|
Eric Swalwell on Energy & Oil
Withdrawn Democratic Presidential Challenger; CA Rep
|
|
Keep US in Paris Climate Agreement, with ambitious targets
Q: As president, would you keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement and commit to more ambitious targets in 2020?Swalwell: "As president, I would keep the United States in the Paris Agreement; this is a global crisis, and we must work with the world to
address it. We can aim for more ambitious targets in 2020."
Q: Do you support a federal carbon tax?
Swalwell: "I'm open to exploring the idea of a federal carbon tax. We need to get to a carbon-neutral status, and this could help."
Q: Would you restore Obama-era climate change regulations that the Trump administration has reversed, like the Clean Power Plan, methane limits and vehicle emissions standards?
Swalwell: "President Obama was on the right track toward making our
country more climate responsible with regulations like the Clean Power Plan, methane limits and vehicle emissions standards. I would restore all of the Obama-era regulations that the Trump administration has reversed."
Source: 2019 "Meet the Candidates" (NY Times.com)
, Apr 18, 2019
Support for Green New Deal and Paris climate accord
Swalwell has˙voiced support for the Green New Deal,˙the progressive climate action bill that
House Democrats introduced in February. He has also expressed strong disapproval of President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord.
Source: PBS News Hour on 2020 Democratic primary
, Apr 10, 2019
Fight climate change, but protect jobs
"Most Americans agree that to address climate chaos, to make sure your house doesn't end up underwater or on fire, we should do something about it but make sure we're not pitting workers against their job,"
Swalwell said in his campaign video. He said he's supportive of the principles of the Green New Deal.
Source: Axios.com "What you need to know about 2020"
, Apr 9, 2019
R&D--but also manufacturing--for clean energy technology
Bay Area companies and venture capitalists have invested in the development of clean energy technology, but we are falling behind in ramping up manufacturing. The problem is two-fold: other governments are working with private companies to clearly
establish a defined national clean energy program that creates an environment of certainty for investors and these governments are providing direct financing and other incentives to establish lasting manufacturing industries in a new and significant
global industry.I think that America, and the Bay Area cannot afford to lose out on the clean energy industry and the innovation and economic growth it will bring. The US must adopt a sensible national renewable energy policy with clear goals for
reducing pollution and our dependence on dirty and outdated energy systems.
I believe we must do more to develop alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil and promote American innovation and jobs.
Source: 2012 House campaign website, swalwellforcongress.com
, Nov 6, 2012
Voted YES on banning offshore oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico.
Swalwell 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
50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030.
Swalwell co-sponsored H.Res.637/S.Res.386
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;
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should--- Establish a national goal of more than 50 percent clean and carbon free electricity by 2030; and
- Enact legislation to accelerate the transition to clean energy to meet this goal.
Source: Resolution for 50% Carbon-Free Electricity by 2030 16-HRes637 on Mar 3, 2016
Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization.
Swalwell 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 23, 2020