CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power climate change bill support

Published on February 20th, 2010 | by Zachary Shahan

16

Climate & Clean Energy Legislation Continues to Get WIDE Support

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 20th, 2010 by Zachary Shahan 

 

Waiting for the Senate to move forward on climate and clean energy legislation seems like waiting for the Polar Express. A wide variety of parties from every corner of society seem to be getting anxious, though, and are pushing on Congress to get moving.

From rappers to Iraq veterans to the business community to the White House to winter sports communities to major Hollywood actors, people across the country are pushing for Congress to move in their own unique ways.


 

Business Community is Anxious for Legislation, and for Good Reason!

One of the leading private sector champions of such legislation, CEO of Pacific Gas and Electric (one of the country’s biggest gas and electric utilities) Peter Darbee clearly explains why businesses are getting so ancy and how the delay on his bill is holding up billions of dollars of private sector investment:

“This kind of private-sector activity would be the best kind of near-term stimulus for our economy — and the smartest long-term way to ensure that America remains competitive in global clean energy markets and secure against growing dependence on foreign energy sources….

Consider the potential capital spending that could be unleashed by the nation’s utility companies. Projections show that the industry needs to make outlays as high as $2 trillion over the next 20 years to modernize the nation’s electrical infrastructure.

Currently, though, the unanswered questions looming around energy and climate change policy are making it impossible, or at least unwise, to guess which clean energy and infrastructure choices will be the right ones. With billions of dollars at stake, many utilities are holding off as long as possible before committing themselves to massive, long-term investments. Many of the nation’s large manufacturers find themselves facing similar disincentives to build new facilities and fund research and development.”

As a result of this,

  • “200 business leaders from Ohio, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas, and 16 other states descended on Washington on February 3rd  to advocate for congressional leadership on clean energy as a part of the We Can Lead partnership,” Sean Pool of American Progress reports;
  • We Can Lead is also sponsoring a coast-to-coast virtual race, “Race for American Jobs and Clean Energy Leadership”, that Nike, Starbucks and Ceres just set off on Tuesday “in a bid to create momentum for passing U.S. climate change legislation;”
  • over 80 CEOs of leading US businesses sent a joint letter to Obama and Congress to get moving on this legislation;
  • another group consisting of 46 (mostly Fortune 500) companies with combined revenues of over $2 trillion and over 4 million employees, Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC), has been putting the pressure on and very clearly states why: “We accept the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that the impacts are already being felt. Delaying action will increase both the risks and the costs;”
  • a 31-member alliance between traditional environmental non-profits (i.e. Environmental Defense and World Resources Institute) and major companies from a wide range of sectors (i.e. insurance, mining, chemicals, automobile and energy companies Johnson & Johnson, Ford Motors,  Caterpillar, NRG Energy, the Dow Chemical Company and others) called the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP)  launched a multimillion dollar campaign last month in support of strong climate and energy legislation. As Sean Pool reports, “Last year, US-CAP issued a Blueprint for Legislative Action that calls for a market price for carbon and incentives for clean energy and energy efficiency”
  • American Business for Clean Energy (ABCE) is organizing a larger number of companies (currently around 2,244), small and large, who are actively engaged on the issue.

But a wide range of businesses are not the only supporters of the legislation.

Iraq Veterans

Veterans of Iraq put a personal touch on this matter with a great and to-the-point video on the national security issues that could be addressed by a climate and clean energy bill.

.

To organize some of these veterans and help them make their point, the Clean Energy Works (CEW) coalition is organizing Operation Free – “a nationwide bus tour of veterans whose goal is to ‘secure America with clean energy’ in order to protect our national security,” Susan Lyon reports.

Obama & The White House

Of course, Obama is still pushing for the legislation, since it is currently one of our best efforts to address both climate change and the economic crisis we are still trying to climb out of. “I am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal — that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy,” Obama told reporters again recently. “So we have to move in that direction.”

The White House continues to make the strong case that cap and trade legislation is a low-cost solution to what could end up being much more costly problems related to climate change.

Economists

 

Economists At E3 Network have made it clear for anyone who cares that addressing climate change can lead to net job growth in the United States whereas the costs of a warming Arctic alone would be staggering.

