Loading...

Follow Echo Action | News on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid
July 6. 2018
Fossil fuels (all of them!) are the energy of the past. With new technologies like wind, solar, and advanced batteries in our hands, we can power today and tomorrow with clean, reliable energy that doesn’t harm our health and destroy our planet.
Natural gas is a growing energy source – one many are putting a lot of faith in.
Proponents like to portray the fuel as a cuddlier cousin to coal and oil when it comes to climate because it generates less carbon dioxide when burned. But its CO2 emissions are only one piece of a far more nuanced puzzle.
Many of the arguments in support of natural gas are based on outdated or incorrect information – sometimes going so far as to border on wishful thinking. That’s why we’re setting the record straight on some of the most common myths about natural gas and our climate.
NATURAL GAS WILL NOT SOLVE THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
When people make this argument, they’re (mostly) referring to one thing in particular that is indeed true of natural gas: a new, efficient natural gas power plant emits around 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) during combustion when compared with a typical coal-based power plant, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
To be sure, we should take seriously any source of energy that reduces our dependence on coal and oil, the primary sources of the carbon emissions that drive climate change. But let’s also engage in some real talk: 50 percent less CO2 also isn’t zero CO2, and CO2 isn’t the only harmful emission generated by natural gas development.
We’re still talking about a fossil fuel here, one that still contributes to climate change when burned. And achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century is essential to the long-term health of our planet.
That number also doesn’t take into account all of the carbon emissions that happen across the full life cycle of natural gas, particularly during extraction, infrastructure construction, transport, and storage. But rather than dwell, let’s just get straight to the real climate Big Bad when it comes to natural gas – methane.
Methane is a very, very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, compared to carbon, it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However, when it first enters the atmosphere, it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20 year period.
(Carbon dioxide hangs around for much longer: As much as 15 percent of today’s carbon dioxide will still be in the atmosphere in 10,000 years.)
And a lot of the methane that ends up in the atmosphere comes from natural gas production.
“The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane,” Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) notes. “Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called ‘fugitive’ methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions.”
(When we talk about “total life-cycle emissions,” we’re talking all emissions from the source, including those leaked during its extraction, transportation, and more, and not just what is emitted when a fuel source is burned to create energy.)
If you’re thinking, “The difference between 1 and 9 percent is a pretty big deal,” you’re absolutely right. It’s also an exceptionally important metric when talking about the relative value of natural gas in the climate fight. For a natural gas power plant to have lower life-cycle emissions than a coal plant (as proponents keep claiming is the benefit), the entire system’s methane leakage must be kept below 3.2 percent.
NATURAL GAS IS NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
To start, the extraction process is rife with potential problems. Much of our natural gas comes through the process of hydraulic fracturing – aka “fracking.” In this process, companies drill boreholes deep into the earth and inject liquid into subterranean rock at very high pressure. This forces open rock fissures and releases gas from within the rock or reservoirs below.
In particular, fracking can contaminate groundwater supplies if it’s not done properly.
Fracked gas is typically found pretty deep in the earth – much further down than the water table. But the boreholes carrying the gas back up to the surface travel straight through the water-bearing rocks, called aquifers, from which many of us get our water. The injected fracking fluid often contains dangerous chemicals that no one would want to drink – and if the borehole is not properly cased, those chemicals can escape into groundwater.
And it’s important to remember that natural gas development is itself far from pollution-free.
“Some areas where drilling occurs have experienced increases in concentrations of hazardous air pollutants and two of the six criteria pollutants — particulate matter and ozone plus its precursors — regulated by the EPA because of their harmful effects on health and the environment,” the Union of Concerned Scientists reports. “Exposure to elevated levels of these air pollutants can lead to adverse health outcomes, including respiratory symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.”
Exposure to these pollutants can be particularly damaging to very young children.
“Given the profound sensitivity of the developing brain and the central nervous system, it is very reasonable to conclude that young children who experience frequent exposure to these pollutants are at particularly high risk for chronic neurological problems and disease,” the Center for Environmental Health’s Ellen Webb, a researcher on the neurological and neurodevelopmental effects of chemicals linked to unconventional oil and gas operations, told the Guardian last year.
NATURAL GAS IS A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.
