Weekly Address: President Obama Lauds Clean Energy Projects as Key to Creating Jobs and Building a Stronger Economy

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release October 02, 2010


•Fact Sheet (pdf)

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Obama announced that – due to clean energy incentives launched by his administration – a company called BrightSource plans to break ground this month on a new, revolutionary type of solar power plant. This will put about 1,000 people to work building the facility. And once completed, it will power up to 140,000 homes, making it the largest such plant in the world. But for all the potential of clean energy projects like this one, the GOP recently pledged to scrap all incentives for these projects, even ones currently in progress.

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ .

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

The White House

October 2, 2010

Over the past twenty months, we’ve been fighting not just to create more jobs today, but to rebuild our economy on a stronger foundation. Our future as a nation depends on making sure that the jobs and industries of the 21st century take root here in America. And there is perhaps no industry with more potential to create jobs now – and growth in the coming years – than clean energy.

For decades, we’ve talked about the importance of ending our dependence on foreign oil and pursuing new kinds of energy, like wind and solar power. But for just as long, progress had been prevented at every turn by the special interests and their allies in Washington.

So, year after year, our dependence on foreign oil grew. Families have been held hostage to spikes in gas prices. Good manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. And we’ve seen companies produce new energy technologies and high-skilled jobs not in America, but in countries like China, India and Germany.

It was essential – for our economy, our security, and our planet – that we finally tackle this challenge. That is why, since we took office, my administration has made an historic commitment to promote clean energy technology. This will mean hundreds of thousands of new American jobs by 2012. Jobs for contractors to install energy-saving windows and insulation. Jobs for factory workers to build high-tech vehicle batteries, electric cars, and hybrid trucks. Jobs for engineers and construction crews to create wind farms and solar plants that are going to double the renewable energy we can generate in this country. These are jobs building the future.

For example, I want share with you one new development, made possible by the clean energy incentives we have launched. This month, in the Mojave Desert, a company called BrightSource plans to break ground on a revolutionary new type of solar power plant. It’s going to put about a thousand people to work building a state-of-the-art facility. And when it’s complete, it will turn sunlight into the energy that will power up to 140,000 homes – the largest such plant in the world. Not in China. Not in India. But in California.

With projects like this one, and others across this country, we are staking our claim to continued leadership in the new global economy. And we’re putting Americans to work producing clean, home-grown American energy that will help lower our reliance on foreign oil and protect our planet for future generations.

Now there are some in Washington who want to shut them down. In fact, in the Pledge they recently released, the Republican leadership is promising to scrap all the incentives for clean energy projects, including those currently underway – even with all the jobs and potential that they hold.

This doesn’t make sense for our economy. It doesn’t make sense for Americans who are looking for jobs. And it doesn’t make sense for our future. To go backwards and scrap these plans means handing the competitive edge to China and other nations. It means that we’ll grow even more dependent on foreign oil. And, at a time of economic hardship, it means forgoing jobs we desperately need. In fact, shutting down just this one project would cost about a thousand jobs.

That’s what’s at stake in this debate. We can go back to the failed energy policies that profited the oil companies but weakened our country. We can go back to the days when promising industries got set up overseas. Or we can go after new jobs in growing industries. And we can spur innovation and help make our economy more competitive. We know the choice that’s right for America. We need to do what we’ve always done – put our ingenuity and can do spirit to work to fight for a brighter future.

Thanks.

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Lugar speech on energy security and climate change

Dick Lugar
U.S. Senator for Indiana
Date: 09/21/2009 • http://lugar.senate.gov
Contact: Andy Fisher • 202-224-2079 • andy_fisher@lugar.senate.gov
________________________________________


Following is the text of a speech by U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar this morning at the Energy Security as National and Economic Security forum sponsored by IUPUI’s Lugar Center for Renewable Energy and the Pew Environmental Group in Indianapolis, Indiana. Today is the first day of Global Climate Week.

