like what the Constitution says, or if Glenn Back is insane, or if Sarah Palin is smart, not substantive issues that actually matter.
...................................VOTE for Joe Sestak
geez - do we really trust them to predict out to the year 2020?
all the pork people are starting these up but there's alot of waste and fraud
we should give welfare if people need it but not spend 200,000 per job
the state has lots of idle farm land and many people want to raise veggies and animals, that would be useful and cheap
Nothing but the status quo with zero solutions and rhetoric that is so convoluted that I often weep for the direction our country is going in.
But do not worry, we Pennsylvanians know what Toomey is about and will work hard to ensure that someone like him, Wall Street and corporate funded will not become the next Senator from Pennsylvania and let this Commonwealth be destroyed by him.
We already know that global oil is going into decline. According the IEA the world needs a new Saudi Arabia worth of oil production to come online every 5 years just to offset decline rates. We need 6 new SA (one every 3 1/2 years) to not only offset declines but meet increasing demands from developing countries: http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2008/11/iea-world-energy-outlook-2008.html
And now you have the US military saying this: http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2010/04/united-states-joint-forces-command-us.html "A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production...By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.”
The US needs that much oil for it's daily gasoline needs (9.29 m/bbl). The truth is oil prices along with everything else is going high. Will C&T compound the costs?
I'm definitely going to PA to vote next election.
Maybe I'll make a swing down the East Coast, hit a few states. Vote early and often!
It would be helpful, since you sound like you want to be on "our side," if you would eschew Big Energy and Big Bank welfare, and focus more on DEMOCRATICALLY OWNED POINT OF USE SOLUTIONS. WE, the American People, need PACE loans and feed in tariffs so WE can produce clean rooftop solar, WE can upgrade to Net Zero or beyond in our homes and businesses and WE can see the rewards from doing the right thing. Shoving "credits" that bear no relationship to personal or corporate accountability will just make power way more expensive FOR NO REASON.
If you want GHG reductions, the EPA needs to REGULATE THEM. We don't need to give Big Energy or Big Banks any more handouts! Big Oil, Big Solar, Big Coal, Big Wind and Big Transmission are all planet-killers that externalize costs onto ratepayers and taxpayers. Democratically-owned solutions are the TRUE free market option - where WE can receive a fair ROI for feeding power into the grid and conserving...
But it's more "free market" than government controls, telling business what to do.
A raise in the gas tax is the same thing: minimal government interference, let's business decide how to adjust: use less, charge more, whatever.
On your last paragraph: agree totally. I'm a solar PV fan (and stock owner), and the future of solar is private ownership. There solar competes with the peak, retail prices charged businesses and homes, and it does it quite well. Solar is a threat to the utilities: the more that is privately-owned, the less power the utilities sell. Most of what we "know" about solar is wrong, misinformation from the utilities.
For example, you can't compare solar to nuclear power: a home or business can own solar. Same to some extent with wind.
Peak power consumption is daytime, hot, sunny days, due to AC. That's always when brownouts occur, even here in MA. Every private solar panel installed prevents that; solar is the perfect power for AC.
Cap and Trade is better than nothing... but not by much. Big banks and wall street will, unfortunately, win out over the people, by gaming the system. Cap and Dividend would be better. I.e. tax the problem, and distribute all the proceeds equally to every man and woman in the country. That way, if you don't use oil... if you're completely off our fossil fuel laden grid... you actualy MAKE money. It takes the special interests out of the equation, and let's the market decide the next technology. IMO, we should tax anything that results in GHG's at the wellhead or port of entry, and nuclear waste while we're at it. Since the nuclear industry apparently doesn't want to include the cost of transporting, storing, stockpiling and managing 1000's of years worth of waste.
We are not allowed to use DDT, period. We don't get to use it and cut a check. Mother Nature does not accept checks. If you think GHGs are killing the planet, you STOP them, you don't try and make money off them. That's why people are so suspicious of the greenwashers - they are not really trying to cut GHGs (see Mojave solar for a very obvious answer) - they are just trying to use the issue to make money for themselves.