Kerry speech today dealing with green energy

[karynnj]

Well, he certainly has more endurance than anyone I can think of. This is a good speech and it looks like he will keep pushing.

In 1931, not long before he died, the famous inventor Thomas Edison had a conversation with his friends Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone about the energy needs in the future. He told them: “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

Edison wasn’t an environmentalist, by any means. But he did recognize that oil and coal are finite sources of energy. And if we intend to maintain our standard of living, if we want to remain competitive in the world economy, if we expect to continue protecting our national security, we’re going to have to find new, renewable and sustainable clean sources of energy – solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric.

<snip>
I know some of our critics, even some of our friends, have suggested that we settle for an “energy only” bill. But as tempting as that may be to some, it is an approach that ignores the fact that America today is confronting three interrelated crises: an energy security crisis, a climate crisis and an economic crisis. Our best response to all three is a bold, comprehensive bill that accelerates green innovation and creates millions of new jobs as we develop and produce the next generation of renewable power sources, alternative fuels and energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces.

We all want American prosperity. We all care deeply about American jobs, competitiveness and the living standards of our families. And that is precisely why we need the energy and climate change legislation we will bringing forth – legislation that will promote the kind of investment and research that will not only get our workers back on their feet and but will also transform our world.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/kerry-edison-and-the-energy-quest/

It looks like they Kerry and Lieberman might introduce it themselves.

Senator John Kerry, whose efforts to forge a compromise on U.S. climate-change and energy legislation stalled last month, said today a bill will be introduced “very, very soon.”

The legislation will have support from “a unique coalition,” including utilities, nuclear-power advocates and oil companies, Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said today at a green-jobs conference in Washington.

Kerry said oil companies have been acting in “good faith” in their discussions with him about the legislation. Expanded offshore drilling was set to be in the bill, though the measure is in question after the BP Plc oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Lawmakers including Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said they will oppose drilling provisions.

Kerry today stressed the need to move beyond oil.

“We can’t drill and burn our way through the crisis,” he said. “We don’t have enough oil.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-05/kerry-says-climate-bill-to-be-offered-very-soon-update1-.html


That report based on Kerry's speech, makes off shore drilling sound iff. Lieberman has said they are keeping the off shore drilling, another source spoke of states getting the right to ban it up to 75 miles from their shore line.)

The bill has long been expected to include provisions to expand nuclear power and widen offshore drilling. Kerry’s cosponsor, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Tuesday they did not plan to remove offshore drilling provisions despite the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The plan is expected to provide states that have new drilling off their shores a share of the leasing and royalty revenue. A Senate aide also said that states would be able to pass laws that prevent lease sales in federal waters within 75 miles of their shores.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/96169-kerry-seeks-to-blunt-gop-attacks-on-climate-bill


Not mentioned anywhere is what will the oil spill do to the economics of offshore drilling. As it was, there are a huge number of plots where it is currently not economic to drill. I would guess that given the likely high costs of this spill plus legislation - that should pass if written for future spills, to remove the cap on clean up exposure, will raise the cost of that insurance - thus the price of drilling there. This should move an additional set of possible places into the not profitable group.

The 75 mile provision is interesting as well.

[beachmom]

1. Also a post on it in Mother Jones:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/kerry-touts-oil-industry-support-amid-growing-tension-over-spill

Kerry Touts Oil Industry Support Despite Growing Tension Over Spill

With the remains of the Deepwater Horizon rig still spewing hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico unfettered, a growing group of legislators has disdain for the oil industry and apprehension about plans to expand offshore drilling. But not John Kerry, who on Wednesday praised the oil industry for working with him on climate and energy legislation, even as tensions in over what his bill may say about drilling threatens to divide Senate Democrats.

While he acknowledged that "we can't drill and burn our way out of danger," Kerry also spoke highly of the oil companies backing the draft legislation, which was supposed to be released last week. BP, operator of the rig currently spewing hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, was expected to be among the supporters. But that bill remains on indefinite hold amid political wrangling over the legislative calendar.

