Clean Energy

Since 2005, coal companies and other energy producers have know these rules were possibly in the works, but of course they wait until now to start throwing stones.

Roy Blunt, who declared during his U.S. Senate campaign that "there isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth,” has cosponsored legislation to completely eliminate the Environment Protection Agency.

In unrelated news, Roy Blunt does whatever polluting corporations ask him to do.

David Lieb has a good story today on the Missouri legislature’s numerous attempts in recent years to thwart voters’ clearly articulated intentions by repealing parts of successful statewide initiatives. 

The League of Conservation Voters released its annual environmental voting scorecard today.  Eighty-one House members received "zero" ratings for their votes against clean energy and commonsense pollution safeguards -- and four of those zeros came from Missouri.  

Here's how the LCV summarizes their methodology:

“While the lack of progress in 2010 is highly disappointing, we applaud those members of Congress who fought to protect public health and the environment and reduce our nation’s dangerous dependence on oil,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, LCV Senior Vice President of Government Affairs. “Conversely, the 2010 Scorecard clearly exposes those members who put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of the health and well-being of all Americans by opposing efforts to transition our nation to a clean energy economy, enforce commonsense pollution safeguards, and protect the environment.”

This weekend in the Star: "Fueled by information from utility lobbyists, Missouri legislators this week tried to kill a voter-approved effort to promote renewable energy in the state. The lawmakers passed a resolution throwing out a pair of regulations that the Missouri Public Service Commission put in place last year to carry out the will of voters. In 2008, voters passed a standard requiring utilities to use renewable energy to create at least 2 percent of electricity by 2011 and at least 15 percent in 2021. Renewable energy supporters say the lawmakers’ move essentially guts the law. Utilities disagree. This decision is not in line with what Missouri voters approved in 2008. Gov. Jay Nixon should veto the resolution and tell the PSC to try again in writing new regulations that would promote renewable energy."

Missourian columnist David Rosman: "Republicans are afraid of the citizens of Missouri … very, very afraid."

The Post-Dispatch has a good editorial today looking at efforts in the Missouri General Assembly to overturn the will of the voters on 2010's Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which passed with 52% of the vote in an election that was favorable to Republican candidates; and 2008's Proposition C, the Clean Energy Initiative, which passed with 66% of the vote and created a renewable electricity standard in the state, requiring utility companies to gradually increase their usage of renewable energy.  Not included in the editorial are Republicans' ongoing efforts to undermine the 2006 vote to provide for annual increases in Missouri's minimum wage based on the pace of inflation in the Midwest.

Still, it's a good editorial that gets at the heart of the matter:

The people of Missouri are becoming an awful nuisance to their legislators in Jefferson City.

Missouri's state representatives and senators, after all, slog away for four long months a year (part-time, with a 10-day spring break), making the tough decisions about which bills written by which lobbyists they should pass.

But every now and then, some nervy Missourians get it into their heads to read the part of the state constitution about how to make laws without the Legislature. When they succeed, legislators then have to hole up with more lobbyists to figure out the best way to nullify the laws that the people passed without them....

Despite the anti-incumbent, frustrated mood of yesterday’s elections, there are some silver linings and some important messages for the months ahead.

In California, voters overwhelmingly rejected Big Oil’s attempt to circumvent the most important climate law in the nation. This is an incredibly significant development. For the first time, VOTERS got to have direct input into whether or not they want to move forward with climate solutions. They gave a full-throated call for building the clean energy future in California.

Still, you probably won’t hear much about this resounding victory because some pundits will view it as a wacky, West Coast aberration. But think about it: if the fossil fuel guys had won, the media would have been trumpeting the death of environmentalism, and industry allies in Congress would have been citing the vote as reason to abandon climate legislation. And you can call California “liberal,” but it is also the state with the third largest unemployment rate in the nation. If voters thought clean energy hurt the economy, we wouldn’t have won.

But voters know that clean energy means good things for our economy, and the California vote proves it. Unfortunately, the federal races were less clear.