Thank you, Mayor Ballard, for your kind introduction and for your important leadership on energy issues in Indianapolis. I also want to thank Chancellor Charles Bantz, Dr. Andrew Hsu, and the entire team at the Lugar Center for Renewable Energy for hosting us today. The Lugar Center is at the forefront of research and education on energy issues. It is a catalyst for the ground-breaking collaboration of Hoosier universities, private industry, government, and our national labs.

The work of the Lugar Center and other energy research endeavors is vital because the United States is confronted by a cluster of national security threats that arise from our economic and cultural reliance on fossil fuels.

First, our immediate dependence on oil, a large percentage of which is controlled by hostile or unstable regimes concentrated in the volatile Middle East, increases our vulnerability to natural disasters, wars, and terrorist attacks that can disrupt the lifeblood of the international economy. It also means that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to authoritarian regimes. This revenue stream emboldens oil-rich governments and enables them to entrench corruption, fund anti-Western demagogic appeals, and support terrorism.

Second, we face the prospect of manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies by producers seeking political leverage. Vulnerability to such leverage has strained our alliances and poses a persistent threat to the global economy. Moreover, nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the threat of a cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the chances of armed conflict, terrorism, and economic collapse.

Third, we face longer term prospects of increased competition for finite resources, most notably, oil. At some point – even with vigorous exploration and development efforts – global demand for oil will exceed supply. As we approach the point when the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict. Although the current recession has softened demand for oil, it has also led to falling investment in the energy sector. The International Energy Agency projects that global investment in oil and natural gas production will fall by $100 billion this year. These cuts come at a time when more investment is needed to counteract high oil field decline rates. This increases the possibility of extreme oil scarcity in the relatively near future.

And fourth, a concern at the center of public debate today is the series of international crises that may arise out of drought, food shortages, rising seas, and other manifestations of climate change.

This list does not necessarily exhaust the consequences we may face. But it underscores one of the dilemmas for policymakers, namely, that the multiple threats related to fossil fuel dependence are not identical. They each have a unique time horizon and threat intensity.

Some actions we might take, such as developing renewable fuels, may be useful in addressing the entire cluster of threats. But some steps that might be beneficial for reducing oil dependence, such as powering new vehicles with electricity generated by conventional coal technologies, may aggravate greenhouse gas emissions. Still other steps that might be beneficial for climate change may worsen other threats in the cluster. For example, EPA regulations on land-use changes could stunt biofuels production, or carbon regulation at home could increase import dependence on refined petroleum products.

Even as we work for a conversion from a fossil fuel dominated economy to one that depends much more on renewable resources, failure to maintain reliable supplies of oil and natural gas in the interim could be debilitating to our economy and our national security. Therefore, as we seek to reduce carbon output, we cannot afford to be complacent in the development of domestic oil and gas supplies, nor can we neglect bilateral relationships with key energy producers around the world or fail to reinforce multilateral energy cooperation.

Our task is not just to anticipate all possible national security threats that might emerge in the future due to our current energy portfolio. We have to develop timelines that compare the relative immediacy of these threats, and prioritize accordingly. Then we have to make rational choices about where and how to apply limited resources.

Heightened public understanding of the scope of our energy challenge has led to considerable progress on embracing an “all of the above” approach to energy policy. Development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements are all on the table, as they should be. Similarly, a growing consensus is emerging on the need for progress in building out the transmission grid, reforming utilities regulation to allow for dispersed generation and rate decoupling, and using smart meters. With coal generating more than half of the energy we use, carbon capture, storage, and recycling technologies are essential.

Economic Recovery and Climate Change

As we work to address energy-driven security threats, we also must take stock of what individual policies would mean for the economic vitality of our country. Solutions to our energy problems do not exist in isolation from the global economy. The global economic downturn has reduced energy demand, bringing greater flexibility to markets. Yet, when major economies start to recover, energy demand will rebound, causing markets to tighten and prices to rise. Under such conditions, markets will be highly susceptible to vulnerabilities that can produce severe supply shocks. In the near term, if we fail to address these vulnerabilities, the prospects for economic recovery could be seriously imperiled. An oil price shock that hits just as a recovery is beginning and demand for energy is increasing would likely generate inflation, undermine market confidence, and increase the risks of conflict.

