Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterPerriello responds to GOP attack on green bill vote
Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th District, is celebrating American independence a few days early.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted last week to pass the American Clean Energy Security Act with a narrow vote of 219-212. Perriello was one of 211 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Forty-four Democrats opposed it.
“I’m just ecstatic,” Perriello said Wednesday. “We’ve just declared our independence from foreign oil.”
House Republicans, however, are not so happy. Eight Republicans voted for the bill and 168 opposed it.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has paid for a TV advertisement — which began airing Wednesday and will run for a week in the Lynchburg and Roanoke markets — attacking Perriello and Obama for their support of the green jobs bill.
The 30-second ad claims that the ACES bill will “destroy jobs and cost middle class families $1,800 a year — every time you turn on a switch.”
To combat global warming, the cap-and-trade bill would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and charge companies allowances for further emissions. Initially, however, allowances would be handed out at no cost. The ACES bill would require a 17 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2020 and by more than 80 percent by 2050.
The result could be higher energy costs for consumers — Perriello said the increases would average $12 a month — although varying sources predict a wide range of estimated costs. The government-backed Environmental Protection Agency said the bill would cost consumers an average of $80 to $111 a year, but that would fluctuate as the cost of allowances rises.
The independent Congressional Budget Office estimated an average annual cost of $175 per household, but that would vary with wealth. Low-income consumers could save $40 a year, but high-income consumers could see as much as a $340 increase.
The conservative Heritage Foundation predicts that by 2035, the average household bill could top $1,241, assuming that reduced energy sources would not be immediately replaced by new technology. Republicans have also referenced an MIT study claiming that consumers could see a $3,100 increase, but an author of that study has declared it was being improperly cited.
“I think it’s hogwash and cowardice,” Perriello said of the new television ad. “We have had an oil dependence probably since the day I was born and I think this bill is going to be a big winner for central and Southside Virginia. For biofuel, for our farmers.”
Perriello supported converting tobacco farms into future biomass producers and turning farm and municipal waste into power. The bill aims to create millions of green jobs through alternative energy sources, but Republicans claim the legislation would actually cut jobs and depress real estate prices.
“It’s just false,” Perriello said. “We’re already losing the jobs. This is what (critics) don’t get. We are hemorrhaging jobs in the energy sector. The status quo that they support is a job-loss strategy. We have a job-winning strategy by making investments in the future of technology.”
In conjunction with the Danville Pittsylvania Chamber of Commerce, Perriello will be at the Virginia International Raceway today at 11 a.m. for an announcement about “Green Skills.”
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Rockit. With all due respect, your comment that “Global warming as advertised simply does not exist” is both glib and uninformed. It is glib in that it denies what the over-whelming number of scientists worldwide are not just suggesting but proving with evidence of climatic irregularities in the world. The 31,000 “scientists” include “scientists” teaching at all levels of education (from elementary schools to middle schools to high schools and colleges - colleges like Bob Jones University and Liberty who don’t even teach evolution as a part of their scientific curriculum). Anyone can get together a group of individuals and call them “scientists”; the great minds of this nation at the prestigious research universities have overwhelmingly decided that this world is in dire straits unless something is done immediately; cap-and-trade legislation is a step in the right direction of the new administration that takes action, unlike the previous administration that loaded their scientific community (including EPA) with graduates of schools like Liberty U. who wouldn’t know a stalactite from a stalagmite.
To fall back on oil and gas for our energy is an uninformed (“head in the sand”) approach to not only global warming but also dependency upon the Middle East where 4000 plus of our men and women died so “Americans can still drive their SUVs.“ Change needs to be made and made soon - cap and trade is at least a baby step in the right direction, and I am grateful to Congressman Perriello for having the foresight to vote for these measures.
Also, the majority (a much larger majority than those who elected Bush in either election) of Americans voted for Obama and his policies; this is one of those policies, and he is delivering.
And one question, Mr. Rockit. If this is a “nod” to the “environmental movement,“ would the other direction to go be a “nod” to the big oil and gas companies that raise the price of gas at whim? As with so many of the other Bush administration policies that did not work for the American citizens, the “nod” to oil and gas didn’t work either except to help make Bush’s friends richer and the average American poorer while still depleting the environment of certain natural elements like wildlife in certain parks, scenic views with mountain top mining, and air and water which have both been polluted greatly by our mismanagement of nature.
Two posts here provide a bit of humor to this serious subject. First, when mjarman writes: “You (Perriello) vote with the majority of Democrats” one must be aware that it was a majority of the American people who put the Democrats into office to carry out their Democratic agenda; we had had enough of the GOP agenda during the past 8 years; also, check back, mjarman, and see how ALL of the Republicans have voted on nearly all of the bills sent to them by their Democratic headed committees and how the GOP voted when Bush was in office.
Second - with the happenings in Alaska over the past few days, when Rockit commented on “natural gas” up there, one could not but think some of the “natural gas” will be leaving Alaska at the end of this month when Sarah Palin, the 2 1/2 year governor, leaves office. I certainly hope that history doesn’t repeat itself as it did with Nixon (another fine Republican model) when he lost the election in ‘60 said, “you won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore” and then came back to be president for 8 ... er ... 7 years. Let’s hope that this is the end, politically, for the Soccer Mom from the North. Peace.
If the cap-and-trade bill was really the right thing to do, why did the EPA suppress a report that directly contradicted the justification for the cap-and-trade legislation? I seem to remember candidate Obama decrying the secrecy of the Bush Administration and stating categorically that his administration would be “transparent”. That information would not be withheld from the Congress. That no bill would be voted on without the opportunity for members of Congress and the Senate to review. Whatever happened to these campaign promises?
This cap-and-trade nonsense is simply a nod to one of the Democratic Party’s staunchest constituencies - the environmental movement. Never mind that the majority of scientist in the world believe there’s no such thing as global warming, as evidenced by their signed petition last fall. Never mind that the only scientists who propose that there’s something to this just happen to operate on government grants. And of course, if the issue goes away, so does their funding.
Global warming as advertised simply does not exists. I didn’t say that—over ten thousand scientists (who are not on a government payroll) said that. You have to wonder how many more trillions of taxpayer dollars are we going to waste on this myth?
As to Alaska melting away, I’m sure that those comments were meant to be in jest. Having lived in Alaska and knowing a little about it, I’m not at all worried about the doomsday proclamations of melting glaciers or polar bear extinction or destroying pristine wilderness areas. Alaska has a lot of natural gas to offer, we should move forward with constructing that natural gas pipeline. Alaska may very well have huge additional oil deposits underneath ANWAR. We should allow test wells to determine the size of the oil fields. Alaska can be a real and powerful player in moving us to energy independance if we are smart about the way we develop that resource.
Of course, with the current administration, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
some people prefer their evil to come in pretty packages. guess it helps them pretend it ain’t what it is.
Well darn! If Alaska melts, we won’t get any more of those hilarious sound bites from Sarah “abstinence only” Palin about how she and her unwed teenage mother/daughter can see Russia from their house.
yup, that is why they are letting alaska melt, so they can get the oil out, regardless of who it harms, as long as it puts more money in the pockets of those who put profits before people.
I’m an independent voter who could care less about who comes up with it, but it is definitely high time that steps like “cap-and-trade” were taken in order to get us all off foreign oil and the same old Big Oil profiteers worldwide who don’t give a hoot about the long-term wellness of our planet. The Heritage Foundation’s conclusions are jaded by their stated assumption that “there would be no new energy alternatives developed”, and this just isn’t the case—the whole point of cap and trade is to spark new energy initatives by American enterprise. Big American Oil needs to drill the reserves that they already have on the mainland before they consider screwing up our beaches and national parks too, and that doesn’t take anybody’s permission to do—but they’ve not begun any new mainland drilling for at least 10 years now. Why—because it’s cheaper to drill offshore and they can maximize their already obscene profits. I’m tired of paying so much to the same old careless profiteers who have most of the politicians in their pockets—and I don’t care which party does something about it. The new energy bill is great, but it’s only a good start on a longer term effort I hope.
“yeti”
I was including the previous administration in my comment.
You really ought not try to compartmentalize everyone as either Democrat or Republican. There are a great many of us who are neither, and have no desire to be either.
“yeti”.............IF we were to drill here, and drill now, oil prices would plummet around the world. The United States has a huge supply of oil that we cannot tap. Some is off shore, some is on shore, but there is plenty of oil here, and the Democrat party does not want us to drill for it. I cannot understand why, but no matter what you say, the oil is here, and we CAN get it out of the ground.
Jaybeedee: I’m not sure where you have been for the last eight plus years, but what you are describing is the W era (error), not the current administration.
I guess we should continue sending trillions to the middle east sheik’s so they can keep up their lifestyles.
Or I guess we could “drill here drill now”, you would have more luck panning for gold in the Dan. If we had the oil here don’t you think the two oil barons that were running our country during the previous administration would have drilled it already? Fossil fuels need to be phased out and this is a step in the correct direction.
By the way your team really did a great job with the economy. You guys point your fingers everywhere but the “right” direction. Watch some more Fox “news” and listen to some more Rush. I know it makes you feel better about what your boy’s have done to this country. It is easier than facing the truth.
Congratulations Rep Perrillo, you have served your constituents well. For many years the power players (primarily republicans / Bush’s and Saudis) have done the bidding of oil rich nations and corporate giants to the detriment of working men and women all across the nation. Through strong like minded news/entertainment the right pushes a cultural bill of goods to secure votes for political control then they run back to Wall Street so that the people who bought and paid for the party can continue to “madeoff” the country. The party that most people support from a position of liberty, freedom and the American way is not the republican party that exists on Wall Street or when it comes to the Global war machine. The “dems” aren’t perfect either, but lately most of the problems we are facing lead back the republican administration and the democrats offer an appearance solutions versus the constant flow of condemnation. Economic forecasts are just that and if a course of action is found to be unacceptable, inform yourself, vote again and do something different. But, playing nasty playground games with the fate of our nation is not good. There’s a lot at stake. Even party loyalists refer to President Reagan as being the last party standard bearer as opposed to former president Bush. I wanted President Bush to make a go of it and push all the way to the end of his presidency. There’s nothing mandatory about being a “lame duck”. He could have had his way on some issues and his party wouldn’t have so much to complain about. But he stopped, WHY?
Advertisement