On August 23, Southern California’s public power management agency was preparing to issue 5.3 billion U.S. dollar city bonds and raise funds to buy wind power from the West Coast of Washington to serve the entire Los Angeles area and Glendale City.
This is a common news in the field of new energy, but because it is California's new energy, it does not have profound meaning.
Since July of this year, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in California has planned to part-way with the American Chamber of Commerce in the United States and set about establishing a new climate business alliance named Chamber of Innovation and Clean Energy (CICE). According to the CICE website, the organization’s principle is: To lead the clean energy competition, greenhouse gas emission reduction will stimulate innovation.
Shortly after the CCIE was established, California Power conducted a large-scale demonstration on the West Coast, which made people see the "radical" of the West Coast. Originally, at the beginning of his administration, Obama planned to stimulate new energy investment with a series of new energy policies. However, the U.S. economic recovery relies on traditional growth points. In the second quarter of this year, U.S. investment in wind power actually fell from the first quarter.
California Electric Power Co., Ltd. once again exposed the rift in the US business community. Under the background of the lagging emission reduction legislation in the United States, the business community's views on the new energy field have produced great differences. The United States Environmental Think Tank, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), replied that the US Chamber of Commerce had opposed the response to climate change for a long time and that the division of chambers of commerce was inevitable.
Yang Fuqiang, an expert on energy and climate issues at WWF, told the newspaper: “Clean energy is a new economic growth point and represents the mainstream energy orientation in the future, but we cannot exaggerate its role in economic recovery. Energy can't be a locomotive yet."
American Chamber of Commerce is divided
For the American Chamber of Commerce, which has 3 million members, the current goal of CICE is to sign only 30 to 50 local chambers of commerce. However, CICE also joined the U.S. coalition on clean energy, including the U.S. Carbon Action Coalition, the U.S. Clean Energy Chamber of Commerce, and the Environmental Entrepreneurs Association.
In the face of potentially huge challenges, the American Chamber of Commerce began to dismantle "rebels." Since the wind received in mid-July, the American Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the local chamber of commerce to dispel their thoughts on joining CICE. The CICE was established by the United States Environmental Think Tank, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce** Winthrop Hallett wrote this letter, claiming that CICE’s “hidden intentions show that it wants to debase the leadership of the American Chamber of Commerce and chamber of commerce (on climate issues)â€.
The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce** and Steve Falk, who organized CICE, counterattacked that Harreto's accusations were "excessive" and "completely provoked me." In a subsequent letter to the local chamber of commerce, Falk said that "no other organization or local chamber of commerce will influence the principles of CICE."
The NRDC involved in the reply to this newspaper stated that the American Chamber of Commerce “cannot represent progressive American business forces that are moving towards more effective, sustainable and clean technologiesâ€.
"CICE represents hundreds of American business forces, from small companies to large corporations, and local chambers of commerce. They all understand that clean energy opportunities represent new profits, jobs, and the need to address climate change and develop sustainable business." Lin Mingcher, head of China's climate and energy policy at NRDC, told the newspaper.
Since last year, the views of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on climate issues have become increasingly divided.
In August of last year, Vice President of the American Chamber of Commerce Bill Kovacs said that climate change science is a "monkey play." Many oil, coal and steel companies in the United States believe that emissions reductions will increase costs and expenditures. These interest groups have organized strong lobbying forces and ** climate legislation.
Since then, more than 10 important companies supporting emission reductions in the United States Chamber of Commerce in the Pacific [12.47-0.72%] PG&E, Apple, etc. have either withdrawn from the chamber of commerce or kept away from the chamber’s climate policy. . There are also many local chambers of commerce that openly oppose the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s climate stance
The American Chamber of Commerce has always insisted that it can support certain forms of climate legislation, but it opposes radical restrictions on emissions. It also claims that the mitigation actions are international agreements and do not require federal legislation.
“There is no clash of radical and conservative policies on climate policy. We are just chambers of commerce. We don’t want the government to decide on the operation of the company.†Falk said, “But we know that with the clean energy movement, there is a whole new The economy, a brand new growth engine is there. We see it happen in San Francisco and we think it's possible anywhere."
Climate legislation: Congress compromises traditional energy
The division of the American Chamber of Commerce to a certain extent represents the power of the traditional energy in the United States, and clean energy tends to be weak.
Before the expiration of the current Congress in January next year, the development of the US clean energy industry can no longer be expected to reduce emission reduction legislation. While reviewing the Senate and House of Representatives climate bills and removing greenhouse gas emission reduction clauses, most of the remaining articles focus on how to subsidize and stimulate traditional energy, nuclear energy, and infrastructure construction. Renewable energy is not the main content of the bill.
“Members of parliament represent local interests. About half of the oil in the United States comes from local production, and coal consumption also accounts for 25%. The interests of the traditional energy industry are strong.†Yang Fuqiang, expert on energy and climate issues at WWF The newspaper said.
The House’s climate legislation is called the U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Act). According to the analysis report of WRI, the United States environmental protection think tank, in addition to the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology support for the bill, most of the incentives for clean energy remain in the construction, lighting, transportation, and industrial energy efficiency sectors.
The Senate version is named "U.S. Clean Energy Employment and U.S. Electricity Initiative" (also known as the Kerry-Boxer Act), and the traditional energy, nuclear power and infrastructure industries have even seen a "heavy gold" advantage.
David Doniger, director of the NRDC Climate Center, pointed out that he said: "The bill includes some very unwise proposals, such as encouraging the construction of new nuclear power plants and offshore oil drilling, including providing huge subsidies for new nuclear power plants. Reduce the construction permit conditions, safety measures and environmental protection requirements for nuclear power plants."
In transport energy efficiency and transportation, the bill proposes to invest more than US$6 billion annually to build important transportation infrastructure throughout the country; the Ministry of Communications will allocate an additional US$ 1.875 billion in transportation funds to the states and municipalities each year to maintain the economic recovery bill "Transportation brings economic recovery" project.
The bill also expanded the Department of Energy’s **guarantee program to prepare a total of 54 billion U.S. dollars for superficially “innovative†nuclear power plants**. The NRDC believes the amount is too large. "A large amount of analysis shows that the same low-carbon power generation, the development of nuclear energy costs very expensive, to reach the bill's short-term and medium-term emission reduction targets, did not have to pay such a high price." David analysis.
David also regretfully told the newspaper that after the oil spill in Mexico, the bill continued to encourage offshore drilling.
In addition, the Senate climate bill has listed coal-fired, gas- and oil-fired power plants and oil refining product producers as targets for reducing emissions, and has not expanded to all industries with large carbon emissions.
"As the legislative game needs to fight for some 'coal states' politicians to vote, the bill also has provisions to hedge the impact of coal and oil industry restrictions, to ease the burden of consumer energy prices." Lin Ming-che said to this newspaper.