Tim Ryan on Energy & Oil

Democratic Representative (OH-17); Presidential Challenger (withdrawn)


We have to invent our way out of this

Sen. Bernie SANDERS: I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas. We've got to ask ourselves a simple question, "What do you do with an industry that knowingly, for billions of dollars in short-term profits, is destroying this planet?"

Ryan: All I'm saying is we have to invent our way out of this thing. If we're waiting for 2040 for a ban to come in on gasoline vehicles, we're screwed. That's why I'm saying get a chief manufacturing officer, align the environmental incentives with the financial incentives, and make sure that people can actually make money off of the new technologies that are moving forward. And then cut the worker in on the deal. Make sure these are union jobs.

SANDERS: I don't disagree with Tim. What that means is we got to, A, take on the fossil fuel industry, B, it means we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We got to transform our transportation system, and we have to lead the world.

Source: July Democratic Primary debate (first night in Detroit) , Jul 30, 2019

Regenerative agriculture sequesters carbon in soil

You cannot get there on climate unless we talk about agriculture. We need to convert our industrial agriculture system over to a sustainable and regenerative agriculture system that actually sequesters carbon into the soil. We can move away from all the subsidies that we're giving the farmers. They haven't made a profit in five years. And we could start getting good food into our schools and into our communities. And that's going to drive health care down.
Source: July Democratic Primary debate (first night in Detroit) , Jul 30, 2019

Must reconnect with working class to address climate change

Q: How do we pay for climate mitigation?

Tim Ryan: We have a perception problem with the Democratic Party. We are not connecting to the working class people in the industrial Midwest, to get those workers back on our side so we can say we're going to build electric vehicles, we're going to build solar panels. All I'm saying is here, if we don't address that fundamental problem with our connection to workers--white, black, brown, gay, straight--working-class people none of this is going to get done.

Source: June Democratic Primary debate (first night in Miami) , Jun 26, 2019

Paris Climate Agreement doesn't go nearly far enough

Q: As president, would you keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement and commit to more ambitious targets in 2020?

Ryan: "Of course, although I don't think the Paris Agreement goes nearly far enough. I don't like when people say, 'Oh, we're going to rejoin Paris,' and Paris is like the gold standard, because that's not anywhere close to what we need to do, and we're learning more every day about just how far behind those goals are. And that's why I think a national effort around innovation is really important."

Q: Do you support a federal carbon tax?

Ryan: "I'm open to it. I haven't made a decision on it."

Q: Would you restore Obama-era climate change regulations that the Trump administration has reversed, like the Clean Power Plan, methane limits and vehicle emissions standards?

Ryan: "Yes."

Q: Do you support a national renewable energy standard? If so, what would it be? If not, why not?

Ryan: "I'm open and leaning to support, depending on the details."

Source: 2019 "Meet the Candidates" (NY Times.com) , Apr 18, 2019

Green New Deal means manufacturing jobs

I support a Green New Deal. We've got to reverse what's happening with our climate, and that could mean jobs in places like Youngstown, Ohio, and the industrial Midwest because there's so much that needs to be manufactured. An agenda that can both reverse global warming and climate change and create manufacturing jobs is something I'm going to support.
Source: ABC This Week 2019 interview of presidential hopefuls , Apr 14, 2019

Renewable energy will bring economic benefits

He wants the U.S. to harness the economic benefits of renewables. "There's so many industries out there growing. Wind and solar is growing at 25% to 30% a year. By 2030, there's gonna be 30 million electric vehicles. I want those vehicles made in the United States. I want the batteries made in the United States. I want the charging stations made in the United States."
Source: Axios.com "What you need to know about 2020" , Apr 7, 2019

We burned oil in 100 years that took a billion years to form

Thermostats. Energy challenges. Turning off the lights. Sustainability. No surprise that we have been hearing these words a lot in the past few years. One of the most pressing challenges for us to tackle is how our country generates, stores, and transmits energy. It took billions of years for all the carbon-based fuels like coal and oil to get into the earth. In just over 100 years, we will have removed and burned it all. I am no scientist, but it seems to me that this will have some negative effect on our atmosphere. Not only that, but when fossil fuels are depleted, where will our next energy sources come from? We need to be very direct in asserting that 98 percent of scientists are saying that our behavior has the planet warming at a pace that could be very destructive if we don't reverse current trends.
Source: Healing America, by Rep. Tim Ryan, p.145 , Sep 18, 2018

Voted NO on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Young, R-AK]: The Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. In 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon, the public outcry forced Congress to act. That fall, Congress lifted the offshore drilling ban that had been in place for decades. Three years later, most Americans would likely be shocked to learn that no energy development has happened in these new areas.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Markey, D-MA]. In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.

Reference: Reversing Pres. Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act; Bill H.1231 ; vote number 11-HV320 on May 12, 2011

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Upton, R-MI]: This legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the Obama EPA. This administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early 2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that their emissions endangered public health. That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch an unparalleled onslaught. The result, two years later, is a series of regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of life.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill H.910 ; vote number 11-HV249 on Apr 7, 2011

Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.

Congressional Summary:Requires utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy efficiency savings and renewable energy (6% in 2012, 9.5% in 2014, 13% in 2016, 16.5% in 2018, and 20% in 2021). Provides for:
  1. issuing, trading, and verifying renewable electricity credits; and
  2. prescribing standards to define and measure electricity savings from energy efficiency and energy conservation measures.
Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to set forth a national strategy to address barriers to the commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BOB GOODLATTE (R, VA-6): I agree that this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. It's a fantasy that this legislation will turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China & India & other nations are pumping more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and and nuclear power. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.

Reference: American Clean Energy and Security Act; Bill H.R.2454 ; vote number 2009-H477 on Jun 26, 2009

Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

Congressional Summary:Extends the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources:

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

[The bill was killed in the Senate].

Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill H.R.7060 ; vote number 2008-H649 on Sep 26, 2008

Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150

Congressional Summary: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.