Related Links:

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

The Climate Post: The gods must be crazy

Sen. Ben Nelson doesn’t believe a cap-and-trade climate bill can pass Congress this session, he said on Oct. 30—and he doesn’t intend to do anything to help it.“I haven’t been able to sell that argument to my farmers, and I don’t think they’re going to buy it from anybody else,” Nelson said in an interview on CNBC.  “I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged.”

——-Here’s more on Nelson and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on July 24, 2009:

Nelson has made it clear that he is willing to buck his party on a climate bill—or any bill, for that matter.

“I am not about to surrender any of my votes on the basis that there are now 60 members of my caucus,” Nelson told The New York Times. “I don’t think we will walk in lockstep. It will be issue by issue.”

Nelson, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is concerned about how a climate bill would affect the agriculture sector.  The ag lobby secured major concessions in the House climate bill that passed in June, but it’s not clear if those are enough to get Nelson on board.

“Every farm-state senator is aware of what the cap-and-trade proposals could do to their agriculture base,” said Nelson. “Agriculture is a big user of electricity. There’s a recognition that when electricity costs go up it can add, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars in costs at a time when commodity prices are not what they were. So we have to be very concerned.”

Earlier this year, Nelson was among the Democrats who voted against using the budget process to approve climate legislation.

In May of last year, he expressed support for a climate bill from Ohio Republican George Voinovich that made enviros queasy.

One month later, in June 2008, he voted to send the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to a floor vote, but then signed a letter from 10 swing-vote Democrats noting that he would have opposed final passage of the bill.  Here’s what Nelson said in a press release after that vote:

I have concerns about the climate change bill and will not vote for it. Global climate change is an environmental problem that requires energy solutions. I believe we need a comprehensive and coherent energy policy for this nation that will also help address the emissions problems contributing to global climate change. But this bill is not that policy and I do not support it.Track the debate and take action >>>I voted for cloture on the bill to allow it to move forward because I do not support procedural gimmicks that prevent a bill from getting an up or down vote. I think the Senate should vote this bill down and move forward with establishing a National Commission on Energy Policy and Global Climate Change so that the next Congress and the next Administration can work from a comprehensive legislative blueprint developed by a non-partisan commission.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Sen. Robert Byrd hated the climate bill that passed the House in June (more on that below), but he seems a little more open to the Kerry-Boxer bill being considered in the Senate.  As the Bluefield Daily Telegraph reported just after the bill was introduced:

[Byrd] said he was encouraged by the greater focus on clean coal technology, but still concerned about the proposed bill. “I will continue to work with my colleagues to strike a balance that treats West Virginia’s interests fairly as the legislative process moves forward,” Byrd said. “However, I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.” Byrd said he was glad to see that Kerry and Boxer included provisions he and other senators recommended related to carbon capture and storage techniques. “While this is an encouraging sign, we have a long way to go on this legislation,” Byrd said. “Many issues have yet to be addressed. There is still a tough road ahead.”

In August, Byrd and nine other Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama saying they wouldn’t support a climate bill that puts American businesses on an uneven playing field.  They called for a bill to include a tariff on goods imported into the U.S. from countries that don’t have binding targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.  Here’s more on Byrd and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 21 July 2009:

Sen. Robert Byrd has been an adamant supporter of coal throughout his long tenure in the Senate. Coal is his No. 1 interest in climate legislation, and the major concessions made to the industry in the House climate bill weren’t enough to win him over. (Nor were they enough to win over West Virginia’s two Democratic representatives, Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, who both voted against the bill.)

Byrd’s staff sent out an official statement from the senator shortly after the House passed the legislation. “I cannot support the House bill in its present form,” Byrd said in the statement. “I continue to believe that clean coal can be a ‘green’ energy. Those of us who understand coal’s great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians.”

