Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8496/

Iraq and Afghanistan War Vets Back Climate Change Bill

By Joel Wendland
Archives - Dates and Topics 2009 online May 1 – 31, 2009 click here for related stories: environment/nature

5-06-09, 9:48 am




Additional resources:
Subscribe to this podcast in iTunes

Political Affairs podcast #98 – Change is coming to America







Follow PA on Twitter
Why have veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan become leading advocates for climate and energy legislation advocated by the Obama administration? According to a recent e-mail to supporters, VoteVets.org, an advocacy organization that promotes veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for elected office, has launched an ad campaign in several congressional districts in support of pending legislation that would cap carbon emissions and make substantial investments in renewable energy resources.

The VoteVets.org website explains that the American Clean Energy and Security Act "would help lessen our dependence on foreign oil by both funding clean alternative energy and bolstering efficiency. For those of us who fought terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill is a no brainer. It must pass."

That bill overcame some major hurdles this week in the House Energy Committee when leading Democrats agreed to a "cash for clunkers" provision in the bill which would provide cash subsidies to car buyers who trade in their old cars for new models with better fuel economy.

The cap-and-trade part of the legislation still must overcome some opposition in the committee. If this portion of the bill follows the practices created in the early 1990s to reduce pollution that causes "acid rain," it would create limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming by big polluters. The Environmental Protection Agency would auction off permits for emissions to corporations that pollute. Those permits could be traded for cash or other emissions permits.

The goal of this system would be two-fold. First, it would create both positive and negative incentives for corporations to reduce emissions and invest in new cleaner technologies or renewable energy sources. Second, it would raise new revenue that could fund an array of projects: technology re-tooling, investments in renewable energy industries, environmental clean-up, offsets for energy prices and deficit reduction.

While no thoughtful person disagrees with the fact that global warming poses a serious threat to human survival in the very near future or that fossil fuels play a huge role in increasing the danger, resistance to this sort of urgent and necessary action persists.

Ironically, one of the original authors of the acid rain cap-and-trade system, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), has refused full support for the new auction system. Still smarting from his forced ouster as Energy Committee chair last year and tied to the Big Three carmakers, Dingell backed off his strongest opposition after other Democrats agreed to the "cash for clunkers" concept.

Right-wing opposition to the bill lands on the side of corporations that want to be free to pollute, calling the bill a new tax. Some Republicans exposed their factually challenged arguments on the matter when they erroneously cited a 2007 MIT study of the additional cost to energy consumers of a potential cap-and-trade system. We can expect to pay thousands and thousands of dollars more each year if the bill passes, they insisted.

Aside from the fact that an author of the MIT study pointed out that it had in truth found that additional costs would be far lower and could be reduced to zero with government offsets, a new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released May 1st revealed that over time a typical household could actually save money under the type of provisions included in the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

According to the Environmental News Service, UCS reported "that combining a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program with energy and transportation policies would result in 'dramatic emissions reductions' and net savings for the typical US household of $300 per year in 2020 and $900 per year in 2030."

UCS added, "Economic scare tactics from opponents of climate and energy legislation are failing to undermine public support for addressing global warming." An NBC poll conducted in late April showed that almost six in 10 Americans support the principles contained in the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Other polls have also shown strong public support for climate and energy legislation, the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels like oil and new investments in renewable energy.

See the VoteVets.org ad here:




| | | | Share | Add to Mixx! | Save to del.icio.us | Twitter |
 

Home Podcast Editors' Blog

Receivers email:

*

Your email:

*



| Send to friend |