|
|
Joe Neguse on Energy & Oil |
JOE NEGUSE (D-CO-2): I think we're a big tent party.
Q: But he's a more progressive voice within it.
NEGUSE: Of course. And there are also many other voices. I am a progressive Democrat and believe that we should be bold in pushing for some really comprehensive solutions around some of the pressing public policy challenges that we face: climate change and the planetary crisis being the best example perhaps. But we are a big tent party. We are inclusive. We are diverse. I think that's a good thing. So I appreciate his voice just as I do the voice of many, many other leaders in the party who are all stepping up to the plate at a really critical time for our democracy.
Joe Neguse: As virtually all scientists agree, I strongly believe that climate change is caused by human activity and directly influenced by our carbon and other emissions. It is incumbent upon us to combat climate change as it is the existential crisis of our time, and I'm proud to have the support of organizations & individuals committed to that cause, including the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and former President Barack Obama. I believe we should have stronger federal emissions standards, a federal carbon tax, and an end to the massive subsidies currently provided in our tax code to oil and gas companies who contribute so greatly to climate change. The 2nd District is also fortunate to have many incredible federal climate research labs in our district, and I will work to preserve and expand the funding for their work, as well as the development and advancement of renewable energy sources.
Project Vote Smart inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Energy & Environment: Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?' PVS self-description: "The Political Courage Test provides voters with positions on key issues. Historically, candidates have failed to complete our test due to the advice they receive from their advisors and out of fear of negative attack ads."
Project Vote Smart inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Energy & Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?' PVS self-description: "The Political Courage Test provides voters with positions on key issues. Historically, candidates have failed to complete our test due to the advice they receive from their advisors and out of fear of negative attack ads."
This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of:
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.
Congressional Summary:This bill requires the Department of Energy to award grants to assist rural electric cooperatives with identifying, evaluating, and designing energy storage and microgrid projects that rely on renewable energy. (A microgrid is a group of interconnected energy resources that acts as a single controllable entity and that can disconnect from the grid to operate in island mode.)
SciPol statement in support: HR4447 would establish a microgrid grant and technical assistance program for rural electric cooperatives. Rural electric cooperatives are non-profit consumer-owned electric cooperatives that came into being in the 1930s to serve the needs of rural areas otherwise ignored by investor-owned (for-profit) utilities. Most rural electric power is still provided by rural electric co-ops.
Trump's Statement of Administration Policy (against): HR 4447 would implement a top-down approach that undermines the Administration's deregulatory agenda. HR 4447 would lead to higher energy costs and discourage innovation. It would create a "green bank" that would subsidize projects similar to wellknown failures like Solyndra. Finally, HR 4447 would interfere with our own energy destiny free from the reins of the Paris Climate Accord and international organizations that ignore the clear lessons that have led to American energy independence.
Common Dreams (against): Over 100 groups--including major environmental, climate and progressive organizations--oppose HR 4447. The heaviest burdens of the climate crisis fall on low-income communities and communities of color. "We applaud the environmental justice measures in this bill, but cannot support legislation that extends our country's reliance upon fossil fuels," said the Executive Director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
Legislative outcome: Passed House 220-185-24, Roll #206 on Sep. 24, 2020.