Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

MIT Energy Forum Addresses Federal Policy for Climate and Renewables

April 15, 2009 | 4 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Boston, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] The Obama Administration and Democratic members of Congress are serious about addressing renewable energy and climate change. That was the message at the Clean Power: Building a New Clean Energy Economy policy forum hosted by MIT this week. U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) said that he and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) will start to hold hearings next week on the energy bill that the two introduced last month. The legislation, which was the focus of the forum includes the establishment of a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS), guidelines for a carbon cap and trade system and calls for green job education and training programs.

The Congressman said that the hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 will start next Tuesday, and three members of President Barack Obama's cabinet, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson will testify before the house committee about the good that the bill would do for not only the renewable energy industry but for the U.S. in its attempt to lead the global climate change debate.

The event also featured remarks from Carol Browner, the president's Assistant for Energy and Climate Change. Browner said that while renewable energy now accounts for about 3 percent of U.S. electricity production, "we hope we can double that in the next three to four years." She pointed to Markey's energy bill as vital to making that happen.

Rep. Markey said that his hope is that the energy bill moves through Congress and is signed by the president before the summer recess. Right away, he said, this legislation "will create jobs by the millions, save money by the billions, and unleash energy investment by the trillions."

To hear more of what Congressman Markey, Browning and MIT president Susan Hockfield had to say at the forum, play the video below.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

4 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 4

linda-hambrick-171520

April 15, 2009

What a breath of fresh air - hope is a wonderful feeling.

Comment
2 of 4

b-nicholson-160206

April 15, 2009

The oil companies have received more in subsidies than they have ever paid in taxes. They are entrenched everywhere, and they will carry the majority even of the Obama Democrats if this cap and trade ever sees the light of day. They do have a point.

President Obama needs not to impose new taxes, nor should he put downward pressure on high-tech wages (bonus fuss and UAW). The economy needs more dollars circulating, not fewer. To the President's credit, he has seen fit to leave the Bush tax cuts in place at least until the economy recovers a smidgeon. Unfortunately for auto workers, Obama is heavily indebted to the Bushes for their clandestine support early on which made his election possible. (Who doesn't remember the 'rock star' treatment provided by all those young republicans in his campaign's first days?) The Bush hatred for the UAW is well known and this retribution, breaking the unions and thus lowering the pay for auto workers nationwide is contractionary in the same way as new carbon taxes would be. We need to stay on the gameplan of getting our country out of the ditch. Subsidies for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and electric vehicles? Sure. Taxing oil? Montana won't have it. "We need Montana, Mr. President." Somebody, please, tell him!

Comment
3 of 4

al-lewandowski-170763

April 17, 2009

We seem to have lost focus in the last blog response on the specific subject and made it personal politics. Not very intellectual!

Comment
4 of 4

mary-saunders-73470

April 17, 2009

Federal subsidies seem easily to get accountability lost. What works in a particular place may be particular to that place. The potential for waste and corruption is greater with a subsidy system than with a tax-credit system. When resources stay in a particular place without having huge bites taken by aggregators, it is more efficient. Small projects have less potential for massive failure, misapplication, and politics as opposed to practicality. We have had enough too-big-to-fail (TBTF) and huge boondoggles. Small companies put their own money in. If they get knocked out by huge subsidies for politically connected insiders in huge existing corporations, progress is harmed. Small-retrofit ideas can get run over by environmentally irresponsible mega-projects. Countries which allow more decentralization will lead the way if the U.S. is unable to change this pattern.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!