Individual Americans and the national budget both face extraordinary economic challenges. While some economic indicators have shown signs of incremental improvement in recent weeks, a number of areas continue to cause concern. This is especially true with regard to unemployment.

Although the pace of job loss may finally be abating, overall unemployment continues to rise. The national unemployment rate now hovers just below 10 percent. In Indiana, we reached the 10 percent threshold six months ago, with a half dozen of our counties contending with unemployment rates above 15 percent. Even more troubling is the presence of greater long term unemployment in this recession compared to previous downturns.

It is within this economic context that the Senate may consider a cap and trade program. The cap and trade mechanism has become a central focus of the energy and climate debate in Washington.

I believe that the U.S. must attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To be successful, we must study, carefully, economic and political realities.

Some observers optimistically estimate that the loss in per capita U.S. GDP resulting from the Waxman-Markey cap and trade approach adopted by the House of Representatives would be between one and two percent. But even that level of reduced national growth is far from benign. Economic growth is the engine through which jobs are created, innovation is spurred, and entrepreneurship is launched – including innovation in the green economy that we are striving to nurture. In the absence of economic revival and sustained economic growth in the United States, it is unrealistic to expect that the American public will maintain support for such a massively expensive carbon control program. In the absence of economic stability worldwide, developing countries are unlikely to make the investments necessary to convert the world to a less carbon intensive existence.

Similarly, public support for steps to reduce carbon would likely be undercut if we experience intense shocks to the American way of life stemming from our dependence on oil. For example, if peak oil scenarios, politically motivated embargos, wars, or natural disasters result in a sustained and severe curtailment of the availability of gasoline and heating oil before we have developed an alternative system, all bets are off for policies directed at mitigating climate change. If the American public and economy are rendered immobile by a sustained oil shock of a severity we have yet to experience, it is almost inconceivable that they would tolerate government imposed sacrifices focused on climate change that add to their burdens and slow the economy further. In this context, breaking our oil dependence, with all the national security, economic, and environmental benefits that would come with such a victory, must be our top energy priority. This does not mean that overcoming oil dependence and addressing climate concerns cannot be pursued simultaneously. They must be. But climate efforts must not cause us to lose focus on the immediate risks presented by our oil dependence, and preference should be given to steps in the climate arena that also have utility in mitigating oil dependence.

Due to our state’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity, jobs tied to energy intensive manufacturing sectors, and broad agricultural base, GDP losses under the Waxman-Markey bill would be disproportionately felt by Hoosiers. Concessions made in the Waxman-Markey bill to appease a broad host of interests, including allocations made to power producers, may have made this worse by shifting some transition funds from the Midwest to coastal consumers.

Congress should continue to examine options for establishing policies that provide consistent signals to guide markets toward long-term energy transformation and continual innovation. Cap and trade, in a variety of formats, is one among several policy alternatives that the United States Senate will discuss in an effort to solve the most basic energy policy challenge before us, which is that many consumption decisions being made in the United States do not account for the basket of security costs posed by our current energy portfolio. The same can be said of the long-term costs of greenhouse gas emissions on our environment. In such cases, classic economics indicates that one of the most efficient solutions would be to enact policies that price our energy consumption decisions as accurately and transparently as possible.

Externality pricing alone, however, is not a cure-all for our energy security problems. In some cases, targeted interventions are justified to correct specific market failures and can bring achievable results in the near term. For example, many readily available and cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades exist for new homes, yet they are not widely used. Improved home and building energy efficiency codes, which automatically increase over time, would overcome inefficiencies and encourage manufacturers and developers to find new and cheaper ways to save energy, and, thus, save money for home owners and building managers.

It is prudent to act on policies to guard against climatic change and adapt to changes already likely to occur. But we should also give priority to steps that would simultaneously yield benefits for other U.S. priorities, such as bolstering energy independence, strengthening our economy, generating export markets for high technology industries, developing our rural economy and improving air quality. In other words, economic sacrifices undertaken by the American people in pursuit of energy and environmental security must deliver far more than just a reduction of U.S.-produced carbon.

Achieving Energy and Climate Gains

Notwithstanding my caution on the Waxman-Markey cap and trade formula, we should act quickly on a number of measures that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help limit the foreign policy risks of global hydrocarbon dependence, support economic growth, and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Relatively quick progress on cutting oil dependence and slashing carbon emissions can be achieved from biofuels usage, even as we also transition to a more electrified transportation system. Efficiencies in buildings, homes, appliances, and manufacturing facilities are easy wins for our economy and the environment. Innovation is already happening, but we need fiscally-prudent and tactically-focused programs to jumpstart such actions to scale. To this end, Senator Merkley and I recently introduced a bill that would facilitate loans for homeowners and small businesses to make energy saving renovations.

Our main oil savings will come from the transportation sector, which contributes about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions. If current federal goals are met, biofuels produced in the United States would equal 20 percent of our current fuel needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent compared to the fuel they replace. Although we have passed an expansive renewable fuels mandate, the mandate alone does not ensure that the necessary technological breakthroughs and infrastructure enhancements will occur.

Urgent attention should be given to improving the mix of feedstocks that can be turned into fuel. We should transition out of the current static biofuels subsidy programs, which, in my judgment, will become more difficult to extend as the cost rises and therefore will become less effective at encouraging investment. Instead, we should embrace market assurances tied directly to the price of petroleum, creating more reliable incentives and adopting a more taxpayer friendly approach. And finally, we must ensure that all new vehicles can employ multiple fuel sources, giving choice to consumers and spreading the reach of biofuels at low cost.

Similar focus and policy coherence needs to be given to accelerating advanced vehicle technologies and the batteries necessary to make them practical – areas in which Hoosier companies and workers excel. The potential of electric vehicle technology is tremendous. Since most commutes are less than 40 miles a day, a vehicle with a 40-mile battery range could eliminate daily gasoline needs for most Americans. Automotive innovation can help give new economic life to communities that have struggled because of the auto industry’s woes. We have seen new entrepreneurial companies like Bright Automotive and Carbon Motors choose to locate in Indiana. Federal government programs meant to foster research and leverage private investment must be geared toward true innovation, spurring transition in our existing infrastructure and ensuring that programs are suitably calibrated to support new entrepreneurial companies at the cutting edge of innovation.

Innovative technologies like those being developed at the Lugar Center and in the labs and companies represented by many of you today are the key to achieving security and environmental gains without sacrificing economic growth. If we are to succeed, we must have consistent research support and prevent innovative technologies from being lost in the so-called ‘valley of death’ between R&D phases and commercialization due to lack of affordable credit – a situation that has worsened with the recession.

Tools such as loan guarantees can help new technologies prove their commercial viability. However, the Department of Energy completed the first such loan guarantee just two weeks ago – four years after the program was authorized. This inconceivable delay underscores the need for a far more focused effort. Recently I joined with Senators Bingaman and Murkowski to offer legislation that would establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration with the mission to help new technologies prove themselves commercially and facilitate wide-scale deployment over a limited period of time. Such assistance needs to be fiscally responsible and careful to energize private investment, not crowd it out.

Finally, governments at the federal, state, and local levels should ensure that their own substantial procurement funds are promoting innovative materials that save energy – and save taxpayers’ money. Federal facilities should use the most energy efficient building materials available and can serve as test beds to demonstrate new products. Our vehicle fleets should use hybrids and electric vehicles, and they should be flex-fuel capable of using high-blends of biofuels. Even as the procurement power of the government enlivens markets for innovation, it will also help demonstrate to Americans that cost-effective energy and climate solutions exist today.

A Global Challenge

The challenge of deploying clean energy technologies is not limited to our domestic efforts. The energy choices being made around the world impact our own security, economy, and environment. The scale of the challenge dwarfs our own transition. Emerging economies far outpace us in energy demand growth. For many people in impoverished countries, this growth is a matter of survival, not luxury, so we should not be surprised when countries pursue the lowest-cost power options such as coal and firewood. Yet, many countries in the developing world are also the most susceptible to variations in energy markets, manipulation of energy supplies, and possible impacts of climatic change.