Last year, Byrd was the only Democrat to vote against even starting debate on the Senate climate bill. He was not present for the main vote on the bill.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Sen. Evan Bayh is widely considered to be a fence-sitter on climate legislation.  He has a generally respectable environmental record, but his home state of Indiana is reliant on manufacturing and coal, so he worries that a climate bill could raise energy costs for his constituents and their employers.  In August, Bayh and nine other Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama saying they wouldn’t support a climate bill that puts American businesses on an uneven playing field.  They called for a bill to include a tariff on goods imported into the U.S. from countries that don’t have binding targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.  

Here’s a letter Bayh sent to a constituent in early October, confirming his fence-sitter position:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the impacts of globalclimate change. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns on this issue. I am deeply concerned about the threat posed by global climate change. Thescientific consensus on this issue is unequivocal. Global warming is real andgreenhouse gas emissions from human activity are causing it. Scientists andothers warn that climate change threatens our nation’s security, and mayimperil future generations’ opportunity for safe, healthy, and prosperouslives. However, any carbon-constraining mechanism must protect Hoosier ratepayers,workers and businesses from increased costs. Additionally, other nations of theworld must be included in this effort, because if they are not, our action willbe for naught. Please rest assured, should legislation regarding global climate change be introducedin the 111th Congress, I will keep your views in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope the information I have provided ishelpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov, can provide additional detailsabout legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive mymonthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the link at the top ofmy homepage. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informedof the issues important to you. Office of Senator Evan Bayh

Do you know what your own senators think about climatelegislation?  Askthem, then tell uswhat you find out.

Here’s more on Bayh and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 20 July 2009:

Enviros list Sen. Evan Bayh as one of the three Democrats most likely to vote against a climate and energy bill this year. During markup of the energy bill in the Energy and Natural Resource Committee in May, Bayh voted against including a renewable electricity standard—the only Democrat to do so. He cited concerns that it would raise energy costs for Indiana.

Track the debate and take action >>>

“Washington is poised to impose a renewable electricity standard that could disproportionately impact Indiana and other states that generate most of their energy from coal,” said Bayh in a statement in June.

Bayh has expressed concerns about the economic impacts of cap-and-trade on coal-dependent states like his. He voted against using the budget reconciliation process to pass climate policy earlier this year.  And last year Bayh signed the letter from swing-vote Democrats saying they would have opposed final passage of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski is open to voting for a cap-and-trade climate bill if it would aggressively boost nuclear power and domestic oil and gas drilling, she said in a C-SPAN interview aired on Oct. 18.  “Count me as one of those who will keep my mind open as we move forward,” she said.  “It seems like we’ve gotten to this point where you’re either for Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer or you’re against the environment,” she continued.  “That’s not a fair statement or comparison.” She said she’s spoken with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) about climate legislation, after Graham teamed up with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to call for a bipartisan climate bill.Murkowski also talked in the C-SPAN interview about how climate change isalready affecting her home state:  “When you see changes to the landcoming about ... what is causing the loss of the sea ice that adds tothe erosion issues, yes, in Alaska we are seeing change,” she said.“And that’s why I have been one of those Republicans who has perhapsstepped out front a little bit more on the issue of climate change.” 

Just a month earlier, in September, Murkowski ticked off the green community by proposing a budget-bill amendment that would prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from stationary sources like power plants and factories for one year.  The amendment did not actually come up for a vote, but Murkowski has continued to argue that the EPA should keep out of the business of regulating CO2 until Congress acts on the issue.  Also in mid-September, Murkowski issued a press release asserting that the cost of the Waxman-Markey House climate bill would be much higher than the Obama administration was admitting. “I believe we need to do something about climate change, but I’m equally concerned about the health of the economy,” she said.  “We shouldn’t pass legislation that makes it harder for Americans to get back on their feet.” ——-Here’s more on Murkowski and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on July 30, 2009:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, cosponsored many components of the energy bill that passed out of the committee in June. She was one of four Republicans to support the measure, which will likely be packaged with a climate bill this fall.

Murkowski talked up GOP committee members’ successful efforts “to include a number of provisions that will lead to more domestic production of the conventional energy we need to drive this country,” but she said she will push for still more when the bill reaches the Senate floor. “We simply must do more to increase our domestic [energy] production and use of nuclear energy,” she said.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Murkowski does not like the climate bill that passed the House in June. “Waxman-Markey Not a Solution to Climate Change,” declared a press release she issued after the bill’s passage. “This bill was forced through the House in a process designed to minimize open, transparent debate and preclude a thorough analysis of what the bill actually does,” she said. “The cost of this legislation remains staggering, and the mechanisms within the bill to contain those costs are inadequate.”

“Climate change is a problem we should address, but we must do so in a responsible manner that will safeguard our economy,” she continued.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley has dodged and weaved when asked whether climate change is a human-caused problem that needs to be taken seriously, as David Roberts points out.

Grassley exhibited that same tendency in an email he sent recently to constituent (and Grist reader) Ben Thompson, who had asked the senator about his views on climate legislation.  Grassley wrote that schemes to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions “are effectively a national energy tax,” and argued that Congress should focus instead on “increas[ing] the availability of renewable and alternative energy sources.”

Thank you for taking the time to email me. As your senator, it is important for me to hear from you. I appreciate hearing your concerns regarding global climate change. I recognize that various predictions of global climate change have been a cause of concern for many and I believe that it is prudent to consider sensible steps to address potential future warming. Nevertheless, it is important that the American people understand that such proposals to limit emissions of certain gases come with significant costs both to families and the economy as a whole. The consensus among economists is that any scheme designed to reduce greenhouse gases would result in costs passed on to all Americans and therefore these proposals are effectively a national energy tax. It is important to be honest about this point and to weigh any environmental benefit against the inevitable costs. While I believe that it is prudent to consider sensible steps to address potential future warming, I have also always said that any environmental policy should be based on sound science, not political science. Virtually all scientists agree that the natural greenhouse effect contributes to warming, but we do not know the direct consequence natural variations in climate may have had on warming. Differences remain about how much our climate could change in the future, the pace of the possible change, or how human actions could impact it. Concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, have increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Although progress through technology to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases has been made, there has not been a cost-effective method developed to capture carbon emissions at their source. The House of Representatives has passed legislation that would create a cap and trade system to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that are produced by various entities in our economy. In the Senate, a similar bill has been released and the relevant committees are considering this legislation. Because of the complexity of this issue and the many implications of this legislation for our economy and our society, I expect extensive debate in the Senate. As a matter of fairness and in order to be more effective, I have repeatedly said that any effort to reduce greenhouse gasses should be addressed through an international agreement. In fact, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has admitted in recent testimony that any unilateral action by the United States would provide no real environmental gain. In the meantime, the most effective action Congress can take now to address potential future climate change, as well as make our air cleaner and healthier, is to redouble our efforts to increase the availability of renewable and alternative energy sources. In fact, I have been a leader in the Senate in promoting alternative energy sources as a way of protecting our environment and increasing our energy independence. Your comments will be helpful to me as the Senate considers any legislation related to global warming concerns. Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing your views and urge you to keep in touch. Sincerely, Chuck

Do you know what your own senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Here’s more on Grassley and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on Aug. 5, 2009:

Sen. Chuck Grassley seems to relish his role as a maverick among Republicans. He has not bucked his party on climate votes in the past—he voted against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act last year. But his home state of Iowa could gain a good deal from a climate bill if Big Ag gets all it wants out of the legislation.

Grassley recently predicted that climate legislation will have trouble in the Senate, but he disagreed that it’s a dead prospect.  “[W]hen you’ve got Democrats that are leading this Congress, and Gore pushing them in the religious way he’s pushing them, they’re going to want to produce something,” he said in an interview on CNBC.  “But I’m telling you, if it had trouble getting 219 votes in the House, it’s going to have really big trouble getting 60 votes in the Senate ... there’s some real trouble in the United States Senate on the global warming issue.”

