In Support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act

by: NJCentrist

Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 08:41:42 PM EDT

First that individual must commit themselves to sound environmental protections and policies that unlike Cap-and-Trade are both reasonable and effective and they must also be a proponent of legislative restraint who believes in the enumerated powers of the constitution, adheres to the principles of our free market economy and understands that our nation's defense and security is an effort that requires proactive policies as opposed to reactive measures.

The above excerpt moved me to write in defense of the Clean Energy Act.  I hope those reading won't mind -- this is going to be long.

Okay.  Kempite calls for sound environmental protections that fall within Congress's enumerated powers under the Constitution.  First of all, he fails to explain what, exactly, about the American Clean Energy Act is not sound.  For that matter, he fails to explain how Congress is exceeding its Constitutional power with this bill.  Perhaps that's because the Act is clearly within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.  This clause states that Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."  The actions ordered by Congress under the American Clean Energy Act clearly fall within the definition of regulating commerce among the several states that has been established my numerous Supreme Court cases.  In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Court ruled that Congress could regulate commerce within states as long as the things being regulated had "such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce" that their regulation by Congress was necessary.  Then in Wickard v. Filburn the Court ruled "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"  Even the limits placed on Congressional power more recently by United States v. Lopez do not apply here, as the regulations enacted by the Act obviously deal with the economy and commerce, unlike the handgun law struck down by that case.  So I'm calling Kempite out on that.  This bill is far from unconstitutional.  

He also calls for representatives that respect the free market economy.  Well, you know what?  I agree.  I respect the free market economy, and the bank bailouts made me tremendously uneasy.  But sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary actions to be taken by the government.  He may not be aware of this, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative when he was elected.  He sought to balance the budget and ultimately opted to continue deficit spending with some inhibitions.  But Roosevelt recognized that in the midst of the biggest economic downturn in the history of the United States, there were extraordinary circumstances that required extraordinary actions to be taken by the government.  His New Deal policies were designed to save the nation from the woes of the Great Depression; where the free market failed catastrophically, our government of the people, by the people, and for the people stepped in.  We are facing some similarly extraordinary circumstances right now.  First off, we are in the middle of an economic crisis.  The free market has failed us.  Am I advocating bringing socialism to the United States?  Of course I'm not; I don't think the banks or car companies should be permanently nationalized, and I favor free enterprise in general.  But we are in such disastrous circumstances right now that it has become necessary for our government - of the people, by the people, and for the people - to step in and save us.  

Look, I'm not favoring an economy dominated by the state.  I'm simply saying that you people have to recognize that under certain circumstances the principle of "that government is best which governs least" falters.  In the current economic circumstances, it surely falters.  Furthermore, we are facing an equally pressing crisis in the form of climate change.  Maybe those far-right-wingers don't believe in the science of global warming, but on this issue I prefer to trust scientists who know what they're talking about over Bible-thumpers who know next to nothing about the science of our environment.  Scientists have determined that global warming is caused in large part by the voluminous emissions of greenhouse gases by our burning fossil fuels and releasing pollutants from our factories combined with deforestation.  The negative effects of global warming are alarming to say the least.  It's not just sea levels rising a few inches and some glaciers melting.  This will affect the economy plenty.  Studies show that agriculture will be severely harmed by global warming, right here in the United States and around the world.  For that matter, changes in precipitation patterns will dramatically alter the distribution of our water supply right here in the U.S.  This, of course, is in addition to the dismaying problems posed by the extinction of numerous animal and plant species, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the ongoing deforestation across the world.  

I find it somewhat interesting that Kempite and other right wing commenters are treating the American Clean Energy Act as though it is the most liberal piece of legislation ever passed by the House.  Perhaps they haven't been paying attention, but this bill is a compromise.  Reps. Waxman and Markey deserve a lot of credit for writing a bill that could be agreed upon by a majority of congressmen.  

Kempite claims that the bill is neither reasonable nor effective.  Of course, he or she completely fails to back this claim up once again.  I posit that the bill is both reasonable and effective.  John Boehner and other Republicans have greatly exaggerated the increase in energy costs that the average household would experience.  Why, exactly, should we trust Boehner's estimates over those made by the nonpartisan CBO or the EPA, who intensely studied the bill to determine the cost per household?  It's their job to do so, and I'm more inclined to believe their numbers than those submitted by a partisan politician like Boehner.  Boehner's numbers, of course, ignored the offsetting benefits of the legislation in an attempt to make the cost seem greater than it actually is.  He claims that the bill would drive jobs out of the United States.  Funny, he didn't have any qualms about voting for NAFTA, which has dramatically increased the national trade deficit and thus caused net job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  In any case, the most accurate number is probably that provided by the CBO, which estimates that the average household will pay $175 more per year in energy bills.  This, as Rep. Markey astutely noted, is about the same as the cost of buying a postage stamp every day.  

