Once more, Eric Massa on the right side of wrong
From Eric’s website comes this press release:
Rep. Eric Massa votes against Cap and Trade Legislation
06/26/09
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Rep. Eric Massa voted against H.R. 2454, the much anticipated American Clean Energy and Security Act. On Tuesday evening, Rep. Collin Peterson, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman, the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, brokered an agreement to improve the focus on biofuels, however Rep. Massa ultimately decided that he could not support the bill for several reasons. The bill passed by a vote of 219 to 212.
“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act
of 2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact,
it might make the problem worse.
He addresses- one,by one each issue he takes with this bill. Twelve in all, but my favorite is #11:
11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”-:
The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.”-
Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic
substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and
low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a
fuel source are also defined as “renewable.”- Under the bill,
neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global
warming.
Read the whole thing. Fascinating what they’re trying to pawn off as clean energy. Reminds me of what they’re trying to pass off as Health Care reform.
Remember to thank Eric Massa, once again.
Related posts:
Not sure I agree with him on this one. I was glad to see it pass.
Did you read the Kucinich piece? How can you rationalize a plan that gives subsidies to coal? I’m sorry, there is no way to justify this piece of legislation.
If the subsidy goes to researching or a test of carbon capture, then I would say it is worth it.
http://www.co2captureproject.org/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-capture.htm
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5535WG20090604?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNewshttp://www.alternet.org/environment/140389/carbon_capture_can‘t_make_coal_clean/
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=09-P13-00026&segmentID=3
Sure, Tom. In my spare time.
I appreciate the links, but could you summerize?
Just spent the past several hours reading an article about carbon capture in Scientific American Earth 3.0. Summarize? Not sure it is possible.
I guess many believe the only way for coal-generated electricity to survive in the future is with carbon capture. There are three main ways to accomplish carbon capture, none of which I understand. But the reading did open up another question for me. Already captured carbon is sold for other purposes–carbonated drinks, but more interesting, is it used to force more oil out of the ground and then it remains behind, underground. Using this concept, it is believed that carbon can be forced underground and stored for anywhere from 100 to 1000 years. Supposedly leaks shouldn’t be an issue if sites are selected carefully and even so, after a significant number of years the gas turns into a liquid brine.
I guess the point is, whether this is the technology that allows the continued burning of coal in the future, or whether carbon capture could be used to clean up the existing carbon problem, much, much more research and testing needs to be done.
Right now it seems no one knows…opinions range from “this is a great hope for the future” to “this is too expensive” to “this won’t work and it is too dangerous”
OK, so we know why Dennis Kuncinich didn’t vote for it, but what about Massa?
How do we know he didn’t vote against it for the same reasons the republicans didn’t vote for it? Massa is very concerned about his re-election in a heavily republican district, how do we know his motivation wasn’t to placate conservative voters for the next election. Did he make a statement on this one? Just because he’s the progressive darlin’ doesn’t give him a pass…does it?
I’ll reserve my thank yous until we know.
No, of course he doesn’t get a pass and, of course he is placating his constituents. That’s what a congressman is supposed to do. If that is what it took for him to vote against a less than adequate bill, then he gets my thanks.
My understanding is that his, “No” vote was related to the lack of support for hydrogen fuel cell technology.
My apologies for not including a link to the entire press release. I will remedy the situation right now.
Eric’s statement:
“To all those who are disappointed by my vote, I want you to know that I had to vote against this bill because I know there is a better way to promote clean energy, create green jobs and protect our environment. The devil is in the details and the details of this bill worked against the goals and requirements of the 29th Congressional District. Sometimes in Congress, you have to vote no to get a better bill.”
OK, that’s better…
I’m not angry at Massa for voting against it. I understand his reasoning and I admire his ability to think for himself.
But, I also don’t necessarily take his press release as my own opinion either. I’ve read about a lot of good the bill will do from other places and I sometimes think if you sit around insisting on the “perfect” piece of legislation, it will never happen. Some things need to happen in steps. Sometimes you do need to compromise to move forward.
So, I’m happy the bill passed and I’m ok with Massa having voting against it.
I absolutely understand where you are comng from, Andrea. Many of our readers believe in incrementalism. With some issues, I’m ok with that, but the environment and health care are issues too emergent with which to take baby steps.
Understood, we’ll have to disagree. We both agree that they are too important. I think they are too important to not start taking any steps.
“Many of our readers believe in incrementalism”?
Is that where the earth is 6,000 years old and men rode dinosaurs?
So, considering that this bill barely passed, what was Massa talking about waiting for a “better bill”? What better bill that would be more restrictive/progressive, [depending on your perpective] could have had any chance of passing?
Are you sure on this?
Publius,
If I were sure of anything, I wouldn’t be here.
So, from what you’re saying (I think, I’m not sure) is that passing a bad bill is better than passing no bill?
They should pass the bill without fixing the bad parts and hope that the bad parts just go away or somehow become good?
Doesn’t the congress have a majority of Dems and don’t they believe in Climate Change? (Maybe they believe in incrementalism) Didn’t we elect them to craft a bill which actually addresses the problem that it is created to address?
I know, poor ladkiddo! How immature and incurably green!
Most bills, such as this one aren’t “bad” or “good”. They have parts that will work and parts that won’t. I’m not going to say that it’s a “bad” piece of legislation. I’m sure it’s imperfect.
How big is passing this bill? Well, I seem to recall in very recent history there was a debate in Washington if Global Warming or Climate Change was even a threat that the US should try to address. 6 months later there is not a debate.
Is the bill perfect? No. Will it change as it navigates to through the Senate and ultimately on to Obama’s desk? Absolutely. Do we need to continue to push and add strength by shedding sunlight onto the components of the bill that are “weak”? You betcha.
Re Massa and his vote - I suspect that if Hydrogen were included into the bill it would have secured his vote.
Thank you Stlo7. This is the first thing said here that makes me happy that this legislation passed. From that perspective (no belief in Climate change to no argument that it exists) it suddenly feels alot better.
My concern is that, if we can’t get something of substance from the house which has a greater Dem majority, how will we get an improvement in the senate?
Granted - the Senate - but - it will be done by keeping the pressure on various members - And Although Gore recognizes that the current bill in its current form is “progress” I also suspect that he would like it to go further.
Finally - re incrementalism, Climate change and Health care. There is a time and place for incrementalism - I seen Climate change and Health care two separate unrelated points on the same time line with regards to incrementalism.
Climate Change - we are simply just getting started with our Government. We have taken the first step.
Health Care - we have been messing around with Health care reform for the past 100 years - we have recognized it needs to be reformed, have taken steps in the past and now can built on those steps in the future.
My analogy for this topic is this….let’s not have everyone wait for their future fuel cell car when people can easily make huge personal cuts in gasoline usage by simply trading in an SUV for a Honda Fit or someone who currently drives a relatively fuel efficient car trades that in for a hybrid.
It’s never good to put many eggs in one basket. The corn ethanol ship has sailed. It is not the great solution it was once thought to be…every little bit helps, but don’t bank on ethanol being one of the great solutions. Hydrogen fuel cells cars is another touchy subject. I know everyone is excited about what GM is doing locally, but from what I hear, cost will continue to be the major roadblock. From what I understand, for the short term, hydrogen fuel cell cars will not be affordable. Period. Honda is leasing fuel cells now, but only leasing them because they need them back. It is believed the true cost of the technology in those cars is in the $200,000 neighborhood.
So, I guess I’m saying that its better not to wait for the perfect solution when incremental improvements will get the snowball rolling.
At seedmagazine.com, I found this:
So, I guess if it’s good enough for Al, it’s good enough for me.
Does this mean you changed your mind?
Silly rabbit…
Nope, it means I’ve changed my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
Still got the same mind.
I mean, really, isn’t that what’s great about blogging? It’s like this great exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinion and then in the end, the culmination of gathering all this information, dissecting it and rearranging thought patterns, results in some one turning the corner and seeing the light.
My mind is open for business.
…….are for kids.
Actually, ladkiddo, it means you’re flip-flopping, much like all those who have ever changed their opinions based on new information. Like scientists and statesmen. If only you could “stay the course” instead, you too could be part of things like the RenSquare project.