Hello Ladies and Gentlemen dedicated to the conservation and preservation of Earth. I am Richard Scott, a budding actor and political scientist devoted to the expansion of renewable energy programs designed to curb climate change. I am a novice to blogging so please have pity on me.
I thought I would take the time to introduce myself to you so that you can get to know me a little better. First, I am the new National Policy and Organizing Fellow at the Energy Action Coalition. Second, I have been told by countless by professors that my provocative arguments are hampered by my incessant degradation of grammar; so I would like to apologize for any mistakes that may follow this introduction.
I have compiled a small list that I have named “Who’s HOT, Who’s Not”. This is a small list that highlights the politicians that are fighting to prevent the ecological devastation climate change will inevitably bring and a list of politicians dedicated to making money no matter the cost. This list is evolving and is subject to change at any time; it is solely dependent on the present performance of legislators and officials.
Keep reading to see whose hot and not this week…
editors note: Unlike the infamous Hot or Not here on IGHIH, Hot is bad.
WHO’S HOT!
VP Dick Cheyney
Nuff’ Said. Seriously folks, I will have a blog dedicated to our infamous Vice President by the end of the week. Don’t worry.
Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WVA.) 
Sen. Byrd is a firm supporter of “Coal to Liquid” programs. He has gone on record of saying that “It’s right here, like acres of diamonds under our feet.” He is right in more ways than one. The coal industry is a staple of the West Virginian economy. Trust me I know the impact coal has on the lives of his constituency. I go to Frostburg State University in Western Maryland; the school was built atop of abandoned coal mines and started by coal miners. The Allegany Mountains are rich with carbon emitting, ozone depleting coal deposits.
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
Senator Debbie Stanebow (D-MI)
Now these Senators are caught in a great conundrum. These are democrats that are forced to work with “big business” Detroit automakers. More importantly, they are remaining true to thousands of Michigan citizens that depend upon the success of the auto industry. Think about the “blue collar” and “white collar” citizens for a moment. Taxes and incentive cuts placed on the auto industry negatively impact the economic livelihood of the employees. So I can understand why the two senators have opposed raising CAFE standards and imposing milder taxes on GM, Ford, and other major American auto companies.
Congressman Boucher (D-VA)
Rep. Rick Boucher is a supporter of coal-to-liquid initiatives. Boucher is a native of Southwest Virginia which is a coal-rich area of the country. Boucher has proposed an amendment to prevent proactive states from asserting itself in the move to hamper climate change by preventing states from creating stringent emissions laws.
WHO’S NOT!
Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY)
These two senators partnered together to create the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Workforce Development Amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to “create a sustainable, comprehensive public program that:
provides quality training for jobs created through renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives; satisfies industry demand for a skilled workforce; provides grants for safety, health and skills training; funds national and State research, labor market information, and labor exchange programs; and develops national and State training programs.”
Look for a blog devoted to this amendment very soon.
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rangel drafted a proposal to enlarge tax incentives for biofuel producers. His proposal will also “create a ‘green bond fund’ that would provide loans for energy projects with environmental benefits.” (Mufson, The Washington Post)
These are some of the officials to keep an eye on. Do not worry, there will be a host of republicans that will be highlighted in the future, but you have to come back to see who they are. And for all you 2008 fiends out there; many more candidates will be on this list. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me at richard@energyaction.net. Thank you for your time and COME BACK PLEASE!
I’m not quite sure if I follow the satyrical usage of “hot and not” – but a couple thoughts.
Regarding the Detroit folks (Senator Carl Levin and Senator Debbie Stanebow) – its a HUGE cop-out to support their positions (and other auto-industry apologists like Dingell) that mandating increases in fuel economy will negatively impact working-class jobs in Detroit. Simply not true. There’s a great report by a former GM market analyst showing that increasing fuel economy could boost US automaker’s profits by $2 billion and save 35,000 jobs by 2010. The results from NOT improving fuel-economy are apparent enough – hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, factories closing down, climate destruction and continued oil addiction. Check out http://www.net.org/documents/Auto-Employment.pdf
Hillary and Bernie’s workforce amendment seems fine enough (though it still supports bio-fuels). But what’s more troubling about her is her “Strategic Energy Fund” – which is a farce. She rightly wants to tax oil companies (and cut their tax breaks) – but then she wants to invest the $50 billion fund into coal and ethanol. Neither of which are good steps to address climate change – and come with a whole host of destructive problems.
As for Rangel – enlarging tax incentives for industrial-level biofuels is problematic. There is potential for community-level and localized bio-fuel production that can be done sustainably. But at the industrial level biofuels are a horrible solution. Palm and soy plantations are one of the leading cuases of deforestation and illegal logging in the Amazon and Indonesia – which are going to supply US demand for bio-fuels. Not only does this land conversion have massive impacts on global warming, but biofuels spell disaster for forests, water supplies, biodiversity, human rights, indigenous land struggles and more. Most bio-fuels are shown to have a NEGATIVE energy balance – meaning it takes more energy to produce and refine them than what is created with the end product. Increasing fuel economy would have a far greater affect at a much lower cost in terms of energy/oil consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and a host of environmental and human-rights benefits.
See http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/net_energy/