|
Joe Kennedy III on Energy & Oil
|
|
Invest in renewable and energy-efficiency technologies
Middle-class families are paying too much at the pump because of this country's fundamental failure to address its crippling dependence on foreign oil. We need to be doing all we can to lower costs and offer those families some relief.A comprehensive
energy plan is essential to the economy, environment, and security of our district, state and country.
That means maximizing our domestic resources in a responsible way, seriously committing to renewable energy technologies and fuel efficiency
measures.
This is also about jobs. Investing in renewable and energy-efficiency technologies in the district will create the kind of highly-skilled, middle-class jobs that our industries are built on.
Making homes, schools, and offices more energy efficient is highly-skilled work that can't be shipped overseas. Pursuing new energy technologies will help put our communities back to work and keep us at the forefront of innovation.
Source: 2012 House campaign website, joekennedy2012.com, "Issues"
, Nov 6, 2012
Human activity is contributing to climate change
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. With climate change threatening irreparable harm on our ecosystems and economy, we
need to move away from carbon-intensive sources of energy. I support federal environmental and economic policies that will reward zero- and low-carbon energy producers.
Source: MA Congressional 2012 Political Courage Test
, Oct 30, 2012
Supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Kennedy supports the PVS survey question on greenhouse gases
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?'
Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q18 on Aug 30, 2012
Voted YES on banning offshore oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico.
Kennedy 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.
Kennedy 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.
Kennedy 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 30, 2020