February, 05 2010, 03:20pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Elliott Negin,Media Director,enegin@ucsusa.org
Stronger Efficiency, Renewables Measures Would Benefit Consumers, Industry
WASHINGTON
If Congress passed climate and energy legislation that strengthened
the energy efficiency and renewable energy standards in the version the
House of Representatives approved last June, consumer electric and
natural gas costs would be $113 billion lower by 2030, and emitters
would pay 4 percent less in compliance costs, according to an analysis
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The analysis
also found that stronger renewable energy and efficiency policies would
avoid the need for nearly 50 new nuclear reactors and diversify the
nation's energy mix more quickly than the current bill would.
"Combining a cap on global warming pollution with robust efficiency
and renewable energy provisions is the quickest, most cost-effective
way to transition to the clean energy economy everyone agrees we need,"
said Jeff Deyette, a senior analyst at UCS's Climate and Energy Program
and author of the analysis. "The government's own conservative data
shows that a comprehensive approach is an affordable way to protect the
environment. It also ensures that U.S. companies can compete in the
emerging international green technology market."
In August 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
analyzed the House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act,
which included a cap on global warming emissions and a combined energy
efficiency and renewable electricity standard requiring large utilities
to increase their use of efficiency and renewable energy 20 percent by
2025. The EIA analysis showed that the House bill was affordable and
achievable, but it also showed that loopholes in its efficiency and
renewable energy standard would undermine any substantial growth of
renewable energy.
Using the EIA energy forecasting model and its cost and performance
assumptions, UCS analyzed the costs and benefits of the House bill with
a stronger, 25-percent-by-2025 national renewable electricity standard
and a separate energy efficiency resource standard requiring utilities
to reduce consumer and business electricity use by 10 percent by 2020.
Compared with EIA's August 2009 analysis of the current House bill,
a strengthened bill would provide the following benefits by 2030:
- reduce ratepayers utility costs by a cumulative $113 billion.
Households would save $51 billion, commercial business would save $42
billion, and industrial customers would save $20 billion compared to
the current House bill. Increased renewable energy use would encourage
competition and diversify the energy mix, leading to more stable energy
prices and lower electricity and natural gas prices. Gains in
efficiency would reduce energy use, which would save ratepayers even
more. - reduce carbon allowance prices for polluters by more than 4
percent. Stronger standards for efficiency and renewable energy would
help low-cost technologies overcome key market barriers so they can
play a larger role in reducing emissions than would be possible with
carbon allowances alone. Once deployed, efficiency and renewable energy
would help lower carbon prices. - reduce gross domestic product by less than one-tenth of 1
percent. The EIA analysis of the current House bill showed that a
national climate and energy policy would have a minimal effect on the
overall U.S. economy. UCS found that a stronger bill would have a
comparable effect. - increase renewable electricity generation (excluding hydropower) 23 percent.
- increase efficiency and reduce total electricity sales 6 percent.
- avoid the need to build additional electricity capacity equivalent to nearly 50 new nuclear reactors.
"Watered down climate and energy policies mean watered down benefits
for consumers and businesses," said Alan Nogee, the UCS Climate and
Energy Program's director of strategy and policy. "A firm pollution
cap and a serious commitment to renewables and efficiency are the key
elements of an effective, affordable climate and energy bill."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Condemned for 'Genocidal' Threat to Destroy Iran
"Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned," said the National Iranian American Council.
Sep 25, 2024
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's threat on Wednesday to blow Iran "to smithereens" if he returns to power was condemned by a leading Iranian American advocacy group as "genocidal."
Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—addressed a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after he was reportedly briefed about alleged Iranian assassination threats against him.
"If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country—in this case, Iran—that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens," he said to raucous applause. "We're gonna blow it to smithereens, you can't do that. And there would be no more threats."
Responding to the former president's remarks, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that "Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal."
"Just like his threat to target 52 of Iran's most cherished cultural sites, Trump appears disturbingly willing to kill millions of Iranians who have no say over the actions of their authoritarian government," NIAC continued. "These remarks should be disqualifying for a man vying to once again be commander in chief and have sole authority over launching nuclear weapons with the power to make good on his horrifying threat."
"Likewise, we unequivocally condemn any Iranian threats that may be targeted at Trump or former officials," the group added. "Political violence must be rejected and prevented in all forms. Assassinations are a path to war and human suffering, as was demonstrated by the strike on [Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen.] Qasem Soleimani that engendered these threats, and risk further embroiling the region in violence."
Trump ordered the January 2020 airstrike that killed Soleimani in Iraq. He also unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions on Tehran, exacerbating Iran's economic woes.
While Trump is known for his boastful and sometimes empty claims, as president he also followed through on his 2016 campaign promise to "bomb the shit out of" Islamic State fighters and "take out their families," resulting in thousands of civilian casualties in countries including Iraq and Syria.
Although Trump often presents himself as the peace candidate, critics have warned voters not to be fooled.
"He's a liar. C'mon, you know he doesn't tell the truth at all," Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the only member of either legislative chamber who voted against authorizing the so-called War on Terror in 2001—said in a recent interview with The Nation.
"Just look at his record, who he cozies up to in terms of dictators," Lee added. "He wants more investment in the military budget. What his strategy is, is to create a more dangerous world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CBO: GOP Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits by Thousands, Not Extend Solvency
"Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system," one advocate for seniors said of Republican politicians.
Sep 25, 2024
Social Security defenders have long argued that former Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office could spell disaster for seniors, and a nonpartisan government analysis released Wednesday bolsters their warnings.
U.S. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to analyze the impact of raising the full retirement age (FRA) for Social Security from 67 to 69, as various Republican groups have proposed.
"This report shows that raising the retirement age to 69 would slash benefits by an average of $3,500 a year," Social Security Works executive director Alex Lawson told Common Dreams. "For seniors and people with disabilities, that means not being able to buy groceries, pay a heating bill, or buy birthday presents for their grandkids."
"This cruel benefit cut would hit those who claim benefits early—largely people who work on their feet, not those who work in offices—the hardest," Lawson noted. "Even worse, it is only one of the benefit cuts that Republicans are backing. Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system."
As CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote to Boyle:
All people affected by such an increase in the FRA would receive a smaller amount of Social Security benefits over their lifetime. Workers who chose to delay claiming their retirement benefits by the same number of months as the increase in the FRA would receive the same monthly benefit for a shorter period. Those workers who claimed retirement benefits at the same age as they would have claimed them under current law would receive a smaller benefit for the same number of years.
In a statement responding to the report, Boyle's office highlighted that "for workers currently in their 30s and 40s who are subject to the full retirement age increase, the average annual benefit cut would be 13%, or around $3,500 a year."
As the congressman's office pointed out, the CBO also found that "though increasing the retirement age would reduce spending, it would not create enough savings to change the expected exhaustion date of the Social Security Trust Fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits by the end of fiscal year 2034."
Boyle and Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have introduced the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, which would extend the solvency of both programs by requiring Americans with higher incomes to pay more than they do now.
"Social Security is a sacred promise that after a lifetime of hard work, Americans have earned the right to retire with dignity," Boyle said Wednesday. "This independent, nonpartisan report shows just how devastating Republican plans to rip away hard-earned Social Security benefits would be for American workers."
"Instead of saving Social Security by making the ultrarich pay their fair share, the GOP is hellbent on gutting benefits for the middle class," he warned, specifically calling out the congressional Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025. "Democrats will never stop fighting to keep the promise of Social Security and defend Americans' retirement security from Republican attacks."
The CBO report comes less than six weeks away from the U.S. general election. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is facing Trump in the race for the White House.
Before President Joe Biden left the contest and passed the torch to Harris, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, National United Committee to Protect Pensions, and Social Security Works Political Action Committee were backing him over Trump. All three groups have endorsed Harris.
"As president, Biden has been an unwavering protector of Social Security and Medicare," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman wrote in a July opinion piece for Common Dreams. "Harris will be as fierce a defender, and she will do more. She will expand Social Security and Medicare and ensure that all benefits will continue to be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future by requiring billionaires to pay their fair share."
"In stark contrast, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are a serious threat to our earned benefits and to our families," she stressed, also warning of the GOP's positions on medication prices and tax breaks for the rich. "A vote for Democrats is a vote to expand benefits, lower prescription drug prices, and require those billionaires to start paying their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Latest US Execution, Progressives Say 'Abolish the Death Penalty'
"The use of the death penalty in the United States is one of the ugliest stains on our broken criminal justice system," said Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
Sep 25, 2024
Amid a wave of executions in Republican-led states—including Tuesday's lethal injection of Marcellus Williams in Missouri—progressive U.S. lawmakers and groups renewed calls to "abolish the death penalty."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) were among those who took to social media to demand an end to capital punishment following Williams' execution.
"The use of the death penalty in the United States is one of the ugliest stains on our broken criminal justice system," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "It is disproportionately imposed against poor people and people of color. We must abolish it once and for all."
Williams, 55, was killed by the state of Missouri via lethal injection—a method known for botched executions—despite serious doubts about his guilt. The office that prosecuted him sought to have his murder conviction overturned and members of the victim's family pleaded for clemency.
"Sometimes injustice is so glaring that it leaves us struggling to comprehend how such events could happen in the first place," Bush said in a statement released after Williams' execution.
The congresswoman continued:
The deadly decision to execute Williams came despite urgent pleas from Missourians and people all across the country... who called for clemency. Gov. Mike Parson didn't just ignore these pleas and end Williams' life, he demonstrated how the death penalty is wielded without regard for innocence, compassion, equity, or humanity. He showed us how the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be applied selectively, depending on who stands accused and who stands in power.
"The state of Missouri and our nation's legal system failed Marcellus Williams, and as long as we uphold the death penalty, we continue to perpetuate this depravity—where an innocent person can be killed in the name of justice," Bush stressed. "We have a moral imperative to abolish this racist and inhumane practice, and to work towards building a just legal system that values humanity and compassion over criminalization and violence."
"Rest in power, Marcellus Williams," she added.
Williams wasn't the only one executed on Tuesday. Travis Mullis—a 38-year-old autistic man who murdered his infant son—was killed by lethal injection in Texas after waiving his right to appeal.
Last week, South Carolina executed Freddie Owens by lethal injection after Republican state Attorney General Alan Wilson brushed off a key prosecution witness' bombshell claim that the convicted man did not commit the murder for which his life was taken.
Although the number of U.S. executions has been steadily decreasing from 85 in 2000 to 24 last year, there is currently a surge in state killings, with five more people set to be put to death in three states by October 17.
On Thursday, Alabama is scheduled to kill Alan Eugene Miller using nitrogen gas, despite the inmate suffering severe mental illness. Miller was meant to be put to death in 2022; however, prison staff could not find a vein in which to inject the lethal cocktail and his execution was postponed.
That same day, Emmanuel Antonio Littlejohn is set to be executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma, even after the state's Pardon and Parole Board voted to recommend clemency.
According to a 2014 study, over 4% of people on U.S. death rows did not commit the crime for which they were condemned. The Death Penalty Information Center found that since 1973, at least 200 people who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated.
"The only way to eliminate the possibility of executing an innocent person is to do away with the death penalty altogether," the advocacy group Human Rights First said Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular