Here are 10 reasons that I think the United States Senate must pass an Energy Bill which would then be reconciled with the House’s Clean Energy Bill (HR 2454).  They are listed in here in no particular order because they are really interrelated, and I don’t think that anyone of these is more important than any of the others.

1. Because the House of Representatives Passed a Clean Energy Bill.  The debate in Washington has taken a new turn, and now it is up to the Senate to carry forward with the responsibility to create a new way of looking at energy use and development.
2. We need to stop thinking we can continue to get “free lunches from the Earth.”  Although we are not an isolated “spaceship” (we do depend upon the Sun for our energy), we need to think differently about how we use and sustain the resources on the Earth, and how we make use of the Sun’s energy.  It will require that we implement a kind of “deep ecology” point-of-view rather than the “cornucopian” framework.
3. We need a new mind-set about how to use what we have.  As Thomas Friedman pointed out, the Clean Energy bill passed by the House represents the first honest attempt by America to deal with climate change by putting a price on carbon.  His view is that by putting a price on carbon would create a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs.
4. Put an end to climate change-denial.  Denial is rampant.  I wrote about one U.S. Representative from Georgia who continues to rant that global warming is a hoax.  As Paul Krugman suggests, this kind of thinking is a kind of treason against the planet Earth.
5. The science of climate change is overwhelming in supporting the need for a Clean Energy law.  Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change posted a letter pointing out that the science is clear that human-induced climate changes are already happening and will grow.  She lists some we all are observing: increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
6. The “Stone Age” didn’t end because we ran out of stones.  No, it ended because humans invented new tools (see an earlier post on this reason).  The “oil age” will not end because we run out of oil, but when either the costs are too high, or we are smart enough to move into the E.T. (Energy Technology) age.  Just as the oil age resulted in a host of oil-based inventions and industries, so will a paradigm shift into a clean and alternative energy resulting in inventions and new industries for new energy technology age.
7. It’s time to “step-up.”  Yes, we contibute 20% of the global emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture & gas flaring, and simply reducing that number will not lead to huge reductions in climate change (China contributes about 15%, former states of USSR about 12%, European Union about 15%, followed by Japan, India and Canada) .  Or will it?  By passing such a bill, and having it signed into law, we show other countries that we have the moral courage to face the problem of global warming and climate change, and in the end move us away from a carbon economy and into renewable energy economy.
8. Yes, it will cost us, but what is the alternative if we ignore the problem, and continue to be deniers?  The costs are difficult to determine.  Estimating is based on so many factors, and as a result  you can find estimates ranging from $80 to $4300 per household/year.  It depends on who you believe, and what “model” or factors they input into their formulations.  For example, the Heritage Foundation estimates on the high side—$4300.  While the Environmental Protection Agency estimate concludes it would cost households between $80-$111 per household per year.   Imagine the costs incurred when we went from horse carts to cars?
9. It will result is a new period or age of entrepreneurship and invention which will result in new industries and jobs.  There is support in the Clean Energy bill not only to support the invention of new technologies, but to help workers and communities make the transition to a clean energy economy.
10. We need the U.S. Senate to set an example of our youth that a problem as vast as global warming and climate change can be solved, and that clear thinking and hard work by politicians will result in a cleaner, safer and more sustainable future.

This represents ten ideas that I think support a Clean Energy bill.  I would very much like to hear from you.  What are your opinions?  Please comment.

Resources:

Download the H.R. 2454 in pdf

Download EPA Analysis of H.R. 2454

Download EPA Analysis Summary

Interesting EPA Statement on what industry claimed the 1970 Clean Air Act would have on industry and what it would cost.