Grassley has been outspoken in his belief that China, India, and other developing nations must curb their greenhouse-gas emissions, arguing recently on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, “If the United States moves ahead by itself [on cap-and-trade] ... after 30 or 40 years, we’re going to reduce CO2 by less than 1 percent.” He made a similar statement on a call with reporters in July. “If the United States would go ahead—because we’re supposed to so-called set an example for the rest of the world—and if the rest of the world doesn’t go along, then we’re turning out to be suckers because we’re going to just reduce total CO2 by a spit in the ocean by ourselves,” he said.

Track the debate and take action >>>

At a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on climate policy and international competitiveness, he said, “I’ve said many times that we ought to approach this issue through a worldwide, international agreement. That’s the only way to ensure that China and India and other major carbon-emitting countries are involved. Otherwise, our industry is going to be left very uncompetitive. We’re going to see more manufacturing move overseas where less efficient plants produce far more pollution than our American industries, and nobody should want to do that.”

Grassley’s other concerns about a climate bill include how it would affect the agriculture sector and energy consumers in coal states like Iowa. As the ranking minority member of the Finance Committee, which is likely to craft a portion of the bill, Grassley may play an important role in shaping the legislation—even if he doesn’t ultimately vote for it.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

In 2006, Sen. Richard Lugar’s Indiana tree farm purchased credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, a good indication that he realizes federal climate policy is coming down the pike. He voted for the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003 and 2005, but voted against cloture on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act last year.  This year, he’s a key swing vote on climate legislation.

As the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar has been outspoken about the need for the U.S. to become more energy independent and address climate change.

“We should recognize that energy issues are at the core of most major foreign policy, economic, and environmental issues today. Technological breakthroughs that expand clean energy supplies for billions of people worldwide will be necessary for sustained economic growth,” Lugar said at a January hearing on international climate challenges. “In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy that are focused on these technological advancements, we will be risking multiple hazards for our country that could constrain living standards, undermine our foreign policy goals, and leave us highly vulnerable to economic, political, and environmental disasters with an almost existential impact.”

“The United States should recognize that steps to address climate change involve economic opportunities, not just constraints,” he continued.

But Lugar has been adamant that any climate strategy should be part of a global effort, and big developing countries like China and India should be compelled to participate.

Track the debate and take action >>>

He has also expressed concern about the transparency and enforcement of cap-and-trade, as well as its potential costs for coal-dependent states like Indiana. And he wants biofuels and adaptation efforts to play a larger role in climate policy.

Lugar has downplayed the prospects of passing a climate bill in the Senate this year. Approving a plan to reduce emissions is “a tough sell to people who are in a recession and whose light bills are going up,” Lugar said in June. “The votes just haven’t been there, and I’m not sure they are now.”

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Fetterman has become a poster boy for the clean-energy revolution, thanks to an Environmental Defense Fund ad campaign that features him calling for climate and clean-energy legislation to help revitalize former steel towns like Braddock. He’s appeared before Congress twice to testify in support of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, arguing that a cap on carbon will help towns like his recover.

Braddock was once a thriving steel town along the Monongahela River, the place where Andrew Carnegie made his fortune in steel. The town’s population was over 20,000 in the 1950s, but the bottom began to fall out soon thereafter. Steel jobs left, and with them, the town’s prosperity and population. The town now has fewer than 3,000 residents, and empty houses and vacant lots line the streets. Unemployment runs about three times the national average, and the median household income is just $18,473.

Fetterman, a native of York, Pa., moved to the town in 2001 after graduate school at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, to start a program for young adults. He was elected mayor of the city in 2005, and since then has made revitalizing the town his top priority. He has Braddock’s zip code, 15104, tattooed on one arm, and on the other are the dates of killings that have occurred during his time in office, along with the words “I will make you hurt.”

In the past four years, the town has launched a green-jobs summer program for youth, created a green space for the community, and brought a small alternative energy company, Fossil Free Fuel, to the downtown area. Plans are underway for a community center powered by geothermal energy.

Earlier this year, Fetterman and his town were featured in a New York Times article; it caught the attention of the Environmental Defense Fund, which enlisted Fetterman in its ad campaign in support of the House climate bill. The ads show the abandoned streets of Braddock and unemployed steelworkers from the region, with Fetterman calling for “a cap on carbon pollution” to “create jobs making things like solar panels and wind turbines.”

Grist caught up with Fetterman in Pittsburgh, Pa., recently to talk about his town and the hope for a green-job revolution. “At the end of the day, we need to build pragmatic solutions in environmental stewardship, of course, but we also have to make sure we’re taking care of the other side of the socioeconomic coin, [those who] don’t have the luxury of being able to care which kind of heirloom tomato they buy,” he told Grist.

——-

Q. Tell me about Braddock.

A. Braddock is steel town a little bit outside of Pittsburgh. It was once an incredibly prosperous boomtown of 20,000 residents, and it’s now under 3,000. It’s a 90 percent loss in our population, and now 90 percent of our businesses are gone, 90 percent of our building stock is gone. It really grabs you. You can tell something really bad happened, but you’re not sure what. You can’t get 90 percent of the population to agree that the sky is blue, but 90 percent of people agreed that we need to leave here because things are in such a state that we don’t have any other options.

Q. When did it start getting bad for Braddock?

A. This was well before I arrived on the scene. It started in the ‘60s. It was nothing really significant, but it was a trickle. And then it accelerated in the ‘70s, and then the mills started dropping rapidly, then it really descended into chaos. It’s like the Warren Zevon song, “We were in the house when the house burned down.” And the people that remained have really gone through this kind of economic apocalypse, where it’s 28 days later and they’re kind of like the survivors of this scourge that was beyond their control. There was very little they could do as an individual besides hold on and try to maintain some semblance of the life they knew growing up, when Braddock had 13 furniture stores, three movie theaters, dozens and dozens of bars, restaurants, department stores, all of these things. And now there’s none. We don’t have any.

Q. What do people who live in Braddock now do?

A. Well, many of them are unemployed. Many work in the service sector, in a large retail and lifestyle complex that’s down the river. Some work in the hospital that’s still in town, and some commute to Pittsburgh for other jobs.

Q. Where did the green-jobs idea come from? What was the inspiration for your work on that?

A. Braddock and Pittsburgh need to continually be progressive and advance that frontier. That’s something that I’ve always been involved in and believed in strongly. Urban agriculture, for example. Braddock has this enormously large inventory of vacant lots. What’s the best way to marry the needs of the community with the realities we have in town?

We have kids that don’t have summer jobs. We don’t have any grocery stores in town, and we’ve got this large number of lots. Well, let’s build a small-scale urban farm. That way we create jobs. We create fresh organic produce. We use and beautify a lot that looked like it was a research-and-development lab for different weeds—they were waist high! It serves the community, and also does it in a way that is consistent with a sustainable, more progressive lifestyle. So from my perspective it’s a win-win.

It’s not a matter of having this fetish saying, I compost, so I can pat myself on the back. It’s saying what can we do as a community that improves the quality of life for our residents—and that we’re able to do it in a way that’s sustainable and adheres to these principles, that’s just icing on the cake.

Q. Tell me more about the green-jobs summer program in Braddock. What kind of projects are young people working on?

A. Well, it started when I took office, and this summer we hired close to 100 kids. [They’re] working on the urban farm, creating a green space. Prior to us taking over, our community did not have a green spot for children to frolic, people to just kind of relax. So we have that now. We got a grant from the Heinz Endowment, which is a major local foundation, and we’re working on installing the first green roof in the area too. This is the last building of its kind, an eight-story building, that if we didn’t put a new roof on it eventually, it would go under. So we said, OK, we can put it as a green roof.

That’s the recurring theme for us in Braddock—it has to work with the framework we’re in. It’s not green at the expense of Braddock, it’s what’s right for Braddock, and thankfully I think it drives home why a lot of these principles really do make sense and it’s not just a bunch of “weird treehuggers” who care about these things. They are important principles not only for the environment but for helping communities as well.

We started [the green-jobs program] in 2006, with a limited number, and we scaled it up. It was 35 the first year, 50 the second, 70 last year, and now it’s 100. And each year we’ve had completion rates well into the 90s. And this year, again, it was 100 percent. I know that’s hard to believe. I wouldn’t believe it if I hadn’t seen it myself. None of the corresponding stereotypes of bad movies that star white folks that come in and change a poor school—we didn’t have the fighting, none of these things.

Q. How did you get involved in the national debate about the climate bill?

A. When The New York Times did a story, I guess I caught the attention of the Environmental Defense Fund. They had ideas, and they were good. But I really wanted to make it much more authentic, because you see a lot of these cheesy environmental ads, where it’s the guy who looks like a model putting on a hard hat. It’s not real. He’s got manicured hands.

The people that are already in your corner are obviously the ones you don’t have to convince. It’s the working-class folks that might get their news from Fox, or may have grown up in more conservative circumstances. Say, look, you don’t have to consider yourself an environmentalist. You can drive your pickup truck, you can live your life the way you want to. But wouldn’t it make sense to not only care for our environment but also create and replenish the critical mass of blue-collar jobs in this community, this country? We still have to make things in this country. I’m very much a believer in that. You can think that global warming is a myth and the sun revolves around the earth, but here’s how it could benefit your community through this very common-sense approach.

Q. You testified in support of the Waxman-Markey bill. What do you think that would do for a place like Braddock?

A. I don’t know how much it will do for Braddock directly. I think as a whole, it will be a necessary but not sufficient first step to help bring regions back from what they’ve suffered through. It’s not like when you pass it, suddenly it’s going to be hunky-dory. Hopefully it will have the same effect as [the invention of] the internet—the same kind of investment that gave rise to Silicon Valley and Seattle can come back to these manufacturing regions, because we as a nation can’t lose that edge.

Q. Are folks in Braddock receptive to talk about passing a climate bill?

A. Most people are like, “What the hell is cap-and-trade?” It’s kind of like derivatives, where these economists can’t explain what it is. So there’s a lot of esoteric things involved. But when you explain that this is the kind of thing that helped get lead out of paint and acid rain and these other things, and how it can create the demand for steel, they get that. There are 250 tons of steel in a windmill. If we build a million windmills, that’s 250 million tons of steel. They understand that, that gels for folks.

When you say global warming in 75 years will raise the average temperature by a degree and a half, that doesn’t mean anything to me. I’ve got to eat. My house is falling apart. So not playing to people’s concern for the environment, but [being] pragmatic—you want a job again, let’s pass this bill.

And as an added benefit, whether you care about it or not, it’s going to reduce our carbon footprint and make us a leader in the world, as we should be, in terms of reducing our carbon output, and also make us the leaders in technology that we can export to these countries like India and China that have no sustainable manufacturing principles.

Q. Are you seeing any signs of growth yet for Braddock?

A. Sure. There are plenty of green shoots. And first and foremost, it’s enhancing the quality of life in the community and making sure that I don’t put any more dates on my arm. There’s definitely reason to be optimistic, but I’d also be crazy if I suggested that this was something that could be remedied in 5, 10, 15 years.  This is a long-term kind of project.

The good news is if things in Braddock can change, if things can get better, if it can be safer and kids have better opportunities, I think that’s a good harbinger for towns where they’ve had nothing as severe as what we’ve gone through.

——-

Fetterman made Grist’s list of badass greens.  See who else is on the list.

Watch Fetterman in an EDF ad:

Related Links:

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Senators opposed to the Clean Energy Jobs Act are ignoring the bill’s benefits to Americans

When will we stop paying the hidden fossil fuel tax?