Also, follow:

http://twitter.com/drgrist

who is at the conference.

[karynnj]

3. That is sobering

As to reaching out to the netroots, you forget that Kerry did try with at least one, I think more, Daily Kos diaries. If I remember right, it didn't even make the recommended list. I have noticed that nothing I ever posted over on the DU environment group on anything Kerry did or said in the past always sunk. From articles posted here, Kerry did have a phone meeting with environmental bloggers and there have been articles of him speaking to them. He also did give his list a message long ago to encourage them to join Al Gore's activists. (They have not gained a lot of traction either.)

While there are a small number of awesome bloggers on this, on the main sites their is little interest. I looked at the polling over on pollingreport.com both on voting issues and global warming - and there really is not a movement.

When you look at the first few polls - it looks like people are saying that global warming seriously needs to be addressed, but what might be happening is shown on the Mach 4 -7 Gallup poll on the question that forces people to tradeoff between the environment and the economy. The results show, as you would suspect, that the worse the economy - the lower the environment number goes. http://pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

As to voting issues - it is lower than almost any other category and this is truest on open ended surveys. http://pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

This would be easier with a populist movement, but there isn't one. Could Kerry have created one? He seems to have wanted to with at least one of his emails. It might be that a Senator is not a likely leader of an activist movement - especially not the one leading the Senate effort. It almost seems the two roles are opposites. A Senator must compromise positions because he will never find 60 Senators in favor of exactly what he wants - while an activist's energy is in his dedication and clarity.

Gore spent 100% of his time for at least a year, but that effort seems to be barely heard.

One test of the left blogosphere was the reaction to the idea of an additional 15 cent tax on gas. This would amount to less than $10 a month on average. (assuming 15,000 miles a year, which is the highest estimate I found and 22 mpg.) People were enraged - however when it was theoretical, the left blogosphere wanted a carbon tax on everything rather than a cap and trade on the places emitting the most. (You can see Kerry responding to that by speaking of the money going back to people.)

I think also the rest of the country does not see the industries as the monsters the left does - and it is likely needed to take a step back and realize that the goal likely will be to have them transition into producing other energy sources. This will be easier for the electrical companies than the oil companies. The oil companies may find the way to do this is using their profits to invest in solar, wind etc

What vested interest do they have in this? The only thing I can think of is that they already know that their future success depends on a successful transition. Without this bill, how many years could they continue to drill, produce or buy oil and sell it? But, without this bill, they can not justify the steps to build for the future - with a market and shareholders looking mostly at the near future. The bill does two things - provides incentives which makes their investment costs lower and it makes it better to start transitioning sooner rather than later.

[beachmom]

5. Sorry I edited part of my post because I didn't want to be too much of a Debbie Downer.

To those now reading, I commented that the elites in the netroots are 100% NOT on board with the climate bill, and the discussion is to why not. I posit that it is at least in part due to Kerry's lack of outreach. I am not talking dailykos diaries here, but really reaching out through staff to lefty bloggers. I have gotten the impression that his outreach has been largely to environmental groups and industry. Environmental groups simply do not have the same amount of clout that industry does, but clearly, they are significant participants nevertheless. Meanwhile, there has been little support for the effort by the Prominent Pundits in the netroots. In contrast, despite kill the bill hysteria, there really WAS support for health care reform in this group, even when it descended into bloodletting fights over the public option and other aspects of the legislation. With the climate bill, people have nothing but disdain for the bill itself, seeing no reason to fight for a better bill. Absolutely no effort happening there.

I agree with your analysis that polls show Americans are not really focused on this issue. However, the netroots are supposed to be more in tune with Big Issues, what with their big love affair with Gore in 2007 when they wanted him to run again for POTUS for which this is his key issue. And yet, none of them are speaking up about it. Maybe part of it is because Lieberman's name is attached to it. But in spite of all of that, I think Kerry made a mistake taking the netroots for granted. Now he will probably be dealing with outright opposition to his bill. Right now the argument is immigration reform first. But what if the climate bill did come up? You would get support from the eKos diarist crowd but NO institutional support from the real power in the netroots, and possibly an alliance with the Right to kill it. That's what I see coming.

