I am not against green energy in itself, but I am against government mandates, especially when they make energy more costly and unreliable for Michigan residents. These mandates are based on an ideology that carbon dioxide is inherently bad. When I ask some supporters of this legislation the basic question, “What should our target level of carbon be?” I don’t get any answers. As far as I can tell, the goal is to reduce carbon in our atmosphere as much as possible. What would happen if we actually went all the way, and successfully rid carbon from our planet’s atmosphere? Well, to start, the earth’s temperature would drop to an uninhabitable level, plant life would die, and we would run out of oxygen. The point being, carbon is essential to life.
If we really want to get serious about addressing greenhouse gases, we should maybe be addressing what amounts to half of the greenhouse effect. Dihydrogen monoxide. This substance causes many thousands to die annually, it is the cause of many natural disasters, and in the winter it causes many traffic accidents. Perhaps we should create a factory-sized dehumidifier and get this substance out of our atmosphere. Of course, this is commonly known as water, and we should get it out of the air? Well obviously, I’m joking here, but I exaggerate to illustrate a point that we need to accept that there is a natural order of things we cannot control. We need carbon dioxide to live. That does not mean we should eliminate all regulations. It was not that long ago when many of our urban centers suffered from unchecked hydro-carbon emissions, leading to severely unhealthy air pollution. I definitely think regulations controlling pollutions serve a common good, but we seem to be going too far on regulating carbon emissions in general.
The bottom line is that I support this legislation before us today because it’s a step toward improving our energy policy. This should be an easy win. However, the recent energy reforms passed by Michigan Democrats prohibited carbon capture as counting towards clean energy when it’s used to support oil production. As one can see, I have mixed feelings about this bill. On one hand, the support itself makes practical sense. On the other hand, looking at the bill in the context of our current energy policies in Michigan, the benefits become more convoluted. The mandates approved recently in Michigan are unworkable. To conclude, I support this bill based on its own merits. That being said, I look forward to seeing our unsustainable energy policies repealed next term.
Senator Albert’s second statement is as follows:
I wanted to respond to a couple of questions that my colleague from the 15th District mentioned.
The first one was a question of, Why are we—I presume he means us on the politically right side of the spectrum—why are we opposed to renewable resources? I didn’t want to speak for everybody, but I think, by and large, we’re not opposed to renewable resources. I disagree with the premise. I know, I specifically, personally, am not opposed to renewable resources for clean energy. What I’m opposed to is the government mandates of it, and mandating a technology on a scale that it’s not ready for. That’s what the problem is, because in fact, that impacts real people in a negative way. It makes the energy that they need, to survive and to live, too expensive. So I guess that’s the answer to that question.
The next one was about carbon capture being expensive, Why would we want to support a policy that’s going to increase costs? Again, I disagree with the premise. It is the Democrats’ energy bill that was passed last term that mandated if we’re going to allow gas generation of electric energy, it’s going to have to have at least 80 percent of carbon capture. We didn’t put that mandate in, you guys did. So it’s your mandate that you guys passed last term, that is causing this additional cost to come in. The question of this bill is whether or not we should allow the permitting at the state level or not, not whether or not we should mandate carbon capture. So, for both of those questions, I disagree with the premise, and I feel like we’re on strong ground to be a “yes” on this.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 395, entitled
A bill to amend 1929 PA 16, entitled “An act to regulate the business of carrying or transporting, buying, selling, or dealing in crude oil or petroleum or its products, or certain substances consisting primarily of carbon dioxide through pipe lines; to authorize the use of public highways and the condemnation of private property; to regulate the purchase and storage of crude oil or petroleum or certain substances consisting primarily of carbon dioxide; to provide for the control and regulation of all corporations, associations, and persons engaged in such business, by the Michigan public service commission; to define the powers and duties of the commission in relation thereto; and to prescribe penalties,” by amending section 1 (MCL 483.1), as amended by 2014 PA 85.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: