Alabama's Congressional Delegation Opposes Climate Bill?
May 21st, 2009Guest Editorial
by Jenny Dorgan
Alabama has a knack for making national news. Maybe one day it will be good news.
Yesterday, it was widely reported that our entire congressional delegation sent a letter claiming that the proposed climate legislation would hurt Alabama. This is not really a surprise, but it’s unfortunate to be sure, that because we are in coal country our elected officials won’t even support a bill that is considered by many environmentalists to be a watered down compromise at best and hijacked by corporations at worst.
The reports on this matter aren’t anything new — it’s the same old rhetoric regarding Alabama’s purported lack of potential for affordable, renewable energy.
Reputable studies have shown, and the fact remains, that clean and affordable energy efficiency measures coupled with renewable energy technologies will allow us to phase out both coal and nuclear plants over the next 40 years.
As writer Paul Roberts states: “Saving energy is almost always cheaper than making it: there is far more oil to be found in Detroit by designing more fuel efficient cars than could ever be pumped out of ANWR.”
We know that, today, Alabama can generate an additional 51,000 GWh of electricity from available renewable energy resources, which would make total renewable power production equal to approximately 60 percent of current electricity sales. Renewable and conventional power options may be comparable in total costs for new generation, but renewable energy resources offer significant financial advantages in terms of water use, air quality, and climate impacts. Southeastern states are currently creating jobs and energy from renewable sources, as evidenced by Florida Power and Light — if our sister states can figure it out — can’t Alabama?
The bottom line is this: the issue of Climate Change and Energy Security is an issue of national security for all of us, along with the rest of the world. It seems that our elected officials are making important decisions based on data from the corporations that stand to benefit from polluter-friendly, weak energy legislation.
What will they hear from their constituents? We all stand to lose if they hear nothing from us — which is what the status quo for Alabama suggests will happen.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Tags: Alabama's Congressional Delegation Opposes Climate Bill?
May 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Don’t write off nuclear power. The latest technologies are safe, and there’s already so much spent fuel and weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in storage, some very poorly, that more won’t matter. It’s the old stuff that is badly stored.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Glynn, there is one good reason for the Alabama delegation’s opposition — carbon rights. Under the bill, Ala Power will have to buy carbon rights from other states which are below the levels, and that will be, by law, passed on to Ala Power’s consumers, us. That means our bills will go up.
The nasty trick is that we sell all or almost all of the power generated at the two coal fired plants here to Florida Power and Light, which does not use coal! Therefore, we the citizens of Alabama will have to pay for the profits Alabama Power makes from keeping Florida in compliance.
It’s ugly, man, ugly!
May 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I say no to nuclear power, and if Alabama had a bona fide regulatory structure, Alabama Power would not run the state and be able to raise rates at will.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Energy efficiency is, of course, our best untapped source of energy. Look at the numbers: http://pdf.wri.or/southeast_power_of_efficiency_al.pdf
And, when we talk about efficiency, we need to be making the connection between water and energy usage. (Water is used to make energy is used to process water is used to make energy and so on.)
http://pdf.wri.org/southeast_water_and_watts_al.pdf
Scientific American remarked: “…it seems we’re approaching an era of peak water … The situation should already be considered a crisis, but the public has not grasped the urgency.”
Fortune Magazine declared: “Water is the oil of the 21st century.”
Since the southeast has a limited amount of both–which are necessary to our survival–maybe we should take conservation and efficiency measures very seriously.
In terms of renewables:
Renewable Power Generation Potential (GWh)
Near-term (through 2015) and Mid-term(through 2025)
Biomass NT 20,293 MT 22,548–Solar PV NT 2,673 MT 17,821–Low-impact hydro NT 9,916– MT 11,018–Total NT 32,882 MT 51,387
Sorry the chart is jumbled but visit the link below for more info. Hope you find this helpful.
http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/factsheets/WRI_AL_RE_factsheet.pdf
Source: World Resources Institute, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
May 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
The House committee moved the bill today anyway. Check the news page. It’s the lead story for Friday:
http://www.locustfork.net
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 am
My understanding is that a lot of environmental organizations are actively against this compromised bill. Evidently there are huge loopholes that can be exploited.
From Friends of the Earth:
Here’s why we can’t support this legislation:
* It sets the bar too low. It would reduce pollution, but not enough to save us from catastrophic effects of global warming.
* Instead of being forced to pay for the transition to clean energy, corporate polluters would receive hundreds of billions of dollars in handouts, and ordinary citizens like you and me would be stuck with the costs. (That’s why Shell Oil and other corporate polluters support the bill.)
* The bill contains massive “offset” loopholes that would delay its already-too-weak pollution reductions.
* Despite the recent financial meltdown, the bill allows Wall Street traders to game new carbon markets, creating the potential for wild swings in energy prices that damage our economy.