Cap-and-Tax Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill ExposedDemocrats in Washington are aggressively working to pass global warming cap-and-trade legislation that, if passed, would drastically increase energy costs at the gas pump, in the grocery store, and in our homes - all for no environmental gain. The purpose of this webpage is to serve as an online resource center for anyone looking to learn more about the severe economic impacts of the cap-and-trade legislation. This page will be updated frequently with the latest news and additional links will be added as the debate continues in Congress. Learn More about the science of global warming: Senate Report on Climategate and Senate Report: Hundreds of Scientists Dispute Global Warming Alarmism *If you feel we are missing important information, please feel free to contact us and we will consider adding links to the page. Contact: matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov Keep Up To Date On Cap-and-Tax in The Senate Inhofe Press Office on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/jiminhofepressoffice/ Inhofe Press Office on Twitter: www.twitter.com/inhofepress Inhofe EPW Press Blog: www.epw.senate.gov/inhofeblog Sign-up For Inhofe EPW Newsletter Inhofe Press Office on Facebook RECENT HEADLINES WSJ Strassel: The Cap-and-Trade Crackup - Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi twisted arms for the final votes to pass her climate bill in June 2009, Democrats feared they might be "BTU'd." Many of them recalled how Al Gore had forced the House to vote in 1993 for an energy tax, a vote Democrats later blamed for helping their 1994 defeat. The politics isn't the same this time around. This time, it's much, much worse. Ask Rick Boucher, the coal-country Democrat who for nearly 30 years has represented southwest Virginia's ninth district. The 64-year-old is among the most powerful House Democrats, an incumbent who hasn't been seriously challenged since the early 1980s. Mr. Boucher has nonetheless worked himself onto this year's list of vulnerable Democrats. He managed it with one vote: support for cap and trade. Saunders: Behind the meltdown of the climate-change bill - When the White House leaked that it opposed Graham's support of higher gas taxes to Fox News, it was the beginning of the end for Graham. Then again, the bill always was doomed to fail. One way or another, cap-and-trade has to raise consumer prices - and critics are going to call that a tax hike. The jig was up in 2009 when the Senate voted 98-0 for an amendment against any climate legislation that "directly or indirectly" raised federal taxes. Reuters: Bingaman: U.S. climate bill prospects dim - President Barack Obama's dream of passing a big bill to battle global warming is likely dead for the rest of his term, according to a leading Democrat and long time backer of climate legislation. "I don't see a comprehensive bill going anywhere in the next two years," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman told the Reuters Washington Summit on Tuesday. Bingaman's comments are the most frank to date from a Democratic senator on legislation that Obama has said was key to giving the United States a lead role in global efforts to fight climate change. The Hill: Kerry forecasts cloudy future for Senate climate bill - Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) -- whose never-say-die attitude fueled months of long-shot climate talks -- admitted defeat Tuesday."Anything that's comprehensive or with a cap ... will not pass right now," he told reporters. In fact, he said, even something as limited as a renewable electricity production mandate faces very long odds of getting through this year. "That's going to be very difficult," he said. "That's a longer legislative initiative." The future of climate change and energy policy, he said, will depend on several factors, including the outcome of the coming midterms, in which Democrats are all but certain to lose seats. Dallas Morning News: Chances of climate bill making a comeback appear unlikely - But the bill appears to face too many obstacles. Chief among them: The nation's sluggish economy is a higher priority, and while the U.S. saw stifling heat waves, most of the weather-related destruction is far across the globe. "I haven't had one constituent ask me about fires in Russia or floods in Pakistan," said Rep. Joe Barton of Arlington, a Republican leader on energy and climate change issues. "If I were a Democrat in an endangered situation, I wouldn't be focused on that." The Hill: McConnell: Cap-and-trade 'dead' - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday that cap-and-trade energy legislation is "dead" in the upper chamber. The Senate's top Republican spoke before a local chamber of commerce in eastern Kentucky. “I think cap-and-trade, which is also known as the national energy tax, is dead in the United States Senate,” McConnell said, according to WKYT. The Senate failed to reach an agreement on a comprehensive energy bill that included caps on greenhouse gases earlier this year after Democrats failed to garner enough support in the face of widespread Republican