We have a common interest in finding cleaner and affordable energy solutions soon, and deploying them as quickly as possible on a global scale. The United Nations recently estimated that the cost of such a transition in the developing world will be $500 to $600 billion annually over the next decade. Bridging this gap will depend on innovative programs that leverage large-scale private investment in developing nations. We also must have mechanisms for assisting other countries to develop inexpensive energy saving and producing technologies and techniques. U.S. leadership now would help capture blossoming market opportunities for American products and services.

Freer trade in clean energy technologies can help boost competition, find efficiencies of scale, and open valuable markets for U.S. companies. Yet, global trade barriers on such technologies are substantial. Considering that a central goal of climate change advocates is to spread clean energy technologies, it is ironic that climate change is being used as a foil for protectionism. For example, the Waxman-Markey bill would raise tariffs, threatening to set off trade confrontations with those countries we most need to adopt new energy technologies – and buy our government bonds.

More fundamentally, we must integrate energy concerns at the top of our diplomatic and foreign assistance agenda. As we seek to find ways to spread innovative energy technologies and techniques around the world, we must bear in mind that they will only be effective at scale with underlying policy frameworks reinforced with improved governance and political support in place. In other words, addressing energy security and climate change is an issue of governance and development, and we must integrate those into our ongoing dialogues around the world, not separate them. The advancement of the rule of law and transparency in partner nations is critical to ensuring that energy investments are efficient and productive.

The United States should demonstrate its leadership by adopting the pro-energy security and pro-climate change steps I have elaborated here today, and many more that I have not had time to detail. Complex treaty negotiations are not a pre-condition for implementing a pro-growth campaign of initiatives that would have an immediate and direct impact on the entire cluster of problems associated with our fossil fuel dependency.

Conclusion

I conclude with this thought. Energy is at the root of multiple threats to our country. Some of those threats we see today and feel personally, others may develop in the more distant future. As we endeavor to act on climate change, we should favor and accelerate policies that strengthen America against other threats that also are derived by how we generate and use energy. We are fortunate that many win-win policy options are achievable today. Energy security improvements and greenhouse gas reductions demonstrate commitment to our security, to working with global partners on common threats and, most importantly, commitment to future generations.

Thank you.

###

Strategies for your business to survive in a cap and trade world

FREE Panel Discussion and Networking event:
Thursday, September 03, 2009 ---5:30 PM - 8:00 PM (EDT)
The Columbia Club, 121 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46204

Green Business Network presents second Green Business Networking Series event at the Columbia Club on September 3rd, 2009.

Green Business Network is an Indianapolis based organization that promotes green businesses through education and connection. Part of the proceeds will benefit the Indiana Chapter of the US Green Building Council and the Hoosier Environmental Council.

Learn about current Greenhouse Gas legislation and how it applies to your business; What effect will it have on your business operations; Identify tools available to mitigate the risks and take advantage of tax and investment incentives. The speakers include:

1. Anthony Paul, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit organization that conducts independent research on environmental, energy out of Washington DC will provide economist perspective on carbon regulations and implications for Indiana businesses as well as the compliance costs to manufacturer, small businesses.

2. Tony Sullivan – partner with Barnes & Thornburg will cover Waxman Markey bill definition, applicability, main provisions and current status in the Congress.



3. Michael Radcliffe - RMT Strategic Advisory Services Leader will elaborate on how holistic value chain business assessment will help businesses to compete and stay profitable in present economic environment.


4. Ann McCabe with Climate registry out of Chicago, IL will cover available tools for Indiana businesses in measuring and reporting Greenhouse Gas emissions.


5. Matthew Morgan and Anneliese Williams with Barnes & Thornburg will discuss available business incentives: tax credits;cash payments; loans; grants on federal, state and local levels for Indiana businesses provided by current legislature.

6. Kristen Trovillion - Program Manager with Indiana Office of Energy Development will highlight the state’s energy efficiency programs for businesses and nonprofits and will discuss Alternative Power and Energy (APE) grant for businesses

Learn more about panel speakers


Moreover, the event has dedicated a two-hour period after the panel discussion, for participants to engage in Green Networking.

