Barry Katzen our Group and Political Chair will host “A Political Night at the Sierra Club.” Come and hear our local candidates for Congress, Assembly and State Senate as well as U.S. Senate talk about the issues that we in the environmental community care about the most. Information pamphlets will be available of those candidates who are unable to appear. We will also have a discussion about the Presidential candidates and who will best serve our concerns. There will be socializing and refreshments.
The effects of a Romney/Ryan Administration on our environment
By Michael Stevenson
The upcoming presidential election has put in play many issues in which the two major candidates, President Obama and Mitt Romney, differ sharply. On the nightly news we hear all about their differences on what to do about the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, taxes, abortion, birth control, unemployment, immigration, military spending and energy policy. But in the face of record heat waves, drought, forest fires and crop failures we hear little or nothing from Mr. Romney about the most important environmental issue of our time, global warming/climate change. One excuse could be that it's because he's a Republican. According to a recent Gallup Poll that covers Global Warming Views by Party Identification; only 43% of Republicans accept as true that most scientists believe global warming is occurring, whereas 75% of Democrats accept this. On another scientific consensus statement that global warming is mainly caused by human activity, only 36% of Republicans believe this compared to 65% of Democrats.
Mr. Romney is a seemingly well-educated and smart man so does he really not understand the consequences of what climate change will bring to our planet? Maybe not, because in October 2011 during a forum in Pennsylvania he expressed the view that "we don't know what's causing climate change and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us" (www.lunberg.com). If he is just scientifically ignorant that's not nearly as bad as a worse alternative. This is that he knows better, but he is just pandering to his right-wing Republican base that doesn't believe in climate change and at the same time doesn't want to alienate his multi-billionaire fossil fuel pals that are helping to bankroll his election. Most candidates run towards the center after the Presidential Primaries have ended but Mr. Romney continued to go hard right. I believe this is because he quickly realized that he would lose the election if he moved to the center where he was when he served as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007. For the most part that kind of Republican no longer exists. If he did move to the center, most of the right wing base, which never really liked or trusted him, might just stay home on Election Day. But to do what he is doing is not being a leader in the best sense of the word. The great leaders of our country were not people who did the expedient thing just to get elected; but instead they made the case for the truth of what needed to be done and then persuaded the electorate to follow them.
When Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan as his running mate any pretense that he might be at least a moderate environmentalist was gone. According to the League of Conservation Voters Legislative Scorecard for 2011, Paul Ryan voted for the environment only 3% of the time. Compare his terrible environmental record with some local Congressional Members. Using this same voter scorecard, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Adam Schiff and Henry Waxman all voted pro-environment 97% of the time.
What might happen if a Romney/Ryan ticket is successful in winning the Presidency this November? It's not really a mystery as they have pretty clearly laid out their plans. Romney's energy policy team is composed of oil and coal industry insiders including fossil fuel billionaires Harold Hamm and the Koch brothers. His Energy Policy can be found at his website.
He says that "the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental laws need to be overhauled". They support the use of fossil fuels to the max and would retain oil company tax breaks amounting to several billion dollars while at the same time stating that "green energy is not competitive and should not be subsidized". For example they oppose the extension of the Production Tax Credit to encourage wind energy. According to thinkprogress.org "this tax credit has helped double our production of wind energy over the past 4 years and ending it would cost at least 37,000 jobs". They want to push deregulation to help accelerate the exploration and development of oil and gas and stop the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions. They are for quick approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline which would bring tar sands oil from Canada through the Midwest to the gulf coast. Romney says "he will permit drilling wherever it can be done safely including the Gulf of Mexico, both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the Alaska coast including both conventional reserves and shale oil deposits". He will also give individual states jurisdiction over whether to drill for oil and gas on public federal lands.
President Obama has recently finalized new federal fuel economy standards that would be phased in from 2017 to 2025. It would eventually require each automaker's passenger vehicle fleet to average 54.5 miles per gallon. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the new standards will cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2025. This policy is a continuation of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that was signed by President Bush. Thirteen major automakers which between them make 90% of all vehicles made in the U.S. support this plan. But according to Mr. Romney's campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul he opposes the new rules as they "limit the choices for American families". According to thinkprogress.org "Romney not only opposes these new rules, but he would undo existing standards requiring new cars reach an average of 35.5 MPG by 2016, the first improvement for fuel economy standards stalled for two decades".
At the Republican National Convention Mr. Romney said to his audience: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My plan is to help you and your family". He mocks efforts to combat climate change while at the same time advocating policies that put increased pressure on our dwindling planetary resources. His environmental and energy positions convey a level of ignorance and arrogance far beneath the qualities of someone who should serve as our President.
Energy Policy: The Sierra Club vs. President Obama vs. Mitt Romney
By Michael Stevenson
Just in terms of energy policy alone, we are on the verge of one of the most important presidential elections in our lifetime. The decisions that will be made during this next presidential term will not only impact the way we produce and use energy but what kind of a planet we will leave for future generations. This article will briefly summarize the Sierra Club’s Energy Resources Policy. It can be found by searching at the Sierra CLub website. This policy will be contrasted with President Obama’s energy policy: “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” which can be found at here as well as Mitt Romney’s Energy Policy which can be found at here.