Grist obtained a copy of API’s list of coordinators for the 21 planned rallies, and 15 of them are registered lobbyists, mostly for API or its state-level affiliates.

There have already been three “Energy Citizens” rallies—in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday; in Roswell, N.M., on Thursday; and in Lima, Ohio, on Friday. Others are planned for cities around the U.S. during the rest of the August congressional recess.

Here’s a list of the lobbyists organizing the “grassroots” rallies:

And in Farmington, N.M., rally organizer Wendi Schuur is the director of public and community affairs at Devon Energy, an oil and gas company.

Perhaps “Energy Lobbyists” would be a more appropriate name for the movement?

Related Links:

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee

In a column he recently penned and posted on his Senate website, Johnson argues that the climate change bill “could bring jobs, prosperity and clean air” to the country and his wind-swept state of South Dakota.

“Soon the Senate will consider climate change legislation that could finally help South Dakota to live up to its wind generating potential and capture the benefits of a cash crop that is just blowing across our landscape,” wrote Johnson. “In fact, the wind energy potential in South Dakota can put us in a leading position to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels and get America running on clean energy.”

“This is a chance to invest in American ingenuity and help our country become a global leader on clean energy that can jumpstart our economy,” he continued.

Here’s the full column:

Climate Change Bill Could Bring Jobs, Prosperity and Clean Air By U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) How many times have you heard experts cite the fact that South Dakota is the fourth windiest state, but only ranks 20th in actual installed wind energy generation? Soon the Senate will consider climate change legislation that could finally help South Dakota to live up to its wind generating potential and capture the benefits of a cash crop that is just blowing across our landscape. In fact, the wind energy potential in South Dakota can put us in a leading position to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels and get America running on clean energy. This is a chance to invest in American ingenuity and help our country become a global leader on clean energy that can jumpstart our economy. We can grow our economy and reduce the demand for oil, much of which is imported and drives up our trade deficit while enriching hostile foreign governments. South Dakota’s growing clean energy economy has added good-paying jobs at an annual job growth rate of 7.9 percent over the past decade.  A new federal policy that drives demand for wind power will sustain these jobs and create more of them. As a consequence of the forward-looking 2007 Energy Bill that boosted renewable fuels production and reformed fuel efficiency rules for cars and trucks, our consumption of petroleum-based gasoline is predicted to decline by over 1 million barrels per day below the country’s daily total in 2007. In addition, it helps pick up the pace on ethanol and looks at next generation biofuels, such as switchgrass, wood waste and other non-grain feedstocks, which helps both East and West River, South Dakota. It also included a tax credit that, in our neck of the woods, can help build wind turbines and start harnessing that energy potential. Simply put, that means we already have a plan in place that moves us toward consuming less oil and more homegrown biofuels while making our cars and trucks more energy efficient. But that is just one step. When it comes to energy, we should be open to new ideas that help our economy and invest in America. Now some will throw their hands up and say we just can’t do this now or they will try to cite worst case scenarios and cost projections far beyond what the non-partisan groups have told us clean energy incentives will actually cost. These scare tactics just present a status quo approach that leaves us all vulnerable to oil spikes in a global market and high gas prices that crush family budgets like we saw last summer. Energy prices are going up with or without any comprehensive policy changes from Congress. The question is: are we sending more of our hard earned money to Big Oil and oil rich countries or are we investing in our own backyards? Technology and alternative ways to produce energy need long-term planning. For South Dakota in particular, with so much untapped potential for wind energy generation and renewable fuels production, a more progressive national energy policy could be just the step that will finally transform that economic potential into actual jobs, economic development, and opportunity for people and communities across our state. This fall, the Senate is likely going to take a fresh look at a comprehensive energy bill focused on clean energy incentives. I am optimistic we can turn energy potential into reality and help create new job opportunities at home by producing more clean energy in the United States.

Related Links:

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix