The House Energy and Commerce Committee looks poised to vote on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act later today.
As this bill has developed, going from an already compromised draft through massive compromising to secure enough committee votes, it has reached the point where one has to wonder whether it is more appropriately called the "Assuring Coal Energy Subsidies Act."
This bill has moved away from core climate legislation principles. Rather than auctioning off all pollution permits, as candidate Obama promised and President Obama put into the submitted budget, some 85% of those permits will be given away.
Taking a look at a preliminary analysis, the allowances can be broken into these major categories:
* 25% directly to fossil-fuel companies and energy-intensive industries. (13% for energy-intensive trade-exposed industries, 5% for the fantasy of clean-coal, 5% for coal-plant operators, and 2% for oil refineries). This is direct subsidy for the continued use of polluting energy.
* 52% indirect subsidies to the burning of fossil fuels through: buffering commercial and residential customers from any cost increases due to carbon pricing (30%), providing funds to natural gas companies (6%), low-income rebates due to rising energy costs (15%), home-heating oil rebates (1%).
* 13% to energy efficiency and renewable energy, including clean tech R&D (1.5%), deployment (5.5%), electric vehicles (1%), state and local energy efficiency (4%), and subsidizing international clean energy (1%)
* Other, including reducing tropical deforestation (5%), international adaptation (1%), deficit reduction (2%), green jobs and transition training/assistance (.5%), domestic adaptation (2%)
Let us summarize, this is 7% for subsidizing directly and indirectly the burning of polluting fossil fuels and 13% for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
According to an analysis by Point Carbon, the first category is valued at $314 billion for 2012-2030, the second at $747 billion, the third at $127.4 billion. Thus, their fiscal estimate is $1.06 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Can anyone logically explain how this continues to merit “Clean Energy” in the title?
(Originally published at Get Energy Smart! Now!!!)
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