The conversation over natural gas’ value as a “bridge fuel” is a fraught one. Supporters claim that it’s a better alternative to coal that will carry us until renewables like wind and solar can fully power the grid. But let us ask you this: Would you take a bridge at all if there was no river, ravine, or other obstacle you had to cross?
That’s to say, we already have zero or near-zero carbon-emitting energy sources that are preferable to coal, oil, and natural gas. Residential and utility-scale wind, solar, and geothermal energy are up and running and getting better every day – and they’re increasingly cost-competitive with energy produced by fossil fuels. Right now.
Yale Climate Connections makes the stakes plain: “Although it might not be practical to replace all coal plants with renewables immediately, it’s definitely possible to do so in the next decade if renewables continue to fall in price.”
The article goes on to highlight the real danger of the bridge fuel fallacy: “If we replace coal with gas today, we’ve sunk costs into new gas infrastructure that we might be loath to replace a few years later with renewables. In this way, a gas bridge could delay the widespread adoption of renewables.”
If natural gas expansion comes at the expense of renewables, the greenhouse gas emissions threat to our climate continues. And there’s already plenty of evidence that overemphasizing gas really does siphon investment away from renewable energy sources that produce truly clean power.
The bottom line is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and simply shifting from coal to it won’t keep the US on track to meet its emissions reduction goals, even if methane leakages are reined in.
So rather than make an unnecessary, temporary wholesale switch to natural gas, the smarter tactic would be to phase out coal while moving straight to utility-scale renewable energy – something that is totally doable.
Listen, we get it: Fossil fuels helped power the Industrial Revolution and helped shape the past two centuries. But they’re just that – the energy of the past. With new technologies like wind, solar, and advanced batteries in our hands, we can power today and tomorrow with clean, reliable energy that doesn’t harm our health and destroy our planet.
It’s just that simple.
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
POWER TO THE PEOPLE: THE PUC AND FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION IN NH
Thursday, August 2nd, 6:00 pm
49 Community Way, Keene NH
* Across from Monadnock Food Co-Op: Please park with care as many areas are for residents or co-op customers.
D. Maurice Kreis, New Hampshire’s Consumer Advocate at the Public Utility Commission (PUC) visits Keene on Thursday, Aug 2nd. The Clean Energy Team is hosting a talk by Attorney Kreis on his role advocating for residential ratepayers in public utility proceedings and policy decisions. OCA Kreis will address the impact of public engagement and share his perspective on what issues matter to the PUC. The presentation starts at 6 PM at 49 Community Way, across from the Co-Op.
A panel discussion with educator and ECHO Action activist, Stephanie Scherr, Keene City Councilor, Terry Clark, and Attorney Richard Husband immediately follows the presentation. All three panelists are involved in dockets currently before the PUC and will share their experiences in “picking their battles,” and the opportunities for engagement by interested citizens.
The Clean Energy Team of Monadnock Progressive Alliance hosts educational events to help our neighbors and local businesses learn about the economic, environmental and health benefits of energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy.
The event is free and open to the public.
HOSTED BY
Monadnock Progressive Alliances' Clean Energy Team
CONTACT
Pat Martin: pmartin2894@yahoo.com
EVENT ON FACEBOOK
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY NH
Join ECHO Action as we participate in Earth Overshoot Day, raising awareness about the rate which we use Earth's natural resources.
"Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when we (all of humanity) have used more from nature than our planet can renew in the entire year.
We are using 1.7 Earths. We use more ecological resources and services than nature can regenerate through overfishing, overharvesting forests, and emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ecosystems can absorb." https://www.overshootday.org/"
WHAT'S EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgbY79Opn34
MOVE THE DATE
“Ultimately, moving back the date of Earth Overshoot Day on the calendar is the name of the game. For instance, cutting food waste by 50% worldwide could move the date by 11 days; reducing the carbon component of the global Ecological Footprint by 50% would move the date of Overshoot Day by 89 days."
ACTION 1 - Start now!
Use our template to write a Letter to the Editor about your fossil fuels expansion and climate concerns!
(link coming!)
ACTION 2
In the evening, we'll be engaging in a political action. Contact us to participate!
EVENT ON FACEBOOK
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
To those waiting for Republicans to take any legislative step toward mitigating the effects of man-made climate change: There's good news and bad news.
First, the good news: On Monday, a House Republican will finally put forward a piece of legislation designed to discourage the burning of fossil fuels. The measure from Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida does so by placing a price on emitting carbon dioxide, which is the sort of measure most economists see as the most cost-effective way of reducing the buildup of the key greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
“I understand that the onus is on Republicans to step up and show that we're willing to tackle this issue in a meaningful way,” Curbelo said in an interview Thursday.
And the bad news? On that same day, 222 of Curbelo's GOP colleagues voted in favor of a resolution by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) declaring any such carbon tax would be “detrimental to the United States economy.”
The overwhelming success of the anti-carbon tax gesture shows the party led by President Trump — who personally rejects climate science — is far from ready to enact any measure to stem the release of more of greenhouse gases.
Representing a portion of South Florida already seeing frequent flooding, Curbelo has emerged as a lone voice with the GOP caucus trying to push his party toward embracing “market-based solutions” to a problem many Republicans refuse to even acknowledge.
But Curbelo is trying to make things less lonely for himself. He, along with fellow Floridian Rep. Ted Deutch (D), founded the Climate Solutions Caucus two years ago to commit a bipartisan group of House members to addressing climate change. At least at the surface, the results are encouraging for environmental advocates. So far, 43 Republicans have joined the caucus.
But environmentalists are less encouraged when they take a look at caucus members' voting records. On Thursday, only six GOP representatives broke with the party and voted against the resolution declaring carbon taxes detrimental. (One Republican Climate Solutions Caucus member voted present.)
It is “astounding that House Republicans would pass an anti-climate resolution with outrageous and factually dubious claims that rejects outright one viable option for addressing climate change,” Deutch said Thursday. “Every member of Congress, especially Climate Solutions Caucus members, should keep all options available.”
Still, some others saw progress. “The fact that six Republicans voted 'no' on an anti-carbon tax resolution is an indication that there are cracks in the wall separating Democrats and Republicans on climate change,” said Mark Reynolds, executive director of the Citizens' Climate Lobby, a grass-roots environmental group that helped organize the caucus. “When a similar resolution came up in the previous Congress, every Republican voted for it.”
Among those Republicans who switched sides on the nonbinding resolution was Curbelo himself.
“I understand for a lot of colleagues when you ask the question in a vacuum, as this resolution did, any tax hurts economic growth.” Curbelo said walking from the floor Thursday after the vote. “But once you put it in a broader context, it can make sense.”
The Florida Republican said while he did not have “a formal whip operation” on the anti-carbon tax resolution, “we did engage members” of the caucus.
He regarded the timing of the resolution from the actual House whip as “a defensive move.” Scalise's office said the timing of his resolution was coincidental.
Curbelo's bill would repeal the federal gasoline tax and replace it with a tax on carbon dioxide levied directly against energy companies and some manufacturers. In turn, the Environmental Protection Agency would be prohibited from regulating carbon dioxide emissions.
Revenue from the carbon tax would go toward housing low-income people, mitigating coastal flooding, researching alternative energy and assisting displaced coal workers.
But the bulk of it would go toward building new infrastructure. “This bill, in addition to being responsible policy, does attempt to capture the political energy of the moment,” Curbelo said.
“Perhaps the only one” of Trump's agenda items, Curbelo added, “that was popular across the American electorate was infrastructure investment.”
Curbelo's bill has earned the support of some environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, whose senior policy adviser Jason Albritton called it “a pretty thoughtful approach to the issue.”
Conservative donors who twist the arms of Curbelo's fellow Republicans quickly dismissed his proposal. “The mere thought of a carbon tax is tantamount to throwing a wet blanket on an economy ignited by tax reform,” said Brent Gardner of Americans for Prosperity, the main political organizing arm of billionaire oilman Charles Koch's donor network.
At the beginning of Trump's presidency, a group of senior Republican statesmen, including former secretaries of state James A. Baker and George P. Shultz, pitched a similar “carbon fee and dividend” to the White House. Under that plan, the federal government would tax carbon but would redistribute the revenue directly to taxpayers. Gary Cohn, then head of Trump’s National Economic Council, heard Baker and his team out.
The White House ultimately did not embrace the plan.
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
The City of Boston's Finance Manager, NH's Consumer Advocate and an NHPR radio host weigh in on ISO New England's peak load data and the role of behind-the-meter solar in our regional energy mix.
