I just got this email from MoveOn.org:
Dear MoveOn member,
Did you know the U.S. right now gets only 2% of our electricity from clean energy sources like solar and wind? We have the technology. We know people want it. We just haven't had the political will.
But Congress is voting this week on H.R. 969, a bill that will dramatically boost solar and wind energy. If it passes, it'll be like taking 37 million cars off the road.1 Along with the rest of the energy package, it'll be the biggest step in two decades toward a clean planet and affordable energy.
Big oil and coal are fighting the bill hard, because it would undercut their stranglehold on our economy. That's why Congress needs to hear from the public that clean energy is a priority. So, today we're launching a petition:
"Congress must act now to move our country toward a clean energy economy based on solar and wind power by voting yes on H.R. 969, the Federal Renewable Energy Standards Act."
Can you sign this petition today? Clicking here will add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergyfuture/o.pl?&id=10885-4108209-f0CHlw&t=3
This is the moment on energy that we've been waiting for.
The bill requires utilities to increase the percentage of electricity produced from wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy sources. If it passes, utilities nationwide will produce 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. This bill alone will reduce 511 million tons of global warming pollution.
Already, over twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar requirements. It's a tested and proven solution.
And because the bill allows utilities around the country to buy and sell extra renewable energy they produce, that means more competition and lower prices.
Investing in renewable energy sources would not only curb global warming and protect the environment -- the bill is projected to create over 185,000 new jobs, save consumers over $31.8 billion on their energy bills, and provide almost $67 billion in new capital investments in the next couple decades.2
Here what's the San Antonio Express-News had to say about the bill:Whether one believes in global warming or not, taking steps to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fuels like oil makes sense. It will result in a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations, wean the nation slowly off its dependence on oil and save consumers millions in energy costs.3Congress need to hear from us now -- the vote is expected to be close, and winning would be an important step forward. Can you sign this petition now?
"Congress must act now to move our country toward a clean energy economy based on solar and wind power by voting yes on H.R. 969, the Federal Renewable Energy Standards Act."
http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergyfuture/o.pl?&id=10885-4108209-f0CHlw&t=4
Thanks for all you do,
–Ilyse, Carrie, Wes, Karin, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Monday, July 30th, 2007
Sources:
1. "Cashing in on clean energy", Union of Concerned Scientists (report), 2007,
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2853&&id=10885-4108209-f0CHlw&t=5
2."Cashing in on clean energy", Union of Concerned Scientists (report), 2007,
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2853&&id=10885-4108209-f0CHlw&t=6
3. "Give the thumbs up to renewable energy" San Antonio Express-News, July 20, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2844&&id=10885-4108209-f0CHlw&t=7
MTV-approved advice on reaching those who aren’t paying attention
Climate and dirty-energy groups were busy over summer vacation
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 12:54 am
31 Jul 2007
"taking steps to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fuels like oil makes sense."
Totally agree. But this isn't what an RPS does. It cherry picks favorite technologies and then incentivizes those instead of simply defining the goal and then rewarding anyone who takes actions that move us in the right direction. (For more details, see here.) The reason we haven't gotten a national RPS passed yet in spite of all the effort over the last decade is because of two fundamental truths of the RPS - as they have been framed:
Fewer than 26 states are net exporters of renewable energy, as defined in the RPS (essentially wind, since solar and small hydro are relatively inconsequential on a total % basis). This means that fewer than 26 senators will find it in their economic interest to sign.
The economic arguments in favor of an RPS are in some cases overstated (for example, the impact that renewables will have on marginal energy costs, while non zero, is probably not sufficient to offset the cash flow out of the non-windy states), and in all cases more readily accomplished by other approaches that are presently included in the RPS' list of preferred winners (e.g., energy efficiency, waste heat recovery, etc.)
There are alternatives currently being promoted by ACEEE that would include a "Energy Efficiency Resource Standard" that would solve both problems, but making the tent bigger and ensuring greater participation by the states. Better still would be an RPS that rewarded the goal rather than the path. Ironically, much of the opposition to those changes though has come from the environmental community out of concern that a bigger tent would reduce the incentives to deploy favored technologies. Which - while it may be true - is irrelevant. The goal, as MoveOn put it ought to be to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fuels, not to deploy technology X. The consequences of global warming are far too big and far too urgent for us to quibble about the best way to skin the cat - let's just reward people who get it skinned.
Until we get to that point, an RPS is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nice idea, but (almost) politically impossible, and environmentally sloppy. We can do better.
Permalink