The program seeks diversity in its attendance, which will include corporate leaders, business professionals, business owners, local policymakers, educators, and local media persons.



The event is FREE but advance registration is requested. Space is limited and assigned on first come first serve basis.

REGISTER HERE.

Michiana businesses study potential of clean energy jobs plan

http://www.nilesstar.com/2009/08/21/michigan-businesses-study-potential-of-clean-energy-jobs-plan/

From the Niles Star; August 21, 2009

SOUTH BEND, Ind. – Joined by State Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend), Michiana business leaders today urged Congress to pass a clean energy jobs plan that would boost Indiana’s economy and grow new jobs in the area.

The business leaders cited both personal experiences and recent studies that underscore how comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation can renew the economy with new clean energy jobs. Also highlighted was a new poll that shows strong public support for Congressional action.

“It’s time to get America running on clean energy,” said TJ Kanczuzewski, executive vice president of Inovateus Solar in South Bend, where the local businesses gathered today.

“Clean energy jobs are already keeping thousands of Hoosiers working. I know first hand that if Congress passes a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan we could put thousands more back to work in our state alone.”

Kanczuzewski’s father, Leonard of Cassopolis, owns the former business incubator in Cassopolis, called Inovateus Business Center. Along with SCORE, which has an office in the center, potential and existing businesses can get needed assistance in forming and executing their business plans.

A study from the Pew Charitable Trusts, entitled “Clean Energy Economy,” examined the number of clean energy jobs that already exist in each state. It found that 17,300 Hoosiers are already employed in the clean energy economy.

“Clean energy jobs are real and they’re here today,” said Tom Topash, president of Turtle Island Wind and Solar in Berrien Center. “Now we just need Congress to act so our businesses can create more jobs, slash pollution, and make America more secure.”

A second study from the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that the clean energy jobs plan passed by the House of Representatives – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – would create 1.7 million net new jobs. That includes 38,000 new clean energy jobs for Indiana.

“We need bold action to renew our economy,” said Ron Williams, president of Take Action Solar and Wind in Elkhart, Ind. “By passing clean energy and climate legislation now, Congress can make sure that the clean energy jobs of tomorrow are right here in Michiana.”

In addition to providing new jobs and a boost to the overall economy, a clean energy jobs plan would be of particular benefit to low-income Americans. A report from Green for All and the Natural Resources Defense Council, entitled “Green Prosperity,” highlights the potential for a clean energy jobs plan to fight poverty and raise living standards in communities across the U.S.

“Low-income Americans stand to gain tremendously – with new jobs, higher wages, and lower living expenses,” said Heidi McHugh, marketing manager for Middlebury’s Home and Mobile Energy. “Building the clean energy economy will benefit all Americans, but there is evidence that it will help some of those hit hardest by the economic collapse the most.”

Finally, a new poll conducted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation by Zogby International shows strong public support for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. A supermajority of respondents, 71 percent, support the plan passed by the House in June. The poll also underscored strong support for Senate action, with more than half of respondents agreeing that the Senate should act quickly to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan.

“The public strongly supports the clean energy jobs plan passed by the House and it’s also clear they want the Senate to act quickly,” said Linda Yoder, vice president of Government Affairs for one of Indiana’s newest clean energy companies, Electric Motors Corp. in Wakarusa/Nappanee.”When Congress comes back from recess, it’s time for the Senate to get working to put America back to work in the clean energy economy.”

“Renewable energy stands to create tens of thousands of jobs in Indiana,” summed up State Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend), chair of the House Environmental Affairs Committee. “It is absolutely essential to the future of our state and a key component to pulling out of the ongoing recession.”

Inovateus and Home & Mobile Energy are both members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Climate Change Roundtable Discussion Scheduled July 9th at IUPUI

What Are the Local Impacts of Climate Change?
A Public Round Table Discussion

Environment America and the Richard G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) will host a public round table event to discuss a recent report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program on the impacts of climate change in the U.S. Expert speakers will give their reactions to the report and talk about the impacts of climate change from their individual perspectives.