So the bill is reasonable.  But is it effective?  After reading about the bill extensively, I have decided that it certainly has the potential to be effective.  One of the bill's key components is an unprecedented hard cap on carbon emissions.  Needless to say, it's about time we started taking some action in this regard.  The cap will certainly have a dramatic effect; it requires that companies cut carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels).  This is an attainable goal, and more importantly, the bill will replace the vast majority of America's carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption with clean and renewable energy in just four decades.  

Don't believe that these goals are attainable?  Analyses by the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy have determined that in most regions of the U.S. our generators are utilizing coal-fired capacity about seven-tenths of the time but are utilizing natural-gas-fired capacity only one-tenth of the time.  Switching from predominantly using coal-fired capacity to predominantly using more efficient natural-gas-fired capacity by 2020 would, when combined with gradual increases in the use of renewable energy sources, meet the 17% benchmark easily and cheaply.  And keep in mind that while we are switching to more energy-efficient sources like natural gas, the renewable energy sector will be gradually increasing.  Indeed, the bill would require electric companies to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2020.  Again, this is not a difficult benchmark to meet.  The EIA has already projected that, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("stimulus package") passed earlier this year, renewable energy will be at 14% by 2012.  With the extra incentives provided by this bill, we can expect to meet the 20% benchmark easily, which, as I said before, will combine nicely with a switch to efficient natural gas to meet the mandated carbon emissions cap.  (And let's not forget that 17% is quite significant - that emissions reduction is equal to taking 500 million cars off the road.)  A gradual expansion of renewable energy, with the present investment by the federal government and the private investment spurred by the incentives in this bill, will transform our energy economy in four decades, and hopefully go a long way toward combating the crisis of climate change.  

And of course there's the "trade" part of the "cap-and-trade" program, in which companies may purchase a limited quantity of carbon offsets rather than reducing their emissions, and trade these offsets among themselves.  The most important point to consider here is that, first of all, the offsets that will be sold by the EPA will not gut the emissions reductions made by other companies, as they will be limited.  Also, scientists and analysts predict that by 2020 clean energies will be affordable as alternatives to purchasing offsets - in particular, efficient natural gas (as mentioned above) and biomass co-firing.  Democratic amendments to the bill have included the creation of a Clean Energy Bank and the creation of the Cash for Clunkers program.  

So, this bill will result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and increased investment in clean energy, while helping us kick our addiction to foreign oil.  So what's the downside?  A crippling cost passed on to the American people in their electric bills?  No, the nonpartisan CBO says the average household would pay about the cost of buying one postage stamp per day, and there are plenty of protections for lower-income Americans in the bill.  

Okay, but will the bill kill jobs, like the Republicans are warning us?  An exhaustively researched report by the Center for American Progress shows that those Republican claims are unfounded (or, in less genial terms, bulls***).  The combination of the Clean Energy Act and the "stimulus" from earlier this year can potentially generate up to $150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments in the United States by 2020.  What's more, this $150 billion in spending would be dominated not by the government but by the private sector, according to the report.  This new investment would generate a net increase of 1.7 billion jobs - that's right, a net increase.  Unlike NAFTA, which destroyed more American jobs than it created, the stimulus-Clean Energy Act tandem would create more jobs in clean energy than it would destroy in the fossil fuel sectors of the economy.  According to the report, even if investment in fossil fuels declined by the same amount that investment in clean energy increased, only 800,000 jobs would be lost in the fossil fuels sector, which would be supplanted by about 2.5 million jobs in the clean energy sector.  Now that's exciting.  Even more exciting, perhaps, is the data showing how there would be a net increase in job opportunities in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.  Where fossil fuel industries only generate 5.3 jobs for every $1 million in spending, clean energy industries generate 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending.  And according to the report, right here in New Jersey we would see a net increase of 48,000 jobs and a net increase of $4.6 billion in investment revenue.  

So:  Sorry, Republicans, but you're dead wrong.  And I'm with you on the general principle of free enterprise, but there are times when the government has to step in to solve a crisis where the free market has failed.  This climate change crisis is one of those times.  And, unfortunately for you, your arguments against this bill fall flat.  It's reasonable, setting attainable goals at low cost to taxpayers, and it's effective, greatly decreasing carbon emissions and transforming an economy based on inefficient fossil fuels into an economy based on clean, efficient, and renewable energy - all while causing net job growth in the private sector in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.  And it's certainly constitutional.  Voting for this bill should have been a no-brainer.  I can certainly see why a fiscal conservative would be concerned about how universal healthcare would inflate the budget - hell, I'm still on the fence on that - but this bill pays for itself.  

Kudos to Reps. Lance, Smith, and LoBiondo and everyone else who voted for this bill.  And thanks to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, Science Progress, ClimateProgress.org, and other sources for the information that I used in this diary.