States Challenge Bush Administration on its Failed Energy Policies
Increasingly, in energy and climate change policies, states are telling Bush's politicized EPA either lead or get out of the way.
Since the Bush administration and its corporate energy profit-before-people-and- the-planet cronies have been avoiding, deriding, bait and switching, and fighting the greenhouse gas fossil fuel emissions issue, the states have been taking matters into their own hands.
As reported in the NYTimes, "What to do about the greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels — particularly the coal that fuels the lion’s share of electricity in 25 states — is a question Washington has largely dodged. But politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The national gridlock over climate-change policy has led to an ever-increasing number of state initiatives.
"In the absence of clear federal mandates for emissions from smokestack industries, states that have been proving grounds for new environmental approaches to energy are becoming battlegrounds as well.
“'There are certainly battles happening all over the nation,' said Steve Clemmer, the Clean Energy Program research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In Kansas and Washington State, the battles are over individual plants. Other fights, as in California, are over how to structure carbon controls — essentially, who will have to pay, and how much. Some, as in Minnesota, are over how much renewable energy must be created and what forms are appropriate.
"Utility executives in Kansas were shocked last fall when a state environmental official rejected two coal-fired power plants because of the millions of tons of carbon-dioxide emissions they could produce. In a state where coal generates 73 percent of the electricity, the pro-coal forces were unable to work their will.
"Currently 18 states seek to cap carbon dioxide emissions for industry and 25 support mandates for renewable energy; renewable-mandate legislative battles are under way in Ohio and Michigan. There are three multistate compacts intended to limit emissions and allow trading of carbon allowances; governors of 10 Midwestern states, including Ms. Sebelius [Kathleen, Democratic Governor of Kansas] joined such a pact last fall.
Energy companies are fighting any shrinking of their profits bottom line.
As the article states, "A pro-coal lobbying group, Kansans for Affordable Energy, was soon formed. Its report, filed with the Kansas Ethics Commission and obtained by DeSmogBlog.com, shows $120,000 of its $140,400 assets came from Peabody Coal, which could supply the new plants from its mines in Wyoming...
"The new group placed newspaper advertisements with pictures of the smiling faces of Presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — suggesting that if the coal plants were killed, those natural-gas exporting countries would benefit. The advertisement made no mention of the fact that none of these countries actually export natural gas to the United States."
And as the Progressive States Network states, "...There are alternatives to America's current dependence on foreign energy supplies. But don't look to the federal government to solve them. Their response to America's energy crisis is to give tax breaks to multinational energy companies raking in record profits -- a solution that is as short-sighted as it is unhelpful.
"But where D.C. has dropped the ball, states are picking it up with more solutions than ever. The solutions are also building new and unique coalitions in the state -- between conservationists worried about climate change, unions and contractors interested in building jobs, public health advocates who want cleaner air, and national security voters who want to see America less dependent on the Middle East.
"One set of approaches includes regulations to encourage the use of renewable fuels and to promote conservation generally..."
So while the Bush administration continues to protect corporate energy polluters, states are taking the lead in protecting the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants.
Since the Bush administration and its corporate energy profit-before-people-and- the-planet cronies have been avoiding, deriding, bait and switching, and fighting the greenhouse gas fossil fuel emissions issue, the states have been taking matters into their own hands.
As reported in the NYTimes, "What to do about the greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels — particularly the coal that fuels the lion’s share of electricity in 25 states — is a question Washington has largely dodged. But politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The national gridlock over climate-change policy has led to an ever-increasing number of state initiatives.
"In the absence of clear federal mandates for emissions from smokestack industries, states that have been proving grounds for new environmental approaches to energy are becoming battlegrounds as well.
“'There are certainly battles happening all over the nation,' said Steve Clemmer, the Clean Energy Program research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In Kansas and Washington State, the battles are over individual plants. Other fights, as in California, are over how to structure carbon controls — essentially, who will have to pay, and how much. Some, as in Minnesota, are over how much renewable energy must be created and what forms are appropriate.
"Utility executives in Kansas were shocked last fall when a state environmental official rejected two coal-fired power plants because of the millions of tons of carbon-dioxide emissions they could produce. In a state where coal generates 73 percent of the electricity, the pro-coal forces were unable to work their will.
"Currently 18 states seek to cap carbon dioxide emissions for industry and 25 support mandates for renewable energy; renewable-mandate legislative battles are under way in Ohio and Michigan. There are three multistate compacts intended to limit emissions and allow trading of carbon allowances; governors of 10 Midwestern states, including Ms. Sebelius [Kathleen, Democratic Governor of Kansas] joined such a pact last fall.
Energy companies are fighting any shrinking of their profits bottom line.
As the article states, "A pro-coal lobbying group, Kansans for Affordable Energy, was soon formed. Its report, filed with the Kansas Ethics Commission and obtained by DeSmogBlog.com, shows $120,000 of its $140,400 assets came from Peabody Coal, which could supply the new plants from its mines in Wyoming...
"The new group placed newspaper advertisements with pictures of the smiling faces of Presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — suggesting that if the coal plants were killed, those natural-gas exporting countries would benefit. The advertisement made no mention of the fact that none of these countries actually export natural gas to the United States."
And as the Progressive States Network states, "...There are alternatives to America's current dependence on foreign energy supplies. But don't look to the federal government to solve them. Their response to America's energy crisis is to give tax breaks to multinational energy companies raking in record profits -- a solution that is as short-sighted as it is unhelpful.
"But where D.C. has dropped the ball, states are picking it up with more solutions than ever. The solutions are also building new and unique coalitions in the state -- between conservationists worried about climate change, unions and contractors interested in building jobs, public health advocates who want cleaner air, and national security voters who want to see America less dependent on the Middle East.
"One set of approaches includes regulations to encourage the use of renewable fuels and to promote conservation generally..."
So while the Bush administration continues to protect corporate energy polluters, states are taking the lead in protecting the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants.
Comments