Sheldon Whitehouse on Energy & Oil Democratic Jr Senator, previously attorney general

Replace oil lobby with entirely new energy strategy

A: In America, we need an entirely new energy strategy. Our present energy strategy is being dictated to the Republicans by the oil companies, the gas companies, and the coal companies -- by the big energy lobby. And it is bad for our country. It is bad for our country from a national security point of view. It is bad for our country from a environmental point of view. It is bad for our country from an economic point of view. We need a new energy strategy that relies on innovation in America to develop new technologies that are safer environmentally, that relieve us from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and that free our economy from oil shocks. A new strategy can harness American innovation, to bring the jobs for a new energy economy into this country, which will do us a world of good, literally as a matter of national urgency.

Push for tougher CAFE standards

A: As a nation, we must cut our dependence on foreign oil and preserve our environment with a commitment to energy independence by 2020. I will push for tougher CAFE standards, increased federal investment in developing renewable energy sources, and greater incentives for Americans to use clean energy technologies.

New technologies for environmentally-friendly energy

Federal collaboration for advanced nuclear technologies.

Press Release from 5 Senators: The Senate today approved, 87-4, legislation that would facilitate advanced nuclear technologies, as part of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), S. 2461, which prioritizes partnering with private innovators on new reactor technologies and the testing and demonstration of reactor concepts.

Supporters arguments:

• `Nuclear energy has an important role to play as we transition to a carbon-free energy future. This amendment will help drive investment, remove bureaucratic barriers, and allow our entrepreneurs and businesses to unleash the promise of advanced nuclear technologies,` said Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).
• `Including clean nuclear energy as part of our nation`s `all-of-the-above` energy strategy is a no-brainer,` said Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

Opposing environmental argument: (Sierra Club FactSheet, `Why Nuclear Power Doesn`t Make Sense`): As the disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown, nuclear power can cause catastrophic damage to land & human health. We should pursue our cleanest, quickest, safest, and cheapest energy options first: Nuclear power comes out last in every one of those categories.

Opposing economic argument: (Cato Institute Commentary, `Risky Business`): Many free-market advocates support nuclear because it costs less to generate nuclear power than it does to generate electricity from any other source. However, someone has to first pay for--and build--these plants and the rub is that nuclear has very high, upfront construction costs ranging from $6-9 billion. By contrast, gas plants cost only a few hundred million dollars to build and coal a couple of billion. But the final nail in the coffin for the industry would be if the federal cap on the liability that nuclear power plant owners face in case of accidents (the Price-Anderson Act) were to be lifted.

50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030.

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030 for the purposes of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, growing our economy, increasing our shared prosperity, improving public health, and preserving our national security.

• Whereas failing to act on climate change will have a devastating impact on our Nation`s economy, costing us billions of dollars in lost GDP;
• Whereas extreme weather, intensified by climate change, has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year in recovery efforts, and this will only continue if climate change is left unaddressed;
• Whereas climate change will have devastating public health implications, including increased asthma attacks and exacerbation of other respiratory diseases, especially in vulnerable populations;
• Whereas inaction on climate change will disproportionately impact communities of color and exacerbate existing economic inequalities;
• Whereas the transition to a clean energy economy is feasible with existing technology;
• Whereas the transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs and will increase our country`s GDP and increase disposable household income;

1. Establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030; and
2. Enact legislation to accelerate the transition to clean energy to meet this goal.

Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS WILDERNESS.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 is amended by adding at the end the following:

Designation of Certain Land as Wilderness- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska comprising approximately 1,559,538 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled `Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--1002 Area. Alternative E--Wilderness Designation, October 28, 1991` and available for inspection in the offices of the Secretary, is designated as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act`.

Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards.

A bill to permit California and other States to effectively control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, and for other purposes. Amends the Clean Air Act to approve the application of the state of California for a waiver of federal preemption of its motor vehicle emission standards.

Page last updated: Sep 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org Лучший частный хостинг