 

Hip Hop Caucus

 

As Susan Lyon reports, “The Hip Hop Caucus Clean Energy Now! tour kicked off Thursday of last week to amplify the already deafening call for clean energy reform from people all around the country.  Sponsored by the Hip Hop Caucus and the Repower America campaign of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the bus tour brings together faith, business, entertainment, and climate leaders in the name of clean energy reform…. Hip Hop Caucus, which was founded on September 11, 2004, is a grassroots non-profit that seeks to harness the power of the hip hop generation to empower youth and combat urban poverty”

Winter Sports Enthusiasts

A new organization named Protect Our Winters has just formed to show the losses to mountain communities, economies and jobs that rely on winter tourism (and Winter!) that will occur if climate change isn’t addressed.

Founder Jeremy Jones says,

“To us, climate change is a threat to our local economies, our jobs and the vitality of our unique mountain communities that draw millions of tourists each year who shop in our stores, ride our lifts, eat in our restaurants and support thousands of other small businesses.

It’s important that we come together as skiers, snowboarders, and winter enthusiasts to let the Senators know in these mountain regions that we support strong climate legislation and the move towards a new, clean energy economy.”

Hollywood Stars

 

As reported previously, some major film and TV stars have been pushing on Congress to take some action, too. Of course, they know how to put a point across and send a message in a fun way. I recommend watching the video below if you missed it before.

.

If the push from all these different parties continues, and the public starts to push harder, hopefully it won’t be long before we get that critical bill through Congress.

Image Credit: Cayusa via flickr under a CC license

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • http://neilsindex.blogspot.com/ Neil Craig

    Zach I can see your difficulty

    1 – I assume by saying that scientists in other disciplines have no right to question you are also on record as saying that because all “creation scientists” & representatives of the “science of astroliogy” making a living in their respective disciplines say their respective disciplines are genuine they must be so. I disagree.

    2 – The “Union of Concerned Scientists” is open to anybody with $25 & an axe to grind. Perhaps you should tell us what the scientific assesment of the Shriners is – at least they don’t self select for loopiness.

    3 – The alarmists cause has most definitely not survived examination eg the IPPCC have withdrawn their claim about the Himalayam glaciers, which provide water to half the world’s population, disappearing in 25 years because it was (A) not a peer reviewed study as claim but an off the cuff remark to a journalist & (B) it was obviously nuts.

    The fact is that one of the leaders of this simply refused to let his claims be examined on the grounds that the examiner wanted to test them. That is not science but if Prof Jones had not known it was rubbish he would have had no objection to showing it.

  • http://neilsindex.blogspot.com/ Neil Craig

    Zach I can see your difficulty

    1 – I assume by saying that scientists in other disciplines have no right to question you are also on record as saying that because all “creation scientists” & representatives of the “science of astroliogy” making a living in their respective disciplines say their respective disciplines are genuine they must be so. I disagree.

    2 – The “Union of Concerned Scientists” is open to anybody with $25 & an axe to grind. Perhaps you should tell us what the scientific assesment of the Shriners is – at least they don’t self select for loopiness.

    3 – The alarmists cause has most definitely not survived examination eg the IPPCC have withdrawn their claim about the Himalayam glaciers, which provide water to half the world’s population, disappearing in 25 years because it was (A) not a peer reviewed study as claim but an off the cuff remark to a journalist & (B) it was obviously nuts.

    The fact is that one of the leaders of this simply refused to let his claims be examined on the grounds that the examiner wanted to test them. That is not science but if Prof Jones had not known it was rubbish he would have had no objection to showing it.

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    and climate science is once again backed up by a wide, independent body of scientists: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-20-01.html

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    and climate science is once again backed up by a wide, independent body of scientists: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-20-01.html

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    and climate science is once again backed up by a wide, independent body of scientists: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-20-01.html

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    The effects of climate change are open to debate, as various computer models generate diverse predictions, but there are some data points that have been known for a while, heavily peer reviewed, and don’t point in a good direction.

    We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 650,000 years, and we know the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels.

    We know that the earth is getting warmer.

    We know that ocean temperatures are rising.

    We know that sea levels have been rising.

    As the planet’s population grows (expected to hit 9 billion around 2050) and the level of lifestyle affluence increases, we will see these trends continue upward.

    What will be the result? Lots of opinions on this question, and I’m not a scientist, but logic tells me that the trends in this data are not leading us toward a pleasant outcome.