[karynnj]

7. I really suspect that the Gore netroots attraction was his anger

showed in between 2002 and 2005. I think many cited global warming, but it was mainly something Gore would have done that Bush didn't. I think there was also a lot of fantasy where they posited that Gore was for whatever they were for. Remember that the arguments that he was pushing to get out of Iraq faster than Kerry/Feingold and some posts that bizarrely claimed that he would was likely against NAFTA?

I DO think that Gore educated many people. There does seem to be a disconnect between people's willingness to say that global warming is serious - and their willingness to do nothing.

I agree with you that Kerry's staff should have made more efforts, but among the main group of people in the blogosphere, there really has not been that much real commitment or effort.

[Mass]

2. Comments like this one confuse me.

May be it is time to come back to the basics: What is this bill for?

http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2010/05/kerry-bill-rollout-to.php

In his speech to environmental and labor leaders, Kerry also said steel and other energy-intensive industries would have six years to be covered under a carbon-pricing plan and when they do they will get a rebate as well. "So we keep a totally minimal impact on any part of our economy," Kerry said. He said he would "stake my reputation" that the bill is "consumer-friendly, citizen-friendly; it is really a refund bill." None of the revenue -- which initially will also go to technological research and development, energy efficiency, job-creation efforts and cushioning the transition for energy-intensive and trade-impacted industries -- "stays in the federal government," Kerry said. "Nothing grows the size of the federal government."

and who knows who is in this bill, aside from Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham?

Kerry today said he is not worried that he has lost Nelson and others like New Jersey Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg. "We haven't lost them," Kerry said. "They don't know what our bill is."

Cant we hope that people who should be the strongest allies of a bill like that are aware of what is in it. (I heard Chu make the same claim, while he was supporting the bill without really endorsing it: better to have something than nothing. Once we start, we cant stop it).

[karynnj]

4. The comments confuse me too

The first one is confusing, but I think I know what he is saying. Most of the money collected in each sector, returns to the sector. The rest will go to funding technology etc.

If the refunds go back to the companies proportional to their starting size, this results in companies that cummulatively did more to cut their emissions paying less in the fees than their refund and others paying more. (On average the payments will be higher as part of the money is not returned.) If all the money were returned, this is conceptually the same as cap and trade - without a market.

The second is strange as Kerry and the others have been speaking to Senators for months sounding them out on what they will accept. I would have thought that they would have given pretty definitive explanations to the Senators who are likely supporters - and Lautenberg has always been a Kerry ally. All I can think of is that some things may still be in play on offshore drilling. (though Lieberman's point blank comment suggests otherwise.)

Here I would imagine if the public has moved from its about 70% approval of offshore drilling and the VA Senators have shifted, the dynamic might be different.

(By the way, I posted this stuff on GD-P, because there already was a Lieberman article on GD, and I thought it better to put it up in the most positive way possible. It is odd that the GD-P which defended Franken, Feingold et al when they fought to keep coal and fought a gas tax that would be about $10 a month on average, is willing to attack Kerry for compromising - forgetting that some of the compromises were with the people that they defended.)

[beachmom]

6. Well, Kerry is target #1. It's his bill, his name is on it, and he is working

with Lieberman and previously with Graham. When it was Kerry/Boxer, nicer things were said.

[wisteria]

8. Some people and groups don't like it because it is not a pure bill- from what they know about it.

I don't subscribe to the "purist" view of things. I am a realist and expect that this bill will have to be a compromise to gain votes. I consider it a beginning,if we keep waiting for the perfect bill-similar to the perfect man or women-we will be wasting time and still be waiting for years. As I said before, I remain optimistic about the bill and it chances for passage.