The business-as-usual energy crowd thinks that climate change as an issue is “controversial” and should be “dropped” from the jobs and energy bill known as ACESA or “Waxman-Markey”. This is according to a new video appearing on the E&E OnPoint website. From the transcript:
“Monica Trauzzi: Final question here. The renewable electricity standard also received a lot of criticism because it was scaled back in the final bill that came out of committee. What do you think will happen there? Do they need to get those numbers up in order to get support from the full Senate?
Robbie Diamond: I think if they drop climate change and they sort of go forward with just this energy package we’ll probably try to strengthen that. When it comes to all the controversial things I think it possibly might be a very difficult lift, just one more battle that they have to fight that they’re not ready, that they’re not able to get it over the line. So I think it will all depend on the politics of oil prices, health care, and then sort of if they’re able to package things with climate change or not.”
In other words, the “climate change” part is disposable and it’s all a packaging deal.
The speaker is Robbie Diamond, president and CEO of Securing America’s Future Energy. This is a bunch that loves people like T. Boone Pickens, who are all in it for the money. Their main concern is said to be getting us “off foreign oil” — unless that oil is Mexican or Canadian. The actual goal is to make lots of money. There is lots and lots of money in Canadian oil right now, thanks to Hillary Clinton (see post below this). They don’t like Venezuela though. No profits for these guys there. (Wes Clark made a negative crack about Hugo Chavez and “his oil” during his testimony at the National Clean Energy Summit that shows this crowd’s obvious political dislike of other countries. Most of them, at least.) And they really don’t like the Middle East’s oil. (It always has to be taken by force which cuts into their net profits). But to veer back on track:
It’s not that businessmen like him want to continue with dirty energy. He wants clean energy, but not to save our climate. He wants clean energy because it’s a great business venture and a good investment right now. Only certain kinds of clean energy are worth their time though, and “electrification” is a “… niche novelty market. Maybe in New York, Washington, and LA you see lots of them, but in the rest of the country they’re not there.” (Well of course they’re not there yet. They will be later.)
To anyone who had any remaining doubts that the ACESA bill is about economic stimulus, jobs and big energy interests versus climate change, here is one more piece of the puzzle. The people in power know that the cap and trade bill doesn’t even need to address climate change at all. It’s about profit, capitalism and economics, to the point that this man thinks RES can be better strengthened and energy legislation would be more likely to pass if we take OUT the part about climate change.
Any further questions? Let’s start working for a real climate change bill. ACESA is not it, and the rest of the world already seems to know that.
Recent Comments