|
Alan Lowenthal on Energy & Oil
|
|
|
Restrict offshore drilling; regulate greenhouse gases
Q: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production?A: No.
Q: Do you believe that human activity is contributing to climate change?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
A: Yes.
Source: California Congressional 2012 Political Courage Test
, Oct 30, 2012
Voted YES on banning offshore oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico.
Lowenthal voted YEA Interior & Environment Agencies Appropriations
Congressional Summary: House amendment to H.R. 5538, the Interior & Environment Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2017. This amendment would prohibit funds to be used to research, investigate, or study offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Heritage Foundation recommends voting NO: (7/13/2016): The Gulf of Mexico continues to be a very important asset for our energy future and it continues to produce significant amounts of oil and natural gas. Yet the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has not participated to this point despite its significant potential. A 2014 Heritage Foundation report said: "Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied oil production and prevented the full effects of the energy boom." This amendment would block any potential progress that could take place by preventing the necessary work that would need to be prepared in the East Gulf for potential lease sales and eventual
production.
Sierra Club recommends voting YES: (1/12/1974): The Sierra Club believes that no offshore petroleum exploration should occur unless and until the following conditions are met:
- Strengthen the Coastal Zone Management System.
- Lease sales should be prohibited in areas that possess:
- High seismic activity
- Fragile or unstable geological structures
- Proximity to particularly diverse or productive marine ecosystems, or marine sanctuaries
- Where visual impact of offshore structures would significantly reduce aesthetic values
- Where the risks are unusually high.
- Petroleum exploration and production must be subject to automatic, heavy fines for all oil spills regardless of cause.
- The Sierra Club opposes leasing of lands beyond 200 meters depth until international agreements [define] ownership of sea floor resources.
Legislative outcome: Failed House 185 to 243 (no Senate vote).
Source: Supreme Court case 16-H5538B argued on Jul 13, 2016
Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization.
Lowenthal co-sponsored the Resolution on Green New Deal
This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of:
- achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
- establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
- investing in infrastructure and industry;
- securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
- promoting justice and equality.
The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including:building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; andproviding higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.Opposing argument from the Cato Institute, 2/24/2019: While reasonable people can disagree on some aspects of the Green New Deal's proposals, one fact is uncontroversial: the US cannot afford them. The Green New Deal would likely cost upwards of $6.6 trillion per year. The federal government should look for cheaper ways to address problems like climate change. Instead of the Green New Deal, the federal government could adopt a revenue??neutral carbon tax to decrease emissions without exacerbating the fiscal imbalance. Economists from across the political spectrum support carbon taxation as the most cost??effective way to address climate change. And a carbon tax would be most effective if uniformly adopted by other countries, too.
Source: H.Res.109/S.Res.59 19-HR0109 on Feb 7, 2019
Page last updated: May 12, 2020