Issue Position: Energy and Environment
Issue Position
As the ranking member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I am working to ensure that we pursue policies that both preserve the environment as well as the economy. I strongly believe that everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions and promote the development of clean energy--whether it be nuclear power, clean coal technologies or greater use of renewables like wind, solar and hydro.
American Energy Act Will Preserve the Environment and the Economy
The American public is desperate for solutions, but a national energy tax is not the answer to address climate change. I strongly support the "all of the above" American Energy Act (H.R. 2846) --a better solution that offers more affordable energy, more good-paying jobs, more energy independence, and a cleaner environment.
The American Energy Act charts a new course by laying down a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. With more than 31 announced reactor applications already in the pipeline, this goal can be achieved. Renewing our commitment to nuclear power will also revitalize an entire manufacturing sector, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Our nation must also develop more of our own domestic natural resources, such as oil and natural gas. This act opens up for exploration the Arctic Coastal Plain as well as environmentally-sound leasing for oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf and oil shale in the Mountain West. Revenues generated by the sales of leases would be deposited in a Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund to encourage the development of clean, renewable and alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar. Finally, this bill encourages personal responsibility through conservation.
The commonsense American Energy Act is aimed at more energy production, cheaper fuel bills, more jobs, and greater energy independence, which will also yield a cleaner environment and a more secure nation.
Expanding Nuclear Power Will Reduce Emissions and Create Jobs
I strongly believe that nuclear power must be a priority in the discussion on climate change. Nuclear is not only emissions-free, but renewing our commitment to nuclear power will create countless jobs at a time when our nation endures near double-digit unemployment.
It is confounding that the 1,000-page climate bill that the House Democrat leadership is railroading through Congress, purportedly to reduce emissions, ignores the very source that accounts for over 70 percent of our nation's emissions-free electricity: nuclear power.
We have to get our priorities straight. We are all familiar with the benefits of nuclear power with the Cook and Palisades plants along our shorelines. Overall, the United States has 104 operating nuclear reactors, generating 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Other developed countries rely more heavily on nuclear energy, such as France, which gets 80 percent of all its power from nuclear.
The above mentioned American Energy Act calls for the construction of 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. The expansion of nuclear power would create hundreds of thousands of good-paying, high-skilled and permanent jobs. According to data from Oxford Economics, building 100 new nuclear reactors and an appropriate number of enrichment and reprocessing plants over this period of time would create 356,000 manufacturing and construction jobs, 242,000 permanent jobs, and an additional 404,000 jobs from induced economic activity. In total, this amounts to over 1 million new jobs.
By contrast, recent estimates predict that the reckless cap-and-tax scheme being pushed by leading Democrats will kill millions of jobs and result in an annual $4,300 per family national energy tax at a time when working families can least afford it. Under our "all of the above" plan, we can create jobs and keep electricity costs down for families. It is possible to simultaneously preserve our environment and jobs through commonsense policies.
Expanding Wind Energy Will Boost Local Economy and Create Jobs
I strongly believe everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions -- particularly renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, nuclear power and clean coal technologies. The potential for renewable wind energy in southwest Michigan is especially great -- not only for our local energy supply, but for our local economy as well.
Several of southwest Michigan's institutions of higher learning are launching wind energy programs to meet our region's potential, including Western Michigan University and Kalamazoo Valley Community College who have partnered in the creation of a Wind Energy Center. Once it is fully operational, the state-of-the-art center will help create jobs and foster the creation of start-up businesses involved in various aspects of producing energy from wind, including manufacturers, designers, distributors, and repair companies.
Earlier this year, Kalamazoo Valley Community College announced that it was moving forward with its wind energy technician curriculum, allowing students to get a jumpstart on their studies this summer.
Wind turbines throughout southwest Michigan will not only power our communities, they will help power our local economic engine and create jobs.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technologies
Helping our environment and our economy through carbon capture and storage technologies, I recently teamed with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) in authoring breakthrough, bipartisan legislation to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions through the early development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.
CCS is a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by capturing and injecting underground the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generation plants and industrial emitters that use fossil fuels.
The Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act, H.R. 1689, establishes a $1 billion grant program derived from fees on the generation of electricity from coal, oil and natural gas.
We currently have advanced research being conducted locally at Western Michigan University that has the potential to revolutionize the reduction of greenhouse gases. I delivered $615,000 for WMU's research earlier this year and is currently seeking additional funding. Developing this technology in southwest Michigan will provide a much needed boost to our local economy.
These technologies exhibit great promise, and in encouraging advancements in carbon capture, we will be able to responsibly fortify our nation's energy supply with American-made energy and protect the pocketbooks of our nation's working families. Our nation's vast coal reserves account for 50 percent of our electricity needs -- now is not the time to turn our back on coal.
Protecting Working Families and Michigan Jobs in Climate Debate
Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions. Currently pending in Congress is cap-and-tax legislation that mandates that the United States cannot emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. Consider that in 1910 the United States had only 92 million people--compared to an estimated 420 million in 2050.
A recent analysis released by the Heritage Foundation of the economic impact of the cap-and-tax climate bill projects that by 2035 the bill would reduce our economy by $9.6 trillion; destroy 1,105,000 jobs per year on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs; increase the average per-family-of-four costs by $4,300 per year; raise electricity rates 90 percent; raise gasoline prices by 74 percent; and raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent.
Quite simply, this legislation puts the nation's working families in the crosshairs. Our national unemployment hovers just below 10 percent, yet here we are discussing legislation that will hemorrhage jobs and wreak havoc on our economy. We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy -- the American public is desperate for solutions, but cap-and-tax is not the answer. The stakes are too high not to get this right.
Source