Tag Archives: markey

Democrats want travel industry to reduce emissions in exchange for coronavirus bailout

by Laurind2964 Posted on March 19, 2020

As you read this, U.S. lawmakers are rushing to push a third coronavirus aid package through Congress to help alleviate the economic burden the pandemic has placed on people and industry. (The first, passed two weeks ago, was an $8 billion package that boosted funding for COVID-19 testing, and the second round of funding, signed Wednesday night, was aimed at providing paid family and sick leave to affected Americans.) Democrats want the new package to include measures that will reduce emissions from major polluters.

In a letter to the majority and minority leadership of both houses in Congress on Wednesday, eight Democratic senators, including former presidential candidate Cory Booker of New Jersey, asked Congress to include stricter environmental requirements for industries asking for bailouts from the economic fallout of the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Specifically, the senators highlighted the aviation and cruise industries, which are major contributors of greenhouse gas emissions — the former account for 2.5 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions globally, and the latter burns heavy fuel oil (“one of the dirtiest fuels,” the letter points out). The aviation industry has asked Congress for $50 billion in aid, more than three times the amount it received in the aftermath of 9/11.

“If we give the airline and cruise industries assistance without requiring them to be better environmental stewards,” the senators wrote, “we would miss a major opportunity to combat climate change and ocean dumping.” In addition to Booker, the letter’s signatories were Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

On Twitter, Whitehouse made his point more forcefully.

His colleague Markey, co-author of the Green New Deal resolution introduced in the Senate and House last February, agreed.

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely these Democrats have the leverage to compel the Republican-controlled Senate and President Trump to enforce stricter environmental regulations in exchange for coronavirus aid. And it’s not clear that their colleagues in the Senate and House have the bandwidth to tackle both coronavirus and climate change at the moment under such a tight deadline. But with airlines and cruise companies desperate for a bailout, there may never be a better time to make them change their polluting ways.

See original:

Democrats want travel industry to reduce emissions in exchange for coronavirus bailout

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats want travel industry to reduce emissions in exchange for coronavirus bailout

Bernie Sanders’ ‘Green New Deal’ looks like a trillion bucks (OK, 16 trillion)

by Rachel06Hscjsgt Posted on August 22, 2019

Washington Governor Jay Inslee vacated the role of “climate candidate” in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary when he dropped out of the race Wednesday night. By Thursday morning, it appeared Bernie Sanders was poised to fill it.

The Vermont senator unveiled a plan to spend more than $16 trillion in federal dollars on “a ten-year, nationwide mobilization centered around justice and equity” to forestall the climate crisis. He’s calling it — stop us if you’ve heard this one before — the “Green New Deal.”

Yep, Sanders told the New York Times that he’s putting “meat on the bones” of the resolution, introduced in February by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, which called for a “10-year national mobilization” to essentially remake the U.S. into a clean-energy economy. The Ocasio-Cortez and Markey version of the Green New Deal (a.k.a. GND original flavor) is currently being constructed by the think tank New Consensus.

Sanders’ version calls for creating 20 million union jobs he says are necessary for averting climate disaster, phasing out fossil fuels by midcentury, providing $200 billion to the United Nations to aid developing countries in slashing emissions, and spearheading new projects in solar, wind, and geothermal energy. According to the senator’s campaign, the plan will pay for itself in 15 years, in part by levying massive taxes on the income of corporate polluters and increasing penalties for fossil-fuel company pollution. And Sanders said he would declare climate change a national emergency, a step that even Inslee was not ready to commit to. Last month, Sanders proposed a congressional resolution to do just that.

The language in Sanders’s plan indicates he’s ready to tussle with Big Oil: He says he would direct his Department of Justice to go after fossil fuel companies for both civil and criminal penalties. So far, cases winding through the state court systems have not been successful at holding the fossil fuel industry accountable.

“They have evaded taxes, desecrated tribal lands, exploited workers, and poisoned communities,” the proposal reads. “President Bernie Sanders will ensure that his Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigate these companies and bring suits — both criminal and civil — for any wrongdoing, just as the federal government did with the tobacco industry in the 1980s.”

The 77-year-old presidential-hopeful also plans to ensure a “fair” and “just transition” for fossil fuel workers. Under Sanders’ Green New Deal, the federal government would provide five years of unemployment insurance, a wage guarantee, housing assistance, and job training to “any displaced worker” who loses their job during the transition to a clean-energy economy.

Moreover, Sanders’ plan pitches a ban on hydraulic fracturing — a.k.a. fracking — and mountaintop coal mining. He also plans on establishing a $40 billion Climate Justice Resiliency Fund specifically to help communities of color prepare for climate impacts.

While the Green New Deal of Ocasio-Cortez and Markey calls for transitioning to 100-percent zero-emission energy generation and slashing emissions from transportation “as much as is technologically feasible” within 10 years, Sanders’ plan ups the ante a bit. He calls for eliminating all emissions from the transportation sector by 2030. And while the original resolution doesn’t exclude the use of nuclear power or developing technologies like carbon capture, Sanders’ proposal prohibits so-called “false solutions,” specifically naming nuclear, carbon sequestration, and geoengineering among them.

But while the Green New Deal (original) and its effect in shifting the conversation on climate in politics has been up to this point most closely identified with Ocasio-Cortez, today’s announcement could essentially transfer the concept to Sanders. So if at the next round of debates, fellow candidate and Senator Kamala Harris utters her support for a “Green New Deal”, as she has in the previous two, she’ll essentially be saying she supports Sanders’ plan. It’s his now — both its transformative allure, as well as its heavy price tag.

But at least, according to Sanders’ estimates, he can get the job done for less than 20 percent of what the Republicans say a Green New Deal will cost.

Continue reading: 

Bernie Sanders’ ‘Green New Deal’ looks like a trillion bucks (OK, 16 trillion)

Posted in Accent, alo, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders’ ‘Green New Deal’ looks like a trillion bucks (OK, 16 trillion)

How are Republicans dealing with Green New Deal enthusiasm? As well as you’d expect.

by MeriditFurphy Posted on February 11, 2019

Subscribe to The Beacon

This post has been updated to include Senator Klobuchar’s endorsement of the Green New Deal.

Congressional Republicans don’t have a plan to tackle climate change — an issue voters across the political spectrum now agree needs to be addressed — but it only took a weekend for the GOP to come up with a response to the Green New Deal proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.

Surprise! The right is not a fan of the proposal, which calls for rapid decarbonization of the economy alongside other agenda items like universal healthcare, housing, and a federal jobs guarantee. Already, more than 15 percent of the House — 68 members — have signed on as sponsors of the deal. Supporters include five high-profile presidential contenders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and, most recently, Amy Klobuchar.

Always free, always fresh.

Ask your climate scientist if Grist is right for you. See our privacy policy

Republicans, banking on the hope that backing such an ambitious proposal will come back to bite Democrats during the presidential election next year, unleashed a torrent of backhanded encouragement.

“It would be great for the so-called ‘Carbon Footprint’ to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!,” President Trump tweeted on Saturday. Eliminating airplanes and oil and gas would be great for our carbon footprint, but the resolution doesn’t actually call for an end to fossil fuels.

“I would like them to push it as far as they can. I’d like to see it on the floor. I’d like to see them actually have to vote on it,” Idaho Republican Representative Mike Simpson told Politico, adding, “It’s crazy. It’s loony.” South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham tweeted on Friday, “Let’s vote on the Green New Deal!”

Other Republicans took a more straightforward approach. Wyoming Republican and Environment Chair John Barrasso called the deal a “socialist manifesto.” “I think everyone on our side would say that the Green New Deal is a little bit much,” Michigan Representative Fred Upton told journalists.

Clearly, Republicans are a bit skeptical of the goals outlined in AOC and Markey’s resolution. But I think the Democrats pushing the deal would agree with Senator Graham: “Let’s vote on the Green New Deal!”

Jump to original: 

How are Republicans dealing with Green New Deal enthusiasm? As well as you’d expect.

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, OXO, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How are Republicans dealing with Green New Deal enthusiasm? As well as you’d expect.

Green New Deal leaves nuclear option on table

by BettieTabarez Posted on February 8, 2019

Subscribe to The Beacon

The Green New Deal has been championed by advocates for getting the country running on purely renewable energy right away. Some 600 environmental groups had demanded the initiative set out to ban not just fossil fuels, but also nuclear, biomass power, and large-scale hydroelectricity. So when the resolution made its long-awaited debut on Thursday, it came as a surprise to some that the door was left open for nuclear power and even fossil fuels with carbon capture.

But it was likely the key to getting an impressive group of Democrats to get behind the deal. Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren have signed up as co-sponsors, and all of them just happen to be running for president in 2020.

So just like that, the most aggressive climate policy proposal we’ve seen in years has the de facto backing of the Democratic party.

The Green New Deal doesn’t mention ‘nukes,’ but it doesn’t use the words solar or wind, either. The non-binding resolution, unveiled by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, and Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts, calls for “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” In wonk-speak, zero-emission is code for nuclear power or fossil fuels with carbon capture.

That conflicts with a factsheet found on Ocasio-Cortez’s website which says the deal “would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

The factsheet disappeared from Ocasio-Cortez’s website on Thursday after the resolution was released.

This antinuclear stance might have been toned down to help get people who support nuclear into the coalition. Booker and Warren, for instance, have voted to fund research on advanced nuclear power.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we will need to rely on a variety of energy sources to make deep cuts to carbon emissions. Every scenario plotted by Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change that keeps the world from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius requires nuclear energy, and most such scenarios require building a lot more of it. Hydropower — the most abundant source of renewable energy going — is important, too. Try to get rid of both nuclear and hydroelectricity, and good luck cutting emissions enough to avoid the worst climate change has to offer.

“The resolution is silent on any individual technology,” Senator Markey said during a press conference on Thursday. “We are open to whatever works.”

In spite of this agnostic stance, a wide range of green and lefty groups welcomed the resolution. Many mainstream environmental organizations had refrained from adding their signatures to the letter demanding the Green New Deal restrict energy options to wind and solar, so when it emerged Thursday, they praised it.

The loudest attacks appeared to come from the right. “It’s a socialist manifesto that lays out a laundry list of government giveaways, including guaranteed food, housing, college, and economic security even for those who refuse to work,” said Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming in a statement.

Conservatives have long feared that climate action was just a Trojan Horse for a bigger government with more social-welfare programs. Now, after voting for years to kill market-based climate policies, they’re getting a taste of just what they had feared.

See original article here: 

Green New Deal leaves nuclear option on table

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Green New Deal leaves nuclear option on table

New bill would crack down on fish fraud

by bloksaggfdflajn Posted on March 8, 2013

New bill would crack down on fish fraud

By John Upton

Sharon Mollerus

This is, like, swordfish or something.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is trying, once again, to take the fishy business out of the fish business.

Seafood diners and shoppers often have no idea what type of fish they’re actually buying. A stomach-turning investigation unveiled last month by nonprofit Oceana found that about a third of fish tested around the U.S. were mislabeled. A separate investigation by The Boston Globe found that 76 percent of samples from restaurants and markets in Massachusetts were mislabeled — and that was after the Globe had caught those same sellers mislabeling previously.

So Markey has taken an old bill off ice after it went nowhere last year, tightened up some of its language, and reintroduced it.

“This bill finally tells the seafood swindlers and fish fraudsters that we will protect America’s fishermen and consumers from Massachusetts to Alaska,” Markey, who’s currently running to fill John Kerry’s old Senate seat, said in a press release:

To prevent seafood fraud, Rep. Markey’s SAFE Seafood Act, formally the Safety and Fraud Enforcement for Seafood Act, requires information that is already collected by U.S. fishermen — such as species name, catch location, and harvest method — to ‘follow the fish,’ and be made available to consumers. It also requires foreign exporters of seafood to the United States to provide equivalent documentation.

The bill also expands the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to refuse entry of unsafe or fraudulent seafood shipments, and allows NOAA to levy civil penalties against violators under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Sounds pretty good. But Markey is currently in the minority in the House, and Congress is dysfunctional to the point of paralyzation, so don’t expect the bill to go anywhere fast.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read the article – 

New bill would crack down on fish fraud

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New bill would crack down on fish fraud

Can we afford to give a $40 billion gift to oil companies?

by greenenergy4 Posted on February 27, 2013

Can we afford to give a $40 billion gift to oil companies?

By John Upton

ShutterstockOne of America’s many gifts to oil and gas companies: billions of dollars worth of royalty-free drilling.

What present do you give to the corporation that already has everything?

In the case of Chevron, the U.S. has provided a gift of $1.5 billion in royalty-free drilling in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1990s.

That’s according to a new analysis [PDF] of Interior Department figures by the office of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. He is calling on his colleagues in Congress to end the handouts.

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell have received nearly $3 billion in royalty breaks, paying nothing for extracting 262 million barrels of oil and 361 billion cubic feet of natural gas, the report concludes. Chevron was the biggest winner, but more than 100 other companies, some owned by foreign governments, have also shared in spoils of leases signed during an era of low oil prices.

“The royalty breaks enjoyed by these companies have already cost $11 billion in forgone revenue,” a press release sent out by Markey’s office states, “and are expected to cost more than $15.5 billion over the next decade — exceeding previous estimates by the Interior Department — and may ultimately reach a total of $40 billion as oil and gas production rises.”

How is this possible? The Washington Post explains:

Once upon a time, the price of oil was so low — dropping under $11 a barrel in late 1998 — that Congress agreed that big oil companies needed incentives to drill for oil in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. So in 1995 it ordered the Interior Department to waive royalties on virtually all of the oil and natural gas that would come out of wells drilled between 1996 and 2000.

Markey thinks it’s high time the fossil-fuel sector starts paying more for the gas and oil that it drills out of the Gulf. Again from the Post:

Of course, oil prices have also grown markedly since 1995, up nine-fold from the nadir of 1998.

As oil prices soared, lawmakers and the Interior Department tried to revoke the waiver, invoking a clause requiring that royalties be paid when oil passed a price of $28 a barrel (adjusted for inflation) or when production volume passed certain thresholds.

But one of the companies, Kerr McGee, later acquired by Anadarko, filed suit and won Court of Appeals backing for its assertion that the Interior Department lacked authority under the 1995 act to impose price thresholds. After the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, oil companies, which had been paying the royalties anyway pending an outcome to the case, received refunds. Markey says the provisional payments show that the companies did not need relief to begin with.

With record high oil prices, the 1995 deal looks worse and worse from the government’s point of view. And Markey is saying that undoing it could contribute a small portion of the revenues needed to avoid the looming automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.

In somewhat related news, federal efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles, weatherize homes, and roll out solar panels on federal lands could be slashed if Congress and the president can’t agree on a plan to avoid the sequester by Friday.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original:

Can we afford to give a $40 billion gift to oil companies?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can we afford to give a $40 billion gift to oil companies?