opposition. WSJ Editorial: The Death of Cap and Tax - President Obama's undeniable success in passing liberal legislation hasn't translated into greater popularity for himself or the Democratic Congress. So perhaps he'll get a bump in the polls now that he's suffered his first setback on one of his signature promises. We refer to the failure of cap and tax, which Mr. Obama once modestly promised would signal "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Rolling Stone: Climate Bill, R.I.P. - A comprehensive energy and climate bill - the centerpiece of President Obama's environmental agenda - is officially dead. Take it from the president's own climate czar, Carol Browner. "What is abundantly clear," she told Rolling Stone in an exclusive interview on July 8th, "is that an economy-wide program, which the president has talked about for years now, is not doable in the Senate." But the failure to confront global warming - central not only to Obama's presidency but to the planet itself - is not the Senate's alone. Rather than press forward with a climate bill in the Senate last summer, after the House had passed landmark legislation to curb carbon pollution, the administration repeated many of the same mistakes it made in pushing for health care reform. It refused to lay out its own plan, allowing the Senate to bicker endlessly over the details. WSJ: Senate Halts Effort to Cap CO2 Emissions - Senate Democratic leaders Thursday shelved their effort to cap greenhouse-gas emissions as part of a broad energy bill, putting aside indefinitely a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's ambitious effort to transform the way Americans produce and consume energy. The proposal would have allowed utilities to trade permits to pollute as they worked to shift away from coal—a concept commonly called "cap and trade." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that neither he nor the White House had managed to line up 60 senators to support even a limited proposal seeking to cap carbon-dioxide emissions. Wash Post: Klein: Cap-and-trade is dead -You can't pass what you can't say: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid played dumb last week when a reporter asked him if the energy and climate bill headed to the floor would come with a “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. “I don’t use that,” the Nevada Democrat replied. “Those words are not in my vocabulary. We’re going to work on pollution.” If cap-and-trade is so unpopular that its primary legislative advocates can't mention it, then it's dead. The BP oil spill offered a chance to change the fundamentals on the issue and Democrats decided against trying to use the disaster as a galvanizing moment for climate legislation. Word games don't offer a similar opportunity. The Oklahoman: Editorial: Spill not likely to change dislike for cap and trade - TO anyone who'll listen, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe swears cap-and-trade legislation coveted by President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress is as dead as Rover - which is to say, all over. Inhofe, R-Tulsa, has been predicting cap and trade's doom for months, and nothing has changed his mind. Not even the Gulf oil spill, which the White House believes might rally Americans behind legislation they've panned so far. During last week's Oval Office speech, Obama used the oil spill to argue America should consume less petroleum and move toward a green-energy future. The president believes cap and trade will encourage reductions in fossil fuel use while lowering carbon dioxide emissions. Maybe the Gulf spill will ignite public fervor for what essentially would be an energy tax across the breadth of the economy, but we trust Inhofe's instincts - and his ability to count noses in the Senate. Senators Warn About Cost of Obama Job-Destroying Global Warming Agenda Inhofe Op-Ed: Obama's EPA a Growing Menace to Economy (Human Events) - As President Obama continues to search in vain for policies to create jobs, the prospects for a robust economic recovery remain bleak. One reason for this is the regulatory uncertainty created by the Obama Administration. Perhaps the agency contributing most to the uncertainty is Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inhofe Op-Ed: O's quietest jobs-killing machine (New York Post) - One insidious force keeping unemployment high is regulatory uncertainty: Companies that could hire (or re-hire), don't -- because they're worried about what new restrictions will be coming down from Washington. Congress bears much of the blame -- especially for the new "financial reform" law, which leaves so many details to be filled in later. But a major contributor to businesses' worries is the Obama Environmental Protection Agency, which is issuing a daily barrage of rules and regulations threatening jobs in American industry. WATCH: Inhofe: Dems Continue To Press For Cap-and-Trade WATCH: Inhofe: Momentum Behind Murkowski Resolution - Senator Inhofe warned today that a vote on Thursday in the Senate on costly EPA global warming regulations may be "the last opportunity for a lot of the Democrats