Joe LaRusso, Energy Efficiency and Distributed Resources Finance Manager for the City of Boston
, posted 22 tweets on July 20th stating, "July 17 Newswire contains some insights regarding the performance of behind-the-meter (BTM) PV in its service territory during the recent 6/29-7/5 heatwave."
His calculations reveal solid evidence for behind the meter (BTM) photovoltaic (PV) solar power as a means to reduce peak load, and ultimately, our reliance on fossil fuels. It also strengthens the position that we do not need more natural gas.
"The point is this: it’s a clear & irrefutable fact that BTM PV has arrived; that *all* NE electric customers benefit from it; & that its positive effects on the ISO-NE grid will only grow as battery storage becomes ubiquitous and the amount of installed BTM PV increases."
This conversation comes on the heels of 7 tweets on July 5th from D. Maurice Kreis, NH Consumer Advocate, where he questioned crediting the lack of spikes in ISO New England's wholesale markets during the heat wave to Marcellus shale gas.
His comments had come in response to NHPR's Sam Evans Brown's tweets on July 3rd that "things remained decidedly unspicy all day" [on the grid] with only a few small spikes that "didn’t even hit triple digits", wrapping up the tweet with the enthusiastic declaration, "This is the power of the Marcellus Shale at work."
The Twittering discourse between energy gurus and talking heads are expatiations worth following for those entrenched in state and regional energy negotiations, okay, disputes. Utility, energy and pipeline companies have the upper hand in selling pipe dreams of cheap fuel and electricity, while the general public accepts the aggressive sales tactics as some kind of benevolent offering.
Listen, read, learn. Ask questions of those willing to share their expertise. Ask questions of yourself and and your legislators. They can't be expected to be knowledgeable on every issue. We must educate them, and unfortunately, are obligated to dispute the shiny advertising that oozes from every boil of consumerism by multi-billion dollar corporations.
Legislators are taking their cues and talking points from the very sources that seek to profit from our acceptance of promised municipal wealth and ratepayer savings, with no evidence to back up their claims. If promises are broken, we get to keep the stranded costs, continuing to pay for what we didn't need in the first place.
Energy masters, financiers and radio hosts can talk all day, but if we're not listening, the pipelines flow on.
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Dear Editor,
Underweight babies born with lifelong health issues. Water poisoned with toxic waste chemicals.
It sounds like I’m talking about Flint, Michigan. But I’m not.
I’m talking about how the development of natural gas in New Hampshire impacts our neighbors in Pennsylvania, where the gas originates.
A recent study by members of Princeton University examined the birth certificates of over 1 million infants born in close proximity to fracking sites in Pennsylvania. The study found that those born within a mile of the fracking sites were hundreds of times more likely to suffer from reduced birth weights, often under five pounds, than those living even one mile distant.
According to medical professionals, infants with reduced birthweights have higher rates of physical defects and suffer poorer health over the course of their lifetimes.
No, this is not Flint, Michigan. This is another example of a utility company, our own LIBERTY UTILITIES, making investments that are devastating to families and children. Making investments for the sake of profits.
Near the beginning of this letter I referred to the people of Pennsylvania as ‘our neighbors.’
While Pennsylvania is not next door or across the street, is it so distant that we should not care for their children? Really, aren’t we all neighbors?
Chris Balch Wilton
* Submitted to multiple news outlets.
Support ECHO Action's mission of a #FossilFree603!
• •
Facebook: • Twitter:
Learn more about the Granite Bridge Pipeline & LNG tank, see photos and video of the Epping tank site and a comparable tank, view our interactive map route indicating the blast zone and learn about the health and safety impact of pipelines.
ECHO Action is an all-volunteer organization.
Please support pipeline education & community action
by today!
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
We had 4 eco-signs over East & West 101 tonight for several hours, then the cops showed up. Fortunately, they were as nice as all the people who drop by to ask questions.
Word is out. Protect your finances, property values, health, safety, children, air, water, food & future. For jobs and our economy, just say #NoGraniteBridgePipeline & yes to #renewables!
We'll be in Epping on Friday night, July 27th in Epping at the Park & Ride on Route 125! Come meet us. Bring your neighbors and your questions!
Support ECHO Action's mission of a #FossilFree603!
• •
Facebook: • Twitter:
Learn more about the Granite Bridge Pipeline & LNG tank, see photos and video of the Epping tank site and a comparable tank, view our interactive map route indicating the blast zone and learn about the health and safety impact of pipelines.
