Now We Know: Why Rudy Hates Renewable Energy

By: TheGreenMiles
Published On: 12/10/2007 11:27:38 AM

I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday and noticed how carefully Rudy Giuliani parsed his energy policy when it came to renewables.  He even mentioned hydroelectric power, the oldest of old-school clean energy, but assiduously avoided any mention of solar or wind.

This morning we find out why:

Southern Co., American Electric Power Co. and other producers hired top Washington lobbyists, including Rudy Giuliani's firm, to help defeat a measure that would force them to boost electricity generated by wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy to 15 percent of the U.S. total by 2020. [...]

Southern Co. has spent $7.26 million this year lobbying Congress, more than Exxon Mobil Corp. or General Motors Corp., according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. It hired such firms as Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, where Republican presidential front-runner Giuliani is a partner.

Here's what Rudy had to say about energy on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT:  Congress-the House has passed an energy bill which would mandate 35 miles per gallon per automobiles by the year 2020.  Would you support that?

MR. GIULIANI:  That isn't the way I think it should be done.  I think what we should be doing is developing the alternatives so it's possible to accomplish that as opposed to just setting mandates and not having the support there for expansion of hybrid vehicles, expansion of biofuels, including ethanol. Expansion...

MR. RUSSERT:  But you're against increasing miles per gallon.

MR. GIULIANI:  I would not do it that way, yes.  I would do it with heavy expansion of hybrid vehicles, which move some of the sources over to electricity, then deal with clean coal, nuclear power, hybrid vehicles, expansion of hydroelectric power, more oil refineries, more domestic oil.  All of those things are the things that we should be supporting.  And we should be selling that to the, to the rest of the world, because if, if-no matter what we do, if China and India and these other countries that are developing don't start to get control on this, it's going to wipe out any good that we do.  So the real emphasis here should be on developing energy independence and creating these alternative industries.

The full transcript is here.

The involvement of Southern Co. will come as no surprise to groups like the Southern Environmental Law Center who know Southern is to global warming as Philip Morris is to lung cancer.

Cross-posted from Daily Kos

Comments



Just another sell out (Eric - 12/10/2007 12:16:06 PM)
It isn't difficult to understand why we're facing the environmental disaster that we are.  If they're not helping friends and political supporters, they're helping their clients.  In recent years it's clearly been the fault of the Republicans, but any politician can easily be drawn into sell out mode.

We must keep a close eye on all of them - even the Democrats.  And if they go down the low road, vote 'em out of office regardless of party.



Great catch (PM - 12/10/2007 12:25:35 PM)
wow -- we're really getting a complete picture of Rudy, the so-called "liberal"


Well (A Siegel - 12/10/2007 1:39:18 PM)
As you saw, I've posted Carbon on the City (http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/rudys-carbon-on-the-city/) based on seeing this at DKos.  Thank you.


Renewable Payola For the Hero of 9/11 (soccerdem - 12/10/2007 5:31:49 PM)
Rudy's already gotten the payoffs he from contracts to his "patriotic" firms that wrapped themselves in the glitz of the 9/11 tragedy.  Of course, when they pay you off you wouldn't support 35mpg, or wind, or solar--not with those payoffs to you.

From viewing Rudys hands-on interaction with his, ahem, blushing bride, and considering his age, I'd say that the only source of renewable energy Rudy is interested in comes from a renewable prescription for Viagra.  



Nuclear is the Way to go (Matusleo - 12/10/2007 7:37:11 PM)
I think that of all these other green power sources, Nuclear is the only viable option (hydroelectric where it works is good too).  You can only get so much power out of wind and solar.  The problem is power density, and you'd need huge fields of wind sails and solar cells to generate enough electricity to satisfy demand.  

Now, in areas where it is feasible to build them we should do so.  But I think we need to recognize that they are always going to be a minority contributor to the power grid in the United States.

Nuclear power though could be a major player.  There is more energy in a soda can full of Uranium-235 than there is in a tanker full of coal or oil.  Further, the regulations we have on nuclear power plants are tight enough that the chance of nuclear irradiation or contamination is negligible.  Coal plants spit out more radioactive nuclides (and other harmful things like Arsenic and Selenium) than do our nuclear power plants.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim