There were many good reasons for Democrats in the House of Representatives to vote against passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The legislation had been wrecked by industry lobbyists by the time it reached the floor of the House. It contained money to perpetuate the hoax of so-called clean coal, supporting the continued use of dirty fossil fuels for another generation. It also provided pollute-for-free allowances for big industry, instead of requiring polluters to pay for the damage that they are inflicting upon America’s natural and other economic resources. What positive action the bill did provide for is delayed for years, when scientists tell us that we need to make serious energy as soon as possible.

These considerations motivated Dennis Kucinich to vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Kucinich explained his vote by saying of the bill,

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.”

In Upstate New York, Democrat Dan Maffei had many of the same misgivings. He ended up voting for the bill, but commented before the vote, “My big concern at this point is that this bill is supposed to be about green energy technology… But still, the bulk of the research money goes for something that’s so-called clean coal.”

Maffei’s neighbor, in New York’s 24th congressional district, voted against the bill as well, but for opposite reasons. Though Mike Arcuri has campaigned with promises of supporting green energy legislation, he refused to do so yesterday.

In explaining his opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, Congressman Arcuri made it clear that he is not willing to stick his neck out to take action on climate change. Arcuri repeated Republican talking points, claiming that doing anything much to deal with climate change will be too costly. Arcuri said, “We all know that New York state already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country, and if those rates were to dramatically increase as a result of this legislation, it would almost certainly cost jobs in Upstate New York and discourage new businesses from locating here.”

Read that twice, and think about the logical leap Representative Arcuri is making. He’s claiming that national legislation, which would have an equal impact on energy prices all across the country, would discourage businesses from locating in Upstate New York. That juts doesn’t make sense.

Besides, the change in expenses, as calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would be just 48 cents per day for the average American. For the sake of 48 cents, Michael Arcuri is refusing to protect the USA from the severe, multiple impacts of climate change.

The economic impact of climate change is already in the billions of dollars every year. Economic activities in Representative Arcuri’s own congressional district, such as skiing, maple syrup and dairy, are in decline because of climate change.

The head-in-the-sand resistance of politicians like Michael Arcuri to action on climate change is only helping out-of-date industries that gain their profits through the preservation of dirty, inefficient energy technologies that were invented a century ago.