American Clean Energy and Security Act Clears House
The House of Representatives made history today by passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), a bill sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Bill Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society, released this statement upon passage of the bill.
Wilderness Experts View All >
Alan Rowsome
Alan Rowsome has been with The Wilderness Society for over 3 years - first as Executive Assistant to the President and now as Conservation Advocacy Associate.
... more
Comments
To: The Wilderness Society,
To: The Wilderness Society,
You know to say you support the American Clean Energy & Security Act and to protect Wildlife is very hypocritical. This bill supports coal mining that would cause destruction to our land and it’s wildlife, as well as the serious problem of how this bill defines "renewable energy" as burning our forests, trash, and landfill gas as renewable.
This is a comment I read from an Attorney at Law about the bill. He states “These are provisions the incinerator lobby worked very hard to get as "concessions": 101(a)(17) which defines “renewable electricity” as electricity generated from a “renewable energy resource or other qualifying energy resources.” In turn, “renewable energy resource” is defined under 101(a)(18) to include “renewable biomass” under 101(a)(18)(D). “Renewable biomass” under 101(a)(16) identifies nine categories of materials which may be burned to generate electricity. Four of these nine are trees or forestry materials, (F), (G), (H) and (I), and one includes construction and demolition debris (C). The definition of “other qualifying energy resources” in 101(a)(12)(D) includes “qualified waste to energy” which is in turn defined under 101(14)(a) to include “the combustion of municipal solid waste or construction, demolition, or disaster debris….” The legislative decision that the combustion (gasification) of these materials as a means to curb climate change is a serious flaw in this bill. The impacts of allowing "wood" and trash to be burned as "renewable energy can be demonstrated by facts relating to biomass development in Massachusetts. Check out www.massenvironmentalenergy.org The industry's own numbers show that a 50 MW wood burning biomass plant, such as those proposed in Massachusetts, create 50% MORE CO2 per megawatt generated than the worst coal plant in New England. And, the current state RPS is already resulting in clear cuts of Massachusetts' forests. Check out www.maforests.org”
Since the bill allows CO2 to keep rising until 2026, and subsidizes and incentives, through the $90 billion in "energy efficiency and renewable-energy technologies" , this bill will make climate change worst, NOT better. You have to take a close look at actual results of what will happen with this bill, and it will indeed be no friend to our wildlife and our planet Earth.
Because of your organizations support of this bill, please remove me from your mailing list and email list. I wish to no longer associate nor support a group that supports a bill that in all actuality is geared more to line the pockets of lobbyists and politicians, instead of actually fixing the cause of Global Warming!
Sincerely,
Charlene Cifuentes
Comment by The Wilderness Society Director of Climate Policy
Thank you for this comment. We agree on the potential harmful effects of poor biomass regulation, but not on the need for the bill itself.
The bill is strongly opposed by the oil, gas, and coal industries because it would, for the first time, place a limit on their emissions of greenhouse gases and then reduce that limit steadily but severely over time. This is what must happen if we are to change the world from the self-destructive course we are on right now. It is the long-term signal to the financial markets that will steer funding away from coal and towards renewables. It is our only hope for convincing China and India that there is a better way of growing their economies and reducing poverty than the carbon-emitting course we took. Without this bill, we are mired in business-as-usual, letting the industries with the biggest investment in the past to delay and halt the conversion of our economy to a clean energy future. See expert analyses of the multiple beneficial impacts of this legislation by the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Energy Information Administration.
Some of the concessions contained within the bill clearly go in the wrong direction, including the leniency towards coal regulation under the Clean Air Act and loosening of biomass harvest regulation on private and public lands. These are battles we are fighting to win in the Senate, in the House, and in the Administration.
For those of us dedicated to protecting wildlands and wildlife, this bill offers long-term hope in return for short-term political compromises made to get the votes. All of us must weigh, at each stage of this bill’s life, the pros and cons of that reality. The Wilderness Society believes strongly that the long-term health of our forests, parks, refuges, grasslands and tundra, are more at risk without this bill than with it, but we will continue to fight for the strongest possible bill going forward.
David Moulton
Director, Climate Policy and Conservation Funding
Chalene Cifuentes
Boy, if Charlene Cifuentes is correct, I am concerned. Will someone please respond to her dissection of the bill? Thomas Chisholm in Wisconsin