Letting the fossil fuel companies off the hook is a BAD idea....

Today's post: Wednesday, 1-13-2010

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

On January 20th the Senate will vote on an amendment from Senator Murkowski of Alaska to block the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and President Obama to protect the public's health and safety by enforcing limits on global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act--limits reaffirmed by the Supreme Court almost three years ago.

Senator Murkowski's amendment would disregard decades of research, scientific debate, court cases, public hearings and comments that state that global warming is happening and that it will be dangerous to human health and welfare. Last month more than 400,000 Americans submitted comments in favor of EPA's proposal to limit pollution from the biggest global warming polluters. We cannot afford to ignore that global warming pollution will endanger public health in the U.S. and around the world. Furthermore, action to fight global warming will build a clean energy economy that will not only mean less pollution, but more jobs and greater security as well. If successful, Senator Murkowski's amendment would bail out big polluters and stop progress towards clean energy future dead in its tracks.

Please join me in opposing this amendment that ignores the serious threat of global warming to health and welfare.

We may already have burned too much CO2 it seems.

But of equal or greater importance, our economy is being heavily braked by rising health care costs. So any reduction in our power to get fossil fuel companies to protect the public health in their operations is irresponsible in my opinion. Amendments to do so should be vigorously opposed for that reason alone.

Similarly, we recently saw how sharp increases in energy costs due to more rapidly rising energy costs sharply braked the economy. That will recur unless we rapidly develop renewable energy, energy efficiency throughout the economy, and possibly more nuclear power. That will increase the useful supply of energy enough to prevent those kinds of rapid and continuing energy increases.

BUT, those things won't happen or won't happen enough to protect the economy if the fossil fuel companies can continue to evade paying the true costs of safely producing and using their products. Fossil fuel companies do not need and should NOT have a free pass that enables them to continue to evade their responsibilities and give them a cost advantage they do NOT now deserve. If they continue to have this legally maintained and undeserved cost advantage, it will stunt the growth of the new capacity we need so badly to build.

So, between the dangers of further excess CO2 release which look quite real, the preventable health care costs at risk, and the very real economic threat if we don't bring online enough renewable energy, energy efficiency throughout the economy, and possibly more nuclear power -- to keep energy supplies up and costs down, we are in grave trouble.

I think it unusually important to for our Senators to not only vote against this amendment but to do their best to influence others to do the same.

We are now in several races that our future prosperity and economy and maybe our survival depends upon.

Should the companies that would slow us down get off the hook by passing this amendment?

No.

They did provide us with energy to grow our economy and we should remember that with respect. But they must not be allowed to ignore our current realities and slow us down in this critical set of races.