voting in the Senate to vote against a massive government take-over." Several Republican senators joined Senator Murkowski today to voice their shared concerns over EPA's attempt to impose economically harmful climate regulations on the country. Inhofe said that there are a lot of members of the Senate who "will be coming up in 2010 and 2012, and 2014, that don’t much want to go back home and say, 'Look at me, aren’t you proud? I was a part of the movement for this massive government take-over and regulation of every person in this country.'" WATCH: Inhofe: EPA Regulations All Cost, No Impact - Speaking at a press conference today in support of Senator Murkowski's efforts to halt EPA from imposing costly global warming regulations, Senator Inhofe noted the wide ranging support for her efforts. "Look who’s here, who’s up here," Senator Inhofe said. "We’ve got Senator Graham, who believes in his heart that anthropogenic gasses have a major effect on climate change, or green house gases. I stand with my statement seven years ago that anthropogenic gases, and CO2, and methane, as a major cause of global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. And all the rest of these guys are in between. So, I think that all of us can agree on one thing, and that is – if you are going to do something, don’t do this. Don’t give a new power to the regulators. It would be the greatest single regulation power. Thune: Climate Rules Worse Than Cap-and-Trade (Roll Call) - When they weren't trying to orchestrate massive new taxes on health care, Democrats in Congress spent much of last year trying to push through massive new energy taxes. They jammed their scheme, called cap-and-trade, through the House before the Senate heard the opposition of the American people and the legislation stalled. The plan Democrats devised would have raised the price of energy and every product or service that uses energy - in other words, pretty much everything. It would have destroyed jobs, expanded the federal bureaucracy and done almost nothing to help the environment or to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. Barrasso: EPA can't regulate climate change (Politico) - President Barack Obama recently delivered another speech about his jobs agenda. He said government can "create the conditions for small businesses to grow and thrive and hire more workers." His administration, he said, is working to "knock down the barriers that prevent small-business owners from getting loans or investing in the future." With all due respect, it's hard to take his words seriously. Instead of knocking down bureaucratic barriers, this administration has thrown up more walls. The president has devoted his first 16 months in office to passing legislation that creates more red tape and makes it harder for businesses to create new jobs. Information on Endangerment Finding - Obama's Backdoor Energy Tax INHOFE: EPA CHOOSES TO CLOSE OFF OPEN SCIENTIFIC DEBATE - Washington, DC-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued the following statement in response to EPA's denial of several petitions to reconsider the agency's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which was finalized earlier this year. "EPA could have chosen to have an open, transparent process to look at the implications of Climategate and hear scientists of all persuasions debate key scientific issues in an open forum," Sen. Inhofe said. "Open and fulsome debate only strengthens the foundations of scientific knowledge. But EPA chose instead to dismiss legitimate concerns about data quality, transparency, and billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded science as products of ‘conspiracies.' Rather, such ad hominem attacks are products of closed-mindedness and ultimately harm EPA's reputation and legal standing in court." Politico: EPA rejects challenge to climate rules - EPA last December concluded that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare, a decision clearing the way this spring for climate-based regulations for new cars and trucks. Next year, the agency is expected to write standards for power plants and other major industrial sources of heat-trapping gases. In their petitions, EPA’s opponents had highlighted stolen e-mails from prominent climate scientists that they allege showed collusion to hide contrary information debunking global warming. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had also warned that the EPA rules would lead to “unprecedented bureaucratic licensing and regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, hospitals and even schools.” Inhofe Op-Ed: Obama Trumpets Radical Energy Agenda - But the Senate will pass no such legislation, because opposition to it runs deep. The vote on June 10 on Sen. Murkowski's (R-Alaska) resolution to overturn the Obama EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is a case in point. Though it failed, 47 to 53, it became clear as the debate progressed that there is a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate that either opposes any EPA greenhouse gas regulation, or wants such regulation delayed for two years. That latter option has been proposed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.), who voted for the Murkowski resolution. "Auto deal" defense fails to measure up - The main point is that, as Vincent conceded, if Murkowski became law, NHTSA's work would continue unimpeded because the resolution would only affect EPA's new administratively-created GHG authority, and not NHTSA's CAFE authority rooted in statute. INHOFE WELCOMES GROWING SUPPORT FROM GOVERNORS, GRASSROOTS TO STOP EPA'S BACKDOOR ENERGY TAX - Speaking today to the American Farm Bureau's "Don't Cap our Future Rally," Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, welcomed growing support from farm groups, Democratic and Republican governors, and a host of small business and trade organizations to overturn EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases-which amounts to a job-killing, backdoor energy tax on the American people.Inhofe Floor Speech: Trial Attorney's Dream: Another Attempt to Regulate Greenhouse Gases without Public Debate: Senator Inhofe delivered a March 3, 2009 speaking out against back-handed attempts to regulate greenhouse gases without transparency of public debate: Once again we are faced with a back-handed attempt to regulate greenhouse gases without the transparency of public debate. Section 429 of the omnibus appropriations bill currently includes yet another Congressional handout to extreme environmental interests and the trial bar. This rider is clearly an attempt to legislate on a spending bill - just the sort of bad habit that Democrats in Congress and the White House promised to give up during the last election. Inhofe Calls EPA's Endangerment Finding a ‘Ticking Time Bomb': Senator Inhofe spoke out on the Senate Floor on May 1, 2009 about the Obama Administration's recent announcement of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Senator Inhofe calls the decision a "ticking time bomb" that presents "policymakers with a false choice: Use an outdated, ill equipped and economically disastrous option under the Clean Air Act, or pick another bad option-cap-and-trade-that commits us to requirements for which affordable and reliable technology does not exist." WATCH: Inhofe on Kudlow Speaks About Obama Backdoor Energy Tax - The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed greenhouse gas rules are meant to intimidate lawmakers into passing climate change legislation, one Republican senator argued Thursday. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a global warming skeptic and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, said that EPA was unlikely to follow through on its threat to issue new rules to businesses on emissions. Also See Inhofe Statement on EPA's intention to restrict greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Senator Inhofe Floor Statement on Murkowski/Thune Amendment on the Endangerment Finding - Senator Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today delivered a floor speech on the Murkowski/Thune Amendment regarding the endangerment finding: I want to thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Thune for calling attention to the endangerment finding. I have been discussing this issue since Massachusetts v. EPA was decided back in 2007. I said then and I’ll say now: the endangerment finding will trigger a regulatory tidal wave that will destroy jobs and raise energy prices for all Americans. EPA's regulations will prevent communities from growing, freeze construction of new hospitals and stores, and raise gasoline and electricity prices.WSJ Editorial: Reckless 'Endangerment': The Obama EPA plays 'Dirty Harry' on cap and trade: President Obama's global warming agenda has been losing support in Congress, but why let an irritant like democratic consent interfere with saving the world? So last Friday the Environmental Protection Agency decided to put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy. The pistol comes in the form of a ruling that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. This so-called "endangerment finding" sets the clock ticking on a vast array of taxes and regulation that EPA will have the power to impose across the economy, and all with little or no political debate. EPW Policy Beats on Obama's Backdoor Energy Tax EPW POLICY BEAT: DESPERATION TIME - To wit, there is nothing to enforce here and safety is not an issue-even of the "environmental" variety. After all, EPA has clearly stated that cap-and-trade-which also extends to the agency's GHG regulations-won't meaningfully affect climate change (see page 22 of its analysis of Kerry-Lieberman: greenhouse gas concentrations fail to reach stabilization in all of the scenarios analyzed). What is an issue are the thousands of jobs on the line at small businesses in the South, manufacturing facilities in the Midwest, farms in the Heartland, and higher taxes on everything from gasoline to grapefruit. The ad's sponsors know this, and that's why they won't tell the truth. EPW POLICY BEAT: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID: In other words, EPA was not forced by the Supreme Court to make an endangerment finding, and it said nothing