Energy Secretary: Science Demands Action on
Climate
Oct 28 - McClatchy Washington Bureau
Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday laid out the scientific risks of
inaction on global warming and went straight to his main point -- the
climate and energy bill starting its way through the Senate could help
drive what he called "energy opportunity."
The Senate is only now taking up the bill -- Tuesday was its first
hearing -- and much could change as senators demand amendments and
compromises. No Republicans now support it, though Sen. Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C., has written that he's interested in a consensus approach.
The bill's Democratic supporters are looking for some Republican allies
to help secure the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural blocks for
passage. They're also working against the odds to get the bill finished
in time for international climate negotiations in December in
Copenhagen, Denmark. The House of Representatives passed a version in
June, but before anything's enacted into law, the House and Senate must
agree on identical terms.
Chu, leading off testimony before the Senate Environment Committee,
noted that a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study this year found
a 50 percent chance of a 9-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase in
this century and a 17 percent chance of a nearly 11-degree increase if
heavy dependence on fossil fuels continues. Those numbers are higher
than a 2007 international scientific consensus report that estimated an
increase of more than 7 degrees.
"The world now realizes that its current level of greenhouse gas
emissions is unsustainable," Chu said. Demand for clean energy
technologies will leap as countries strive to limit emissions, he said.
"The only question is -- which countries will invent, manufacture and
export these clean technologies and which countries will become
dependent on foreign products?"
Chu said the climate-change legislation was needed to help the U.S.
catch up with China, Denmark and Japan.
"The most important element of this bill is that it puts a cap on carbon
emissions that ratchets down over time," Chu said. "That critical step
will drive investment decisions toward clean energy."
The Senate bill would reduce U.S. emissions by 83 percent from 2005
levels by 2050. The Environmental Protection Agency concluded that this
reduction would put the U.S. in line with international efforts to limit
climate change.
The Senate bill is similar to one that passed the House in June. It
would require sources of 25,000 tons or more of heat-trapping gases a
year, roughly the output of 2,300 homes, to buy permits to release them.
Companies that found cleaner approaches would need to buy fewer permits
and could sell those they didn't need. The bill would require payment
only from these large sources, which produce 75 percent of U.S.
greenhouse gases.
Investments in power plants require billions of dollars and the plants
last at least 60 years. A requirement to reduce greenhouse emissions
from coal would make nuclear, wind and solar power more attractive, Chu
said.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday said the bill "is going to be
critical" because it makes "clean energy the profitable kind of energy
in America." Obama made the comments in Arcadia, Fla., where he
announced $3.4 billion in stimulus funds for grants to improve the
electric grid.
Republicans on the panel opposed the mandatory emissions reductions and
said they preferred conservation, nuclear energy and encouragement of
electric vehicles and other cleaner technology. They also argued that
the bill would cost too much and cost jobs.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the bill would create "green welfare"
instead of jobs. Inhofe also said that global warming ended nine years
ago, citing an idea circulated on the Internet that's at odds with
observations and models by NASA scientists.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies' data show that the 10
warmest years since record-keeping began in the 19th Century occurred in
the 12-year period from 1997 to 2008, and that the long-term upward
temperature trend continues.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the bill's author, cited a list of
consequences that emissions from fossil fuel burning already have
caused, including increasingly acidic oceans and the loss of permafrost.
"Another reason we need to do this -- climate change and our dependence
on foreign oil are a significant threat to our national security," Kerry
said. "There's nothing conservative about remaining indebted to hostile
regimes for our energy. Doubters often talk about the cost of taking
action. But I have to tell you every analysis shows that the cost of not
taking action is more expensive.
"If we think it's good for America to send $400 billion a year to other
countries so we can put stuff up in the atmosphere that will cost us
even more to fix, we're crazy! We'd be far better off moving more
rapidly for the creation of that energy here at home."
The EPA found that the Senate bill would cost less than $10 a month per
household.
The bill includes financial incentives for the capture and storage of
carbon dioxide from coal burning and support for efficiency, renewable
energy and clean vehicles. It would provide assistance to steel and
other industries that use large amounts of energy.
The money would come from the sale of permits for pollution emissions.
The largest segment of these funds -- 35 percent -- would go to holding
down energy costs for consumers.
-----
To see more stories from the McClatchy Washington Bureau, go to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/.
Copyright (c) 2009, McClatchy Newspapers
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
(c) 2009,
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
|