SIERRA CLUB POLICY
The consensus of the scientific community is that the burning of fossil fuels is increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions to levels that will substantially change our climate, thereby threatening human health and harming natural ecosystems. To combat this problem the Sierra Club has proposed an energy policy that centers on promoting “a positive vision of a sustainable energy future”. The goal of this policy is to help wean us off fossil fuels by accelerating the development and market growth of sustainable low carbon energy resources; phase out environmentally damaging fossil fuels such as coal, tar sands oil and nuclear technologies; and maximize energy efficiency in our transportation, work place and home. The Sierra Club says that meeting these goals would be an engine for new economic growth, save money, generate jobs and develop more livable communities. This would create a better way to live on our planet by placing less pressure on the natural systems that help sustain us.
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICY
President Obama states in his energy policy that “we can’t keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again”. He goes on to say that “we cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out”. But he says as we develop the next generation energy technologies, we will have to continue to rely on oil and gas. So he proposes “to make us more secure through controlling our energy future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio”. He says “we must also focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar as well as clean coal, natural gas and nuclear power”. According to the Department of Energy since President Obama took office, net oil imports have fallen from 57% to 45% of overall consumption, the lowest level in 16 years. In 2011 U.S crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003 with a record number of oil and gas rigs operating which is more than the rest of the world combined. Since 2009 the U.S. has been the world’s leading producer of natural gas.
One of the best ways to help reduce the use of fossil fuels is to become more energy efficient. To this end President Obama has mandated an increase in the average fuel efficiency for passenger vehicles to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 and has proposed a 54.5 miles per gallon standard by 2025. The first ever fuel economy standards for heavy duty trucks, vans and buses have been put into effect for model years 2014-2018. He has made the needed government investments in battery technology and infrastructure to support the manufacture of one million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles by 2015. One of the most efficient means of saving transportation energy is the use of train travel. The President has established a goal to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. Through the Energy Star program new efficiency standards for more than 30 products have been put into place and expect to save consumers more than $300 billion through 2030.
So how does the Sierra Club’s Energy Policy compare with President Obama’s? Overall President Obama is fairly close to the Sierra Club’s position on the need to move towards more sustainable energy choices. The Sierra Club is demanding a higher standard for green energy than the President but he has many more constituencies to deal with. For the moment he keeps natural gas, “clean coal” and nuclear energy in his portfolio of transitional energies on the way to greener choices. The Sierra Club’s points out that at least at this point there is no such thing as “clean coal”. His emphasis on improving energy efficiency is very much in line with the Sierra Club position.
MITT ROMNEY’S POLICY
Compared to the Sierra Club Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a very different energy policy. He sees energy production as primarily a national security and job creation issue. He wants to streamline approval processes for extracting energy and says “all permits and approvals for exploration and development should be issued according to fixed timelines with the availability of fast-tract processes”.
He says “the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental laws need to be overhauled”. He says “the Clean Air Act was passed to protect against pollutants that pose dangers to human health and was not intended to control CO2 emissions, and is poorly tailored to that purpose” He says President Obama is trying “to fit that particular square peg into the round hole of the Clean Air Act to essentially achieve the effect of cap-and-trade without congressional approval”. The Supreme Court disagrees with that as it ruled in 2007 that part of the mandate of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to regulate CO2.
Mr. Romney wants to increase our domestic supply of oil which would put downward pressure on energy prices. But according to the Energy Information Administration, the supply of oil and gasoline is higher today than it was three years ago, when the national average for a gallon of gasoline was just $1.90. Meanwhile, due in part to a slower economy and more efficient cars the demand for oil in the U.S. is at its lowest level since April, 1997. Besides that the President of the United States doesn’t set the price of oil and gasoline, the global market does. Rumors of war in the Middle East, increased use of oil by China and other factors including speculators are pushing up oil prices.
Mr. Romney is for quick approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline which would bring tar sands oil from Canada through the Midwest to the gulf coast. He says that President Obama has “an unhealthy green jobs obsession” and is “in thrall with the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas” He asserts that the President has waged war against oil and coal while touting the creation of green jobs and says that “wind and solar remain sharply uncompetitive on their own with conventional resources such as oil and natural gas in most applications”. He says “we have wasted time and money by steering investment towards particular politically favored approaches”. Recently Mr. Romney has come out in favor of Rep. Paul Ryan’s new Republican budget proposal eliminating federal subsidies and tax breaks for alternative energy firms and would slash funding for energy research.
Mr. Romney says “the United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources and developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future”. He says “he will permit drilling wherever it can be done safely including the Gulf of Mexico, both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the Alaska coast”. This will include both conventional reserves and shale oil deposits. There is no indication on his web site as to a position on any demand side measures to increase energy efficiency. There is no mention on his web site of climate change but in October 2011 during a forum in Pennsylvania he expressed the view that “we don’t know what’s causing climate change and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us” (www.lunberg.com).
SUMMARY
Sierra Club: Develop a positive vision of a sustainable energy future by accelerating the development of sustainable low carbon energy, such as wind power, solar power and electric vehicles, as environmentally damaging fossil fuels are reduced and energy efficiency is increased.
President Obama: Control our energy future in the short term by an all-of-the-above energy strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as we position the U.S. as the global leader in clean energy and energy efficiency.
Mitt Romney: Deregulate and drill.