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    The effects of climate change are open to debate, as various computer models generate diverse predictions, but there are some data points that have been known for a while, heavily peer reviewed, and don’t point in a good direction.

    We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 650,000 years, and we know the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels.

    We know that the earth is getting warmer.

    We know that ocean temperatures are rising.

    We know that sea levels have been rising.

    As the planet’s population grows (expected to hit 9 billion around 2050) and the level of lifestyle affluence increases, we will see these trends continue upward.

    What will be the result? Lots of opinions on this question, and I’m not a scientist, but logic tells me that the trends in this data are not leading us toward a pleasant outcome.

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    The effects of climate change are open to debate, as various computer models generate diverse predictions, but there are some data points that have been known for a while, heavily peer reviewed, and don’t point in a good direction.

    We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 650,000 years, and we know the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels.

    We know that the earth is getting warmer.

    We know that ocean temperatures are rising.

    We know that sea levels have been rising.

    As the planet’s population grows (expected to hit 9 billion around 2050) and the level of lifestyle affluence increases, we will see these trends continue upward.

    What will be the result? Lots of opinions on this question, and I’m not a scientist, but logic tells me that the trends in this data are not leading us toward a pleasant outcome.

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Neil,

    Again, if you think the NOAA, NASA, hundreds of governments around the world, and professors from our country’s leading universities are coordinating a big conspiracy by agreeing that climate change is a real and serious threat, it is hard to even think of what to say to you about this.

    But here are a few things:

    1) If you ask the community of chemists with a Ph.D. in the field what they think about some aspect of chemistry and they all give you the same answer, and then some chiropractors, biologists, and philosophers come tell you that they disagree, who are you going to believe?

    2) The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org) consists of about 250,000 members (and I imagine some of them do not work for a government organization) and they are coming out very strongly saying that we need to get serious and adress this true, proven issue of climate change: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/02/19/what-is-the-union-of-concerned-scientists-concerned-about-fox-news/

    3) The work of climate scientists has been put under extreme peer review, extra examination, and continues to hold up. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

    Of course, the science of climate deniers, which is the real scam, should be the true controversy getting more attention in the media. See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/08/wegman-barton-hockey-stick-analysis-revealed-as-fatally-flawed-right-wing-anti-science-set-up/

    Neil, it’s great if your genuinely concerned, because you could use that concern to learn more about the matter. But it seems that rather than learn more about the issues, climate deniers are set on a conclusion that is not based on a truly comprehensive and scientific analysis of the issues.

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Neil,

    Again, if you think the NOAA, NASA, hundreds of governments around the world, and professors from our country’s leading universities are coordinating a big conspiracy by agreeing that climate change is a real and serious threat, it is hard to even think of what to say to you about this.

    But here are a few things:

    1) If you ask the community of chemists with a Ph.D. in the field what they think about some aspect of chemistry and they all give you the same answer, and then some chiropractors, biologists, and philosophers come tell you that they disagree, who are you going to believe?

    2) The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org) consists of about 250,000 members (and I imagine some of them do not work for a government organization) and they are coming out very strongly saying that we need to get serious and adress this true, proven issue of climate change: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/02/19/what-is-the-union-of-concerned-scientists-concerned-about-fox-news/

    3) The work of climate scientists has been put under extreme peer review, extra examination, and continues to hold up. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

    Of course, the science of climate deniers, which is the real scam, should be the true controversy getting more attention in the media. See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/08/wegman-barton-hockey-stick-analysis-revealed-as-fatally-flawed-right-wing-anti-science-set-up/

    Neil, it’s great if your genuinely concerned, because you could use that concern to learn more about the matter. But it seems that rather than learn more about the issues, climate deniers are set on a conclusion that is not based on a truly comprehensive and scientific analysis of the issues.

  • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

    Indeed. Why should we believe the earth is round, just because scientists say so.

  • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

    Indeed. Why should we believe the earth is round, just because scientists say so.

  • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

    Indeed. Why should we believe the earth is round, just because scientists say so.

  • Neil Craig

    There is no “scientific consensus” though there obviously is a political & media one.

    I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

    There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

    The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

  • Neil Craig

    There is no “scientific consensus” though there obviously is a political & media one.

    I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

    There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

    The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

  • Neil Craig

    There is no “scientific consensus” though there obviously is a political & media one.

    I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

    There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

    The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

Back to Top ↑