ECHO Action is an all-volunteer organization.
Please support pipeline education & community action
by today!
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Bring on the sun!
Our new 136-kilowatt photovoltaic array is expected to produce 40 percent of the electricity needed at our building systems manufacturing facility.
Solar-Powered Manufacturing
Bensonwood and Unity Homes join a small but growing, number of companies using solar energy to power manufacturing facilities. Some of the most significant operational manufacturing facilities using solar energy to power production in the U.S. include the Volkswagen production plant in Tennessee which uses a 33-acre “solar park” to generate about 13 percent of the energy used by the Volkswagen plant during production.
Tesla broke ground on their Gigafactory in June 2014 outside Sparks, Nevada. Renewable energy sources will entirely power the 1.9 million square foot factory with the goal of achieving net zero energy. Less than 30 percent done, when completed it will be the most massive building on earth powered by renewable energy.
Apple is now globally powered by 100% renewable energy as nine more of it's suppliers commit to clean energy production. The manufacturing partners have committed to power all of their output for Apple with 100 percent clean energy, bringing the total number of supplier commitments to 23.
“We are proud that we can now say we build energy-efficient homes in a facility that is powered by renewable energy." - Tedd Benson, Bensonwood Founder
The Perfect Space for Solar Panels
The flat roofs of factories are the perfect place for installing photovoltaic panels that harness the sun’s rays and creating power. Another benefit is that many factories operate during the day when solar energy is collected and generated. The photovoltaic array is just another step toward the companies’ commitment to sustainable and clean technology buildings.
Panel Fabrication Systems
Bensonwood and Unity Homes celebrated the grand opening of the new panel production facility in Keene, New Hampshire, on April 20, 2018. The production facility produces insulated enclosure systems for high-performance buildings. Bensonwood is using the new facility to better serve commercial clients and the multifamily sector, in addition to the single family custom home market.
Unity Homes will use the facility to help achieve its mission of making high-performance, low-energy homes widely available and more affordable. As demand for Unity Homes has grown, the need for increased production capability has become increasingly apparent. Unity will utilize the manufacturing facility to serve more clients in a broader range of markets, including residential developments of high-performance homes.
https://bensonwood.com/powering-production-with-the-sun/
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
By Tim Camerato Valley News Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Lebanon — City officials say a new purchase program that allows Lebanon to pay real-time prices for electricity could save the municipality thousands on its annual utility bills.
The city recently signed an agreement with Auburn, N.H.-based Freedom Energy Logistics to provide power at prices just above wholesale rates. The deal, which took effect this month, replaces a system where Lebanon would purchase its electricity at yearly, fixed rates.
The switch will result in the city buying its power from a market that varies in price from hour to hour, as the demand for energy changes throughout the day. While there is the chance for volatility in the marketplace, city officials estimate they will find savings.
If Lebanon had moved to real-time pricing in January 2015, it could have saved $220,000 to date, according to Tad Montgomery, the city’s Energy and Facilities Manager.
That’s significant, he said, especially when considering that Lebanon’s annual electric bill amounted to $200,000 last year.
“In (the last) 42 months, there are only four where we would have paid more for electricity under the real-time prices versus fixed rate,” Montgomery said in an interview on Tuesday.
Lebanon officials decided to change pricing strategies after seeing neighboring Hanover succeed under a similar model. In 2014, the town became a member of the New England Power Pool, which allows it to buy energy directly from the wholesale marketplace.
The arrangement “saves us a ton of money on electricity pricing,” while also giving Hanover the power to purchase renewable energy certificates, Town Manager Julia Griffin said on Tuesday.
The community hopes to transition its electricity to 100 percent renewable sources by 2030, and Hanover’s ability to determine how it purchases power will play a role in the transition, Griffin said.
Over a period of 12 months ending in February, Hanover paid roughly 6.7 cents per kilowatt hour for its municipal electricity, according to Lebanon City Councilor Clifton Below.
By comparison, he said, Lebanon’s fixed agreement resulted in the city paying 8.3 cents.
“Even with the price spike from early this winter, they still ended up paying less,” said Below, who is also chairman of the Lebanon Energy Advisory Committee. “That just sort of shows the potential for savings that are there.”
Although the city won’t know energy prices in advance, it can predict when rates will be highest, Below said.
Demand for electricity usually grows from a low point around 5 a.m. to a peak between 6-7 p.m. in the summer months, according to ISO New England, which operates the region’s electric grid.
And Lebanon already has begun to shift some services in response, said Montgomery. During last week’s heat wave, operations at both the city’s water and wastewater plants were moved to use less energy.
“Both plants are developing protocols to do this to the maximum degree possible,” Montgomery said. “This is the start of our program to reduce electric costs, and the plant managers and DPW staff have been very helpful within the constraints of needing to keep their plants running.”
Although beneficial, the city’s agreement with Freedom Energy Logistics isn’t designed to be a long-term path to low energy bills. The city is on a month-to-month contract with the broker, largely because it soon hopes to be generating its own energy.
With plans to expand solar in Lebanon and generate electricity at the Lebanon landfill, the city expects to someday generate a surplus, which might become available to residents.
Both Below and Montgomery are working on a project called Lebanon Community Power, which would able to sell the excess energy and allow city residents the ability to buy electricity in real-time. Roll out of the power project is expected sometime next spring, Below said.
City officials are also awaiting a state decision regarding Liberty Utilities’ plans to install batteries in about 300 city homes this fall. That project would see Liberty customers paying $1,000 upfront or $10 a month for 10 years for a Tesla Powerwall, and could be incorporated into the Lebanon Community Power model, said Below.
Settlement negotiations on the Liberty proposal are ongoing before the state Public Utilities Commission. It’s not clear when a decision will be delivered.
https://www.vnews.com/Lebanon-Starts-Energy-Project-18743690
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
While the carbon tax did not pass, we commend the six Republicans who boldly voted for it. Efforts to reduce carbon emissions and take action on climate need to be taken on by all of us, regardless of political affiliations. -SS
Three of the six Republicans lawmakers who voted Thursday against a House resolution opposing a carbon tax were from Florida and one of them is a prominent President Donald Trump supporter.
Reps. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Trey Hollingsworth of Indiana, Francis Rooney of Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, and Mia Love of Utah were the only Republicans to vote against the measure. But their opposition was offset by the seven Democrats who supported the measure.
Curbelo, whose district voted overwhelmingly for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016, is one of the principal founders of the bipartisan caucus and is preparing to roll out his own legislation next week to put a $23 levy on carbon emissions. The measure doesn’t enact any new laws, but it does pressure Republicans to oppose any future legislation designed to tax carbon.
Rooney, meanwhile, has become a reliable supporter Trump. He said he was “pretty frustrated” with some FBI officials whom he thinks are too biased to carry out a thorough investigation into whether Russia collusion into the presidential election.
“I’m very concerned that the DOJ and the FBI, whether you want to call it ‘deep state’ or what, are kind of off the rails,” Rooney told MSNBC in a December 2017 interview. He was referring to two former FBI agents who worked for the special counsel investigation led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Rooney voted in opposition of the climate resolution and sided with Democrats, many of whom believe a carbon tax can help ratchet down the emissions scientists say are contributing to global warming.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia proposed the resolution, which called a carbon tax “detrimental to the United States economy.” Both lawmakers moved forward on the measure even as other Republicans sought to push a carbon tax.
One of the Democrats who supported Scalise’s measure was Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb, a moderate who won in a state Trump carried by a significant margin. Lamb won a special election in March and was hailed as a new type of Democrat capable of gaining sway in Trump country.
GOP-affiliated groups, such as ConservAmerica and republicEn, have doubled efforts to recruit Republican lawmakers to work on rebutting climate skepticism. They also want to hijack the Democrats’ traditional stranglehold on the environmental movement.
Their fledgling crusade has yet to gain much support from Republicans on Capitol Hill. A mere 20 or so of the 237 Republican congressmen have made tough talk against climate change a part of their rhetorical repertoire. Curbelo’s pro-carbon tax measure will be introduced next week.
Support ECHO Action's mission of a #FossilFree603!
• •
Facebook: • Twitter:
Learn more about the Granite Bridge Pipeline & LNG tank, see photos and video of the Epping tank site and a comparable tank, view our interactive map route indicating the blast zone and learn about the health and safety impact of pipelines.
ECHO Action is an all-volunteer organization.
Please support pipeline education & community action
by today!
Read Full Article

Read for later

Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
close
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview