Sen. Susan Collins on the prospect of Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination:
"I don't think his nomination would be catastrophic."
ThinkProgress has a deep dive on the biomass amendment Sen. Susan Collins proposed earlier this week:
Environmentalists around the country are now incensed over an approved amendment categorizing bioenergy as carbon neutral--a move that groups say puts forests and even portions of the Clean Power Plan at risk.Some key questions: Why was the green community caught off guard here? How on earth did this thing pass on a voice vote?
"I think it's a very dangerous amendment," said Kevin Bundy, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, in an interview with ThinkProgress. "It tries to dictate that burning forests for energy won't affect the climate, that's what the term carbon neutral is supposed to mean and that's just not true. You can't legislate away basic physics."
Environmentalists say the amendment sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) interferes with the EPA's efforts, as it explicitly tells agencies to adopt policies that reflect the carbon neutrality of forests' bioenergy. They also argue that it may incentivize cutting forests for energy and most importantly, undo important provisions of the Clean Power Plan that call for reductions in carbon emissions from the electricity sector through increased use of renewable sources.
And why aren't environmental organizations that endorsed Collins (like League of Conservation Voters) and those that didn't (like Sierra Club) raising a bigger ruckus in social media and elsewhere to try to head the amendment off before it becomes law?
Posted by Contrapositive at 9:44 AM
Politico confirms that the Sen. Susan Collins amendment to override EPA scientists about the climate implications of burning wood was indeed adopted--by a voice vote.
How exactly does that happen?
MPBN has also posted a strong article on the issue--the best I've seen from them in a while.
Posted by Contrapositive at 7:14 PM
Still trying to get the facts about the status of the Collins/King effort to undermine the EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Meanwhile, a slew of environmental organizations including League of Conservation Voters, National Resource Defense Council and Sierra Club are out with a strong joint statement blasting the amendment:
The amendment would require that federal policy shall "reflect the carbon neutrality of forest bioenergy." This requirement would result in substantial damage to forests and climate by undermining the scientific process established by the EPA...
Cutting and burning our forests to generate electricity is not "carbon neutral." Per megawatt-hour, wood- burning power plants emit more CO2 than fossil-fueled plants...this amendment would therefore sanction and promote high-carbon sources of energy in federal policy, undermining the gains we are poised to make under the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Accord, and other climate policies.
Moreover, this amendment amounts to legislative interference with what should be a science-based policy...
This amendment is an environmentally damaging and scientifically indefensible approach to biomass policy.
Posted by Contrapositive at 10:02 AM