about greenhouse gases being "subject to regulation." Of course, EPA will counter, as it did in the Technical Support Document underlying the endangerment finding, that the science is clear, that the science is settled, and, a fortiori, the IPCC says so. Therefore, endangerment there must be. Yet, the science is anything but clear. The University of Alabama's Dr. John Christy, an IPCC reviewer and the world's foremost expert on satellite temperature data, wrote in his comments on the endangerment finding that, "EPA has accepted an alarmist set of assumptions as ‘facts' when the truth is that our ignorance about the climate system is still enormous." EPW POLICY BEAT: JUDGE TATEL AND THE TAILORING RULE: EPA's announcement last week of the so-called "tailoring rule" was indubitably a momentous one-but not for the reasons supposed by EPA. Despite the agency's labored legal rationalizations, the tailoring rule clearly violates the Clean Air Act (CAA), and thus offers no consolation to thousands of small businesses who sit perilously on the edge of EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory regime. EPW POLICY BEAT: AMBIENT ERROR: Establishing a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for CO2 is feared possibly more than any other potential greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). A CO2 NAAQS would twist the CAA into knots and spread EPA's regulatory tentacles into every corner of the economy. And according to a recent report, there's no avoiding it. EPW POLICY BEAT: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID: It was the spark that caused the fire: In 1999, 19 organizations, led by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from mobile sources under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The so-called ICTA petition was denied in 2003 by the Bush EPA (via the Fabricant memo), and the inevitable litigation parade ensued. Several states and environmental groups joined ICTA, and Massachusetts became the lead plaintiff. The case went to the DC Circuit, and in a 2 to 1 decision, the court in Massachusetts v. EPA upheld EPA's decision. A writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court sided with Massachusetts, and the rest was history. EPW POLICY BEAT: ENDANGERMENT 101: As for now, we thought it helpful (how presumptuous) to describe the basics of the endangerment finding, including its origins, its legal and scientific foundations, and its potential real-world consequences. In essence, it's EPW Policy Beat's "just-the-facts-ma'am" series on endangerment. Our first installment describes some of the major legal milestones that led to the endangerment finding… EPW POLICY BEAT: ENDANGERMENT 101, PART 2: In Part 2 of ‘Endangerment 101,' we tackle the so-called "Tailoring Rule" (TR). What is it? That's a timely question, and the answer lies at the heart of the endangerment finding. The TR was unconsciously conceived on April 2, 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled on Massachusetts v. EPA. In that opinion, one searches in vain for any hints that the majority understood the regulatory maelstrom that inexorably ensues once endangerment is triggered. Fact Check Energy Facts: Consumers, Not Polluters, Pay for Cap-and-Trade Energy Facts: Cap-and-Trade: Little to No Help on Foreign Oil Dependence Energy Facts: Getting Alternative Energy Without Raising Prices Energy Facts: Incomplete CBO Estimate Does Not Include All Costs of Cap-and-Trade Energy Facts: U.S. Cap-and-Trade Without International Action: All Pain and No Gain Energy Facts-Pelosi's Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax: Skyrocketing Costs, Disappearing Jobs, Struggling EconomyEconomic Impact of Cap-and-Trade on Consumers EPA Avoids Discussing Jobs Impacts Of Kerry-Lieberman -"Whether it's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, DOE's Energy Information Administration, or the National Association of Manufacturers, one fact never changes: cap-and-trade will destroy American jobs," Senator Inhofe said. "Yet rather than release a full and transparent analysis of the facts, EPA has avoided discussion of Kerry-Lieberman's job-killing effects, casting serious doubt on the agency's objectivity. Hiding the truth won't bring consolation to anxious factory workers in Ohio, farmers in Missouri, or miners in Virginia, whose jobs and livelihoods are on the line. Authors of Kerry-Boxer admit bill will cost American jobs - In Section 311, titled "Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance," the authors clearly admit the bill will put people out of work. The bill provides "adjustment assistance" to workers who have been "adversely affected" by the bill's mandates, which will cause higher energy prices, fewer jobs, and slow the economy. In other words, we'll sack your job, and then put you on green welfare. Not exactly the best recipe for putting "millions of people back to work." Washington Post: In Michigan, A Yellow Light For Green Jobs (October 6, 2009) - LANSING, Mich. -- If the future of American manufacturing lies in green industries, the Michigan governor's pursuit of jobs offers a cautionary tale. Four