Comments on: Alabama's Congressional Delegation Opposes Climate Bill?

By: SI Reasoning

SI Reasoning — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:47:34 +0000

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.

By: Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson — Fri, 22 May 2009 05:31:56 +0000

The House committee moved the bill today anyway. Check the news page. It’s the lead story for Friday:

http://www.locustfork.net

By: Jenny Dorgan

Jenny Dorgan — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:51:00 +0000

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

By: Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:54:01 +0000

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.

By: Rev. Jack Zylman

Rev. Jack Zylman — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:43:18 +0000

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!