4 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      

Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

How They Voted on Clean Energy (and the Stabilization Triangle)

by: Juan Melli

Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 08:14:39 PM EST



The House voted on the CLEAN Energy Act today - legislation that eliminates billions of taxpayer dollars worth of energy industry subsidies and sets that money aside for investing in clean and renewable energy.

The legislation passed with broad bipartisan support, 264-163, with all of New Jersey's Democrats and 4 of 6 Republicans supporting the legislation. Only Rodney Frelinghuysen and Scott Garrett voted to continue subsidizing the energy industry. All New Jersey Democrats were co-sponsors of the legislation.

FOR   AGAINST
Rob Andrews (D)
Rush Holt (D)
Frank Pallone (D)
Bill Pascrell (D)
Donald Payne (D)
Steve Rothman (D)
Albio Sires (D)
Mike Ferguson (R)
Frank LoBiondo (R)
Jim Saxton (R)
Chris Smith (R)
 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)
Scott Garrett (R)

This is absolutely the right move, though it's possible even this action may come too late. The debate over global warming in the scientific community ended many years ago. It's no longer a question of if we are causing climate change, but whether it's possible to turn it around. We might not know the answer to that for several years or decades so the prudent thing to do is to at least stop making the problem worse than it is.

But we shouldn't be under the impression that energy efficiency and renewable energy are the solution to the problem. Our energy demands are so immense that CO2 output - the biggest human factor on climate change - will continue to increase unless we attack the problem from multiple directions. The figure below shows that the projected CO2 output over the next 50 years will roughly double to 14 billion tons of CO2 per year if the current trend continues.

Just to hold output steady, we need to save 7 billion tons of CO2 by 2050. This paper outlines a possible solution, known as the stabilization triangle. The bad news is that no single approach can achieve that level of savings. The good news is that the technology already exists to solve the problem. The idea is to tackle the triangle one "wedge" at a time, with each wedge saving 1 billion tons of CO2.

Each of the following strategies could tackle one wedge, and possibly a little more: efficient vehicles, reduced use of vehicles, efficient buildings, efficient baseload coal plants, gas baseload for coal baseload power, capturing CO2 at baseload power plants, hydrogen plants or coal-to-synfuels plants, replacing coal power with nuclear power, wind power or photovoltaic power, using wind power to generate H2 for car fuel cells, replacing fossil fuel with biomass fuel, reducing deforestation + reforestation + afforestation + new plantations.

The authors propose 15 wedge possibilities, of which we would need to implement 7 to stabilize our CO2 output. Some will be easier than others. One of the easiest could come from nuclear power, which unfortunately is opposed by many in the environmental movement (NJ gets about 50% of its power from nuclear - our air is bad enough as is...do we want to replace all that with fossil fuel-burning plants?). Hopefully in 50 years when we've managed to hold the line on CO2 output, the first commercial fusion plants will come online and help us actually reduce CO2 emissions.

To have a chance at succeeding, this needs to be a national priority. Our government took a first small step in the right direction today. Let's keep the pressure on to continue that progress.

Juan Melli :: How They Voted on Clean Energy (and the Stabilization Triangle)
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
nuclear (0.00 / 0)
It seems that for the cost of an Iraq war (say $500 billion) we could build 100-200 nuclear power plants, or more if you think they would cheaper if built in large numbers.  That would be a big chunk of the WORLD's output according at wikipedia:

As of 2006 there are 442 licensed nuclear power reactors in operation in the world [2], operating in 31 different countries [3]. Together they produce about 17% of the world's electric power.

Now obviously not all emissions are due to electric power generation, but that is very significant.  And unlike a war in the middle east, you would get revenue from selling the electricity.

Obviously though many people would be opposed to this solution.  And also the minable uranium supply is not unlimited, so this is actually a temporary solution.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch


cultists (0.00 / 0)
As much as I loathe Mike Ferguson, I must admit that his 2006 environmental score from the League of Conservation voters (lcv.org) was a respectable 83%.  His overall score for the 109th Congress was only 43%, due to his abysmal 17% rating in 2005.  Maybe Mike heard all the griping from his constituents and just had an election year conversion, but his YES vote on the Clean Energy Act is encouraging.
NJ-7 folks should continue to e-mail and phone in their enviro opinions to his office.  Ernie Garret and Rodney, however, again demonstrated that they are Big Oil/King Coal/BushCheney cultists who stubbornly refuse to change their wrongheaded ways.

This doesn't make up for Ferguson's (0.00 / 0)
other BAD votes!  He is just SO BAD, that it would take too much to overcome his "BADNESS," for a few good environmental votes, for forgiveness!!!

Thank you, so much, for this. (0.00 / 0)
I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to do this thorough analysis of the facts of this bill, Juan.  Thank you for doing this for us, especially now that the Star-Ledger has given up their column.  It is so important for us to know "how they voted!"

Featured Stories

Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials

 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 Bill Orr
 Deciminyan
 Hopeful
 Jay Lassiter
 Jeff Gardner
 Jersey Jazzman
 KendalJames
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 the_promised_land
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll

» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Baristanet
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Garden State Grapevine
» ClearysNoteBook
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» Jersey Blogs
» Jersey Jazzman
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons

» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search












Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.



Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.



Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
7754 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.
Powered by: SoapBlox