Richmond Times Dispatch – “Overturn EPA No; Legislation Gives Polluters Free Pass”
By Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice
“The Murkowski amendment is the wrong direction for our nation and for our Senate. It also is a diversion from the real task before the Senate: to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation. The Senate needs to stand up against this big polluter bailout and vote for America’s future.”
A new poll conducted by Stanford University and funded by the National Science Foundation finds overwhelming public support for government action to curb carbon pollution and shift America towards a clean energy economy.
Of the 1,000 adults polled, most want the federal government to start limiting carbon pollution.
When asked about the causes of climate change,
Large majorities favor government action to require or encourage the manufacturing of more energy efficiency goods.
Another new poll conducted by Knowledge Networks and designed by researchers Yale University and George Mason University shows that the vast majority of the public believes that the president and congress should make global warming and clean energy priorities. Over 1,000 adults were survey in May and June of this year and the results are no surprise: the public wants government to take action now.
As the oil in the Gulf continues to flow, the American people are sending a strong message to Congress. They want federal regulation of carbon pollution and real investment in clean energy now. We know the dangers of our addiction to oil and fossil fuels. Let’s not fail to harvest the one and only redeeming quality of this Gulf tragedy, its power to move a nation to finally kick our fossil fuel addiction and more forward into a new clean energy future.
It is common knowledge that once an addict hits rock bottom, the traumatic nature of the event causes a profound shock to his system. It also serves as a wake-up call, a true inflection point. The message playing in the addict’s head goes something like this: change now or self-destruct.
With pelicans and dolphins soaked in oil plastered on the front of every newspaper and Gulf coast fisherman hanging onto their livelihoods by a thread, I think it is safe to say we have hit rock bottom.
Are we ready to change or self-destruct?
As the polls above prove, the American people want change. The time is now to take the first steps away from oil and towards a new era of clean energy independence.
We’ve hit rock bottom. Now let’s start on the path to recovery.
Grist list five compelling reasons why a comprehensive climate and energy plan is superior to an energy-only bill.
“Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation, or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.”
E2 has President Obama’s reactions to the Murkowski resolution. The White House said that the resolution would
“increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and block efforts to cut pollution that threatens our health and well-being.”
The statement says that:
“Obama’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the measure.”
Green also has the story of how the White House is less than pleased with the Murkowski resolution.
“[The] White House says that if the resolution, scheduled for debate and a vote on Thursday, reaches President Obama’s desk, his advisers will recommend that he veto it. That’s what is known as a veto threat and in this case it is not a bluff.”
Editorial – Bangor Daily News – “Climate Leadership Needed”
“Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe long have considered climate change a serious problem and worked toward solutions. There won’t be serious solutions, however, without congressional action. That action begins with rejection of a measure that would undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and, therefore, should be regulated. The next step is for the senators to back comprehensive energy legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.”
The New York Times – “The Climate Majority”
By Jon A. Krosnick, Professor of communications, political science and psychology at Stanford University
“But a closer look at these polls and a new survey by my Political Psychology Research Group show just the opposite: huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it.”
“When senators vote on emissions limits on Thursday, there is one other number they might want to keep in mind: 72 percent of Americans think that most business leaders do not want the federal government to take steps to stop global warming. A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will of the people.”
On Grist, there is an interesting study of how to design U.S. energy policy to incorporate microgrids.
“Critical to reducing American dependence on fossil fuels is the development of alternative clean energy sources, such as solar, wind, and biomass…. It’s time for Congress to break the stranglehold that the utilities and oil industry have on our energy system and include language in the climate bill that will move our nation to a more consumer-based system of energy development, management, and disbursement. This paradigm shift is clearly on the horizon with the development of microgrids and the growing appetite for local development and local control of energy sources.”
Also on Grist, Dan Lashof announcing the official start of the “battle for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.” He argues that President Obama’s speech last week at Carnegie Mellon was a turning point.
“The whole speech is worth a careful read because it makes clear that President Obama does not see energy and climate legislation as simply another item on his agenda. He sees it as one of the four pillars of a new foundation for America’s prosperity in the 21st Century, along with health care reform (passed), financial reform (passed), and education reform (ongoing).”
Treehugger examines how the American Power Act could be transformed into the BP Spill Bill.
“[T]his is generally a good idea, as the need to pivot towards clean energy should be one of the clear messages to emerge out of this tragedy. So, using the platform that Kerry/Lieberman/Graham meticulously hammered out with industry leaders to price carbon and encourage clean energy growth in an unobtrusive, industry-approved manner makes sense: And pairing that with direct action to hold BP legally financially liable for the spill would make for a comprehensive legislative response to the BP Gulf spill.”
On Huffington Post, Lisa Jackson, E.P.A. Administrator, takes a stand against the Murkowski resolution. The resolution that would limit EPA’s ability to regulated carbon pollution is set to go to the Senate for a vote this week. Jackson asserts that
“Senator Murkowski’s resolution would take away EPA’s ability to protect the health and welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution. The resolution would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. It would also gut EPA’s authority in the clean cars program, a program that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut down on air pollution.”
The Boston Globe – “Oil spill is a sign to Congress: kick the fossil-fuel habit”
Editorial
“Beyond managing the current crisis, it is essential that the Senate pass a comprehensive energy law that steers the country in a cleaner, safer direction.”
The Economist – “The blame game: The president can’t stop oil from gushing in the gulf. But he can improve America’s energy policies”
Editorial
“The catastrophe… has provided a chance to talk about deeper problems in energy policy: to spell out to Americans the true cost of the petrol they guzzle (including all the subsidies and distortions of trade) and to push for alternatives, facilitated by a price on carbon.”