THURSDAY, JULY 9TH
12:00 pm
IUPUI CAMPUS CENTER, ROOM CE 305
420 University Blvd.Indianapolis, IN 46202

Panelists:

Bill Keith, President, SunRise Solar
Reverend Mike Mather, Broadway United Methodist Church
Dr. Gabriel Filippelli, Chair, Department of Earth Science, IUPUI
Jimmy Bricker, County Extension Director, Benton County
Representative, Truman National Security Project

Parking and Directions:
https://www.parking.iupui.edu/visitors.do
http://www.iupui.edu/about/maps/directions.html

Access to report:
http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/newsroom

Contacts:
LuCinda Hohmann, Environment America: 312-291-0696 x220
Kyle Cline, Richard Lugar Center for Renewable Energy: 317-278-4723

NW Indiana Business Owner Keith Lobbies for Clean Energy Bill

Bill Keith, President of SunRise Solar, Inc. in St. John, IN, was in Washington, D.C. earlier this week to lobby for passage of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act. Keith was invited to participate in a press conference conducted by Congressman Henry Waxman (in front of the microphones) and Keith is the fourth person to the right of Waxman in the photo wearing the blue tie and jacket. Keith's head is in front of the green sign that says "YES TO GREEN JOBS".

The U.S. House of Representatives began voting Friday evening shortly after 7:00 pm on HR 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act. The bill passed narrowly by a vote of 219 to 212.

The members of the Indiana Congressional Delegation voted as follows:

YES:

Carson (D), Hill (D)

NO:

Donnelly (D), Ellsworth (D), Visclosky (D);

Burton (R), Buyer (R), Pence (R), Souder (R)

For a complete analysis of the roll call vote on HR 2454 see http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/477

E-mail from Bill Keith to Shari Taylor Davenport, Office of Pete Visclosky:

Shari,

Thanks for the response, but I have some reservations about Pete’s stance…… [News release from Congreessman Pete Visclosky follows.]

The air in NWI is dirty (it stinks), the water is being polluted, the cancer rate is 8th in the nation, and Pete is still holding on to the old way of doing business. I know what he is thinking, “If I lose the Gary (Lake County) vote then I lose the next election.” The educated public can see right through this Shari, and it may come back to bite him in the rear end.

I appreciate that Pete works hard for industry, but it is time for a NEW industry – one that is CLEAN!

This transition to a clean energy economy WILL happen, either on Pete’s watch or on the next guys watch – MY generation and my children’s generation demand it!

Respectfully,

Bill Keith

SunRise Solar Inc.

PO Box 53

St John, IN 46373

219-558-2211

219-306-4571 fax

http://www.sunrisesolar.net/

Taking GREEN......Mainstream!

In the News

Congressman Pete Visclosky

Proudly Representing Indiana’s 1st Congressional District

2256 Rayburn Building

Washington, D.C.

TELE: 202-225-2461

7895 Broadway, Suite A

Merrillville, IN 46410

TELE: 219-795-1844

http://www.house.gov/visclosky

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 26, 2009

Visclosky Votes Against Cap and Trade Legislation
Legislation Would Threaten Competitiveness and Jobs in Northwest Indiana

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Pete Visclosky issued the following statement today after voting no on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, legislation that would establish a cap and trade regime to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S.:

“Climate change is real. It is a serious problem that threatens our way of life, and I am committed to working to solve it.

“Although significant progress has been made on this bill on a number of fronts that would hold down the cost of electricity to residential and industrial customers and help level the playing field for our steel and manufacturing industries that face international competition, the bill still falls short.

“The legislation considered today leaves no margin of error as it relates to jobs in the domestic steel industry, stoking my greatest fear that it will result in a net loss of jobs in Northwest Indiana. I remain seriously concerned about the long-term ramifications that this unilateral action to combat climate change will have on American competitiveness and American workers. We can’t just hope that other countries will follow suit and choose to act concurrently. Additionally, from my perspective this legislation assumes no growth in American industry, including steel.

“I see the need for climate change legislation, but we still have more work to do before this package is ready. The nature of the problem demands a balanced approach that ensures competitiveness and protects American jobs.”

###