years ago, Jennifer M. Granholm set out to remake her state, which took an exceptional walloping with the decline of the auto industry, as a pioneer in creating environmentally friendly jobs. Today, however, jobs are still disappearing much faster than she can create them, raising questions about how long it will take Michigan and other hard-hit states to find new industries to employ their workers. WSJ - Strassel: Rent Seekers Inc.: It isn't often an energy company (of all things) gets to present itself as an environmental crusader, cozy up to Washington rulemakers, buy political protection, and pad its bottom line-all in one neat little announcement. So give Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM and Exelon credit for going for the gold. The Rebate Myth: "I have been around the block a few times. People are not going to get that refund. It is not going to hit them. People are going to be unemployed and they are not going to have any recourse whatsoever. The Government will have failed them again." Harry Alford before the Senate Environment and Public Works Commitee, July 16, 2009 Boxer Says Goal is to "Soften the Blow" from Cap-and-Trade - Admits That Cap-and-Trade Will Hurt Jobs, Families, Consumers - During a hearing on July 16, 2009, in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA.), chairman of the committee, said that her goal is to "soften the blow" of cap-and-trade legislation, implicitly acknowledging that cap-and-trade will harm the economy. "The biggest priority is softening the blow on our trade sensitive industries and our consumers. I just want you to know that, that's the goal," Sen. Boxer said. In response, Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, dismissed claims that the government could redistribute revenues from cap-and-trade to "soften the blow" on the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and consumers. "Madam Chair, I will do that, I have been around the block a few times. People are not going to get that refund, it's not going to hit them, people are going to be unemployed, and they are not gonna have any recourse whatsoever, the government will have failed them again." Inhofe to Kerry: Cap-and-Trade Is Defined As a ‘Tax, and A Great Big One’ - On Sept. 25, 2009, Senator Inhofe responded to remarks made by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who said, “‘I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does,’ adding, ‘This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill.’" Senator Kerry's remarks come as Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer intend to introduce their cap-and-trade bill on Wednesday, September 30. “I think the best way to help Sen. Kerry define cap-and-trade is to turn to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who said that cap-and-trade ‘is a tax, and a great big one,’” Sen. Inhofe said. “No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap-and-trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers. Treasury Department Analysis Shows Cap-and-Trade Proposal Raises Taxes on American Families (09/16/09) - Senator Inhofe responded to an economic analysis by the Treasury Department that President Obama's cap-and-trade proposal violates his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class: "During the campaign, President Obama promised tax relief for the middle class. That was then, this is now: the President's own economic team said his cap-and-trade proposal would cost each family $1,761 per year. To keep his promise with the middle class, the President should have changed course. Instead, he eagerly supported cap-and-trade in the House. And he continues to support it now. And if President Obama gets his way, middle class families, indeed all families, will pay more for gasoline, food, electricity, and much more. New Analysis Shows President Obama's Cap and Trade Proposal Will Destroy Jobs, Harm Consumers: On April 28, 2009, Senator Inhofe welcomed new economic analysis by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), a coalition of more than 180 trade associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The report analyzes the projected costs of the climate provision recently proposed in the Obama Administration's 2010 budget. The study, conducted by Charles River Associates, predicts job losses and increased energy costs, as well as disparate regional impacts. Inhofe Warns of Costs of Massive $6.7 Trillion 'Climate Bailout' EPW Hearing (2/29/09) Excerpt from openings statement: As you know, no one likes to talk more about climate science than I do. However with this being the first climate change hearing in the 111th Congress, and in the midst of a deep financial crisis and recession, I thought I'd start by quoting Ronald Reagan: "There you go again." In these turbulent financial times, rather than opening with climate hearings analyzing the issues that concern Americans, such as how cap-and-trade policies and taxes will affect our energy prices and our bottom line, we are here today to focus once again on speculative computer model predictions of 50 to100 years away of a looming climate catastrophe, and the public health and ecological chaos that will result from man's supposed effect on his climate by the continuing use of fossil fuels. Full Committee hearing entitled, "Update on the Latest Global Warming Science." International Realities WATCH - EPA's Jackson Confirms EPA Chart Showing No Effect on Climate Without China, India: During a hearing on July 7, 2009 in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA's analysis. "I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain," Sen. Inhofe said. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate." FT: India Widens Climate Rift with West: A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday. India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions. Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers. He dismissed scientists' predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.Will China Follow This Time?: A mantra repeated endlessly in the cap-and-trade debate is that unilateral U.S. action on climate change will spur China (and other developing countries) to follow suit. This mantra is spoken with metronomic regularity, despite China's unequivocal opposition, stated over and over again, to accepting mandatory emission cuts. Such opposition should be no surprise: China has amassed a long and ignominious record of divergence on issues in which the United States has taken the lead. China Wins Big with Waxman-Markey - Inhofe Floor Speech - Says Road to Copenhagen on Collision Course: WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on June 25, 2009 delivered a Senate floor speech noting that China's resistance to join any international efforts to reduce their carbon emissions will mean any global warming bill signed into law in the US would severely damage the US economy while having a negligible impact on climate. WSJ Editorial: Carbon Reality, Again It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. INDIA SAYS, ‘HECK NO, WE WON'T GO': "If the U.S. acts, the rest of the world will follow." This is a common trope asserted by eco-enthusiasts bent on passing cap-and-trade. No international agreement is possible, they say, unless the U.S. first assumes the burden of mandatory carbon reductions. We now hear that the U.S. can gain "leverage" in international negotiations in Copenhagen later this year if EPA makes a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. Presumably, this means such action will coax China, the world's leading emitter of CO2, and India, the world's third largest CO2 emitter, into accepting binding emissions cuts. "Unless we show that we are capable and willing to regulate and limit our emissions, we are not going to get an international agreement," said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. Similarly, Annie Petsonk, international counsel with the Environmental Defense Fund, said, "To the extent that the endangerment finding pushes that process domestically, that's important for our negotiating partners to know." Defeat of Cap-and-Trade in the Australian Senate: After his election in 2007, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd fulfilled a campaign promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Then earlier this year, he proposed a cap-and-trade plan, dubbed the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme,” or CPRS, to reduce Australia’s emissions. The CPRS requires reductions between a range of 5 and 15 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. The CPRS covers 75 percent of Australia’s emissions, and auctions 70 percent of allowances, moving to a full auction over time. The proceeds of the auction would accrue to households to mitigate the costs of the CPRS. Warning on Green Jobs Inhofe-Bond Issue Warning on Green Jobs: On April 27, 2009, Senator Inhofe joined Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), Ranking Member on the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee, to announce a report highlighting the poor performance of taxpayer-funded green jobs programs. The report details a number of misconceptions and exaggerations propagated by green job advocates. In fact, many so-called green jobs pay lower wages, require expensive taxpayer subsidies, and often are created at the expensive of well-paying manufacturing jobs.
EPW FACT OF THE DAY: GREEN DYSTOPIA: It's a common (green) refrain: pass cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent and the ineluctable result is a growing economy, greater prosperity, and green jobs galore. "If the American Clean Energy and Security Act were enacted tomorrow," Frances Beinecke, president of NRDC, said, "millions of clean energy jobs would be created, starting right away." Worried about the drought in capital investment? How about corporate profits? Beinecke says pass cap-and-trade. "[Waxman-Markey] will unlock large-scale private sector capital investments starting today, November 2010 September 2010 July 2010 November 2010 September 2010 July 2010 June 2010 November 2010 |
Subcommittees | Search | Home | Contact | Site Map | EPW Multimedia | All Text Version | Privacy Policy
U.S. Senate Links: Senators | Senate Committees | Legislation | Reference Site