We saw the House flip last night and several of our climate champs were defeated – but so were many lawmakers who had voted AGAINST climate change.

The Internets remember a time when former Governor Matt Blunt and Lt. Governor Peter Kinder had nothing but nice things to say about Wind Capital Group's projects in Northwest Missouri.  From the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives' Rural Missouri magazine in 2006:

Carnahan’s Wind Capital Group joined representatives of Missouri’s electric cooperatives, John Deere Wind Energy, the Department of Natural Resources and various statewide elected officials in announcing the ambitious project in a ceremony at the state Capitol on Jan. 31.

“Wind projects fit in well with our desire to develop fuel sources here in Missouri that are good for the environment and can help spur economic growth,” says Gov. Matt Blunt, who welcomed leaders of the project to his office. “This is truly a win-win situation.”

Added Lt. Gov Peter Kinder, “Wind, like ethanol and biodiesel, can be homegrown energy. These renewable and cleaner forms of energy can keep our air and water cleaner now and for the future.”

...Already the players in this project are talking about a second wind farm. Wind farms once considered marginal for Missouri are now becoming a reality thanks to a variety of factors: tax incentives from the recently passed national energy bill, the new wind maps from DNR, improved technology and, most importantly, a ready source of financing from John Deere Wind Energy.

Blaine Luetkemeyer is promising to "defund and reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency because it's fixing to 'eliminate private agriculture.'  To be sure, there are bipartisan concerns about some EPA proposals, but (a) Luetkemeyer has zero credibility when it comes to an alleged "unwillingness to look at sound science," and (b) his rhetoric and fears about "eliminating private agriculture" are too absurd for words.   In this week's 'Blaine Buzz':

Yesterday, one of our, my colleagues made the comment that EPA didn't stand for Environmental Protection Agency, it stood for 'eliminating private agriculture.'  And I think he's probably right. That's where they're headed.  And that's what we have to stop.

Case in point: He doesn't seem to understand the difference between clean energy bills with cap-and-trade provisions and concerns regarding that the possibility that the EPA might regulate carbon pollution under the Clear Air Act. (A market-based cap-and-trade system is a better way to reduce pollution than a clumsy Clean Air Act approach.) 

Watch Luetkemeyer say silly things here. 

As summarized by the Post-Dispatch's Bill Lambrecht:

[League of Conservation Voters Action Fund's Tony Massaro] said his group's survey turned up a bit of a surprise: A plurality of voters endorsing climate change legislation in Congress.

Here's how the question was asked, followed by the results:

Here are some laws passed in at least one House of Congress in the past two years. Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of each one:

The plan to encourage clean energy production known as cap-and-trade.

Approve: 45 percent. Disapprove 40 percent.

With voters mostly concerned most about the economy, Massaro said, a primary mission is persuading Missourians of the economic benefits of green technology  -- and in so doing influencing how they vote.

 I worked on Capitol Hill for a long time, and I do not consider myself naive about the inner workings of Washington. But even I was surprised by two revelations this week exposing the amount of money the oil industry is spending to buy political influence.

Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.

 Today, a bunch of coal executives are congregating for the West Virginia Coal Association annual meeting at the luxurious Read More »

Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.

The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.

After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.

Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself "What good is all this blame going to do?"

General Steven Anderson (Ret.) stars in VoteVets' latest teevee ad calling for clean energy legislation in the U.S. Senate.

According to The Hill newspaper, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) "is introducing legislation to expand use of renewable electricity and transportation fuels that she says is a way to increase political support for broad energy legislation among farm-state lawmakers." Reuters adds that Klobuchar's legislation would promote "a long-term extension of biofuel tax breaks."  Klobuchar says, "it is time to look at home-grown energy and that includes biofuels and they should be part of this."

On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).

Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.

On June 10th, we all celebrated the defeat of the Murkowski resolution, which would have gutted the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution.  Why we needed to defeat Murkowski was explained well by NRDC Action Fund Executive Director, Peter Lehner, who wrote the following prior to the vote: