April, 21 2009, 11:04am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lisa Nurnberger, 202-331-6959, Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458
US Can Dramatically Cut Carbon Emissions and Lower Energy Bills at the Same Time, New Study Finds
WASHINGTON
The
United States can dramatically cut global warming emissions and reduce
consumer and business energy bills at the same time, according to the
findings of a soon-to-be-released, two-year study by the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The
analysis, "Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy
Economy," found that implementing a suite of climate, energy and
transportation policies would allow the United States to meet an
emissions-reduction cap of 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and
save consumers and businesses $465 billion in that year. The average
U.S. household would enjoy a net savings of $900 on its energy bills,
including $580 on transportation (fuel, vehicle and driving) costs and
$320 on electricity, natural gas and heating oil, after investing in
home efficiency improvements. Businesses collectively would realize net
energy bill savings of $130 billion.
UCS's
policy recommendations would put the nation on a path to reduce
heat-trapping emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by
2050, the target that UCS experts contend is necessary to prevent the
worst effects of climate change.
"We
have a historic opportunity to reinvent our economy, tackle global
warming, and cut energy costs," said UCS President Kevin Knobloch.
"Setting a limit on heat-trapping emissions would ensure that we make
the necessary carbon emission reductions to help avoid the worst
consequences of climate change. Combining a carbon cap with strong
efficiency, renewable electricity, and transportation standards can
deliver those emission cuts and save Americans a substantial amount of
money."
------------------------------
Note:
UCS President Kevin Knobloch will testify tomorrow afternoon on the UCS
report findings before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. To
watch the hearing live, go to the committee's Web site. Knobloch's written testimony highlighting key findings of "Climate 2030" and information on energy cost savings by region is available online. The final report will be available in May.
------------------------------
Consumers
and businesses would not have to wait 20 years to see benefits from
UCS's recommended initiatives. The analysis found that by 2020 the
United States could meet a cap of 26 percent below 2005 levels and save
consumers and businesses $346 billion in that year.
Most
of the net energy bill savings over the next two decades would be due
to more energy efficient buildings and industrial processes; cleaner
cars; and a more efficient transportation system. A nationwide limit on
carbon emissions would slightly increase energy prices, UCS found, but
a comprehensive set of energy and transportation policies would dampen
energy demand, lowering energy costs to more than offset efficiency
investments and the higher cost of energy.
The
UCS analysis, which used a modified version of the Department of
Energy's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), concluded that the
United States could reduce energy demand by a third through improved
efficiency in buildings, industry and transportation systems. More than
half of the emissions reductions, meanwhile, would come from cuts in
the electric generation sector. By 2030, the analysis found, power
plant carbon emissions could be 84 percent lower than 2005 levels.
"Efficiency
and renewable energy technologies are ready today to power our economy
with carbon-free electricity," said Steve Clemmer, research director of
UCS's Clean Energy Program. "Our blueprint shows that these clean
energy sources can lead the way in cutting U.S. emissions, while
lowering electricity bills and curbing our addiction to dirty,
high-carbon coal power."
Over
the next 20 years, renewable electricity and efficiency would be more
cost-effective solutions to climate change than advanced nuclear power
and advanced coal plants with carbon capture and storage systems,
according to the report. However, advanced nuclear and coal
technologies could play a more significant role if their costs decline
more quickly than expected, or if the nation does not pursue the energy
efficiency and renewable energy policies recommended by the report.
Transportation
sector emissions also could be significantly reduced. By 2030, car and
light truck carbon emissions could be 40 percent lower than 2005
levels. The combination of cleaner cars and a more efficient
transportation system would cost about $35 billion in 2030, but would
save drivers some $120 billion at the pump -- in addition to savings
generated by the fuel economy standards Congress passed in December
2007. Putting technology to work in freight trucks, meanwhile, would
produce net savings of about $38 billion in 2030 and keep their carbon
emissions steady at 2005 levels.
"Vehicle
carbon standards, low-carbon fuels, and a smarter transportation system
would cut carbon emissions and the cost of owning a car or a truck,"
said David Friedman, research director at UCS's Clean Vehicles Program.
"The future of the environment -- and the future of the auto industry
-- are at stake, and we can help save both by investing in smart-growth
initiatives and cleaner cars and fuels."
------------------------------
Note:
UCS Clean Vehicles Program Research Director David Friedman will
testify on Friday before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. To watch the hearing live,
go to the committee's Web site. A copy of Friedman's written testimony will be available online Friday morning.
------------------------------
If
policymakers enacted UCS's recommendations, in 2030 the transportation,
residential and industrial sectors would use 6 million barrels a day
less than what they consumed in 2005 -- the equivalent of what the United States currently imports daily from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
The
report's recommended approach is similar to one in a draft discussion
climate bill recently proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and
Edward Markey (D-Mass.). Their bill features many of the same policies
found in the report, including a cap-and-trade program, a renewable
electricity standard, energy efficiency standards, and low-carbon fuel
standards.
"To
reap the greatest savings, it is critical that Congress enacts a
comprehensive set of climate and energy policies, such as those
proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill, without delay," said Rachel
Cleetus, a climate economist at UCS. "We are encouraged that the
proposed bill includes a cap-and-trade program, but the other
initiatives in it are equally important. If you dropped the energy and
transportation policies from our recommendations, for example, the
cumulative savings for consumers and businesses over the next two
decades would fall from $1.6 trillion to $600 billion."
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
Once Again, Tom Cotton Blocks Bill to Shield Journalists From Betraying Sources
Responding to the GOP senator's latest thwarting of the PRESS Act, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden vowed to "keep trying to get this bill across the finish line" before Republicans take control of the Senate next month.
Dec 10, 2024
Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Tuesday again blocked the passage of House-approved bipartisan legislation meant to shield journalists and telecommunications companies from being compelled to disclose sources and other information to federal authorities.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) brought the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act—which would prohibit the federal government from forcing journalists and telecom companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for terroristic or violent threats—for a unanimous consent vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued Tuesday that passing the PRESS Act is "more important now than ever before when we've heard some in the previous administration talk about going after the press in one way or another," a reference to Republican President-elect Donald Trump's threats to jail journalists who refuse to reveal the sources of leaks. Trump, who has referred to the press as the "enemy of the people," repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to "kill this bill."
Cotton, who blocked a vote on the legislation in December 2022, again objected to the bill, a move that thwarted its speedy passage. The Republican called the legislation a "threat to national security" and "the biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history."
The advocacy group Defending Rights and Dissent lamented that "Congress has abdicated their responsibility to take substantive steps to protect the constitutional right to a free press."
However, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted ways in which Senate Democrats can still pass the PRESS Act before Republicans gain control of the upper chamber next month:
Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law—whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own—even if it means shortening lawmakers' holiday break. Hopefully, today was a preview of more meaningful action to come.
Responding to Tuesday's setback, Wyden vowed, "I'm not taking my foot off the gas."
"I'll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'
"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.
"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."
"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."
While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.
"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."
Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.
"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."
Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."
"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."
Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."
"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."
Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.
"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."
Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."
"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.
"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."
Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over.
The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps Anti-Trans Lawyer Harmeet Dhillon for Key Civil Rights Post
"Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them," argued one critic.
Dec 10, 2024
LGBTQ+ and voting rights defenders were among those who sounded the alarm Tuesday over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's selection of a San Francisco attorney known for fighting against transgender rights and for leading a right-wing lawyers' group that took part in Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election to oversee the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
On Monday, Trump announced his nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to head the key civil rights office, claiming on his Truth Social network that the former California Republican Party vice-chair "has stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID, and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers."
"In her new role at the DOJ, Harmeet will be a tireless defender of our Constitutional Rights, and will enforce our Civil Rights and Election Laws FAIRLY and FIRMLY," Trump added.
However, prominent trans activist Erin Reed warned on her Substack that Dhillon's nomination—which requires Senate confirmation—"signals an alarming shift that could make life increasingly difficult for transgender people nationwide, including those who have sought refuge in blue states to escape anti-trans legislation."
Trump has picked Harmeet Dhillon as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. She has stated that it must be "made unsafe" for hospitals to provide trans care, and frequently shares Libs of TikTok posts. She intends to target trans people in blue states. Subscribe to support my journalism.
[image or embed]
— Erin Reed (@erininthemorning.com) December 10, 2024 at 8:14 AM
Reed continued:
Dhillon's most prominent work includes founding the Center for American Liberty, a legal organization that focuses heavily on anti-transgender cases in blue states. The organization's "featured cases" section highlights several lawsuits, such as Chloe Cole's case against Kaiser Permanente; a lawsuit challenging a Colorado school's use of a transgender student's preferred name; a case against a California school district seeking to implement policies that would forcibly out transgender students; and a lawsuit against Vermont for denying a foster care license to a family unwilling to comply with nondiscrimination policies regarding transgender youth.
Reed also highlighted Dhillon's attacks on state laws protecting transgender people, as well as her expression of "extreme anti-trans views" on social media—including calling gender-affirming healthcare for trans children "child abuse."
Last year, The Guardian's Jason Wilson reported that the Center for American Liberty made a six-figure payment to a public relations firm that represented Dhillion in both "her capacity as head of her own for-profit law firm and Republican activist."
Writing for the voting rights platform Democracy Docket, Matt Cohen on Tuesday accused Dhillon of being "one of the leading legal figures working to roll back voting rights across the country."
"In the past few years, Dhillon—or an attorney from her law firm—has been involved in more than a dozen different lawsuits in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. challenging voting rights laws, redistricting, election processes, or Trump's efforts to appear on the ballot in the 2024 election," Cohen noted.
As Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement Tuesday, "The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has the critical responsibility of enforcing our nation's federal civil rights laws and ensuring equal justice under the law on behalf of all of our communities."
"That means investigating police departments that have a pattern of police abuse, protecting the right to vote, and ensuring schools don't discriminate against children based on who they are," Wiley noted. "The nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to lead this critical civil rights office is yet another clear sign that this administration seeks to advance ideological viewpoints over the rights and protections that protect every person in this country."
"Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them," she asserted. "Rather than fighting to expand voting access, she has worked to restrict it."
A staunch Trump loyalist, Dhillon has also embraced conspiracy theories including the former president's "Big Lie" that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and has accused Democrats of "conspiring to commit the biggest election interference fraud in world history."
She was co-chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association when it launched Lawyers for Trump, a group that urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the former president after he lost the 2020 election.
Cohen also highlighted Dhillon's ties to right-wing legal activist and Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo, described by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as a "lawless con man and crook" for his refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena and his organization of lavish gifts to conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices.
"We need a leader at the Civil Rights Division who understands that civil rights protections are not partisan or political positions open to the ideological whims of those who seek to elevate a single religion or to protect political allies or particular groups over others," Wiley stressed. "We need a leader who will vigorously enforce our civil rights laws and work to protect the rights of all of our communities—including in voting, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations—without fear or favor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular