INHOFE REAFFIRMS VOW TO LEAD EFFORT TO OVERRIDE BUSH VETO OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BILL

November 2, 2007 

Senator Inhofe reaffirmed today that he intends to lead the effort in the Senate to override President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA) (H.R. 1495). Because of the overwhelming bi-partisan votes in both the Senate and the House earlier this year, Senator Inhofe is confident that the Congress will successfully override the President's veto. On September 24, 2007, the Senate voted in favor of the WRDA bill by a margin of 81-12. The House approved the bill in August by a vote of 381-40. As the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee, Senator Inhofe has made passage of the WRDA bill a top priority.

"I am committed to working closely with my Senate colleagues to override President Bush's veto of this critically important national infrastructure bill," Senator Inhofe said. "Infrastructure is an essential part of our nation's economy, and we should not understate the importance of addressing our infrastructure needs. The WRDA bill makes significant progress in addressing our water resources needs in a responsible manner.

"As a fiscal conservative, I certainly appreciate and share the President's concerns over "excessive spending" by the Federal government. The fact is, though, that the WRDA bill is not a spending bill; it is an authorizing bill. It simply sets out which projects and programs are allowed to get in line for future funding and sets the maximum amount of money that can be funded. Authorization is the best tool we have for keeping discipline over the annual appropriations process. Additionally, this bill includes a provision requiring independent third-party reviews of certain projects, which will inform future authorizations and appropriations. Every day that goes by without enacting a WRDA bill is another day we allow unnecessary pressure to build on the appropriators to short-circuit the authorization-then-appropriations process."

RELATED LINKS:

Senator Inhofe Op/Ed in Support of WRDA in the Oklahoman

Senator Inhofe Discusses WRDA on the Glenn Beck Show

Oklahoman Editorial Supporting WRDA

Tulsa World Columnist Praises Inhofe's Work on WRDA

Senator Inhofe: Leader in Appropriations Accountability (Paul Weyrich, Townhall.com, October 8, 2007)

INHOFE, BOXER DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING ON SENATE FLOOR

Monday, October 29, 2007 

On Monday, Senator Inhofe took to the Senate floor to responded to Senator Boxer's rebuttal of his floor speech from last Friday, October 26, 2007, in which he provided the very latest in peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries which are debunking man-made global warming fears. Senator Inhofe welcomed today's debate and delivered the following statement on the Senate Floor to address the issues raised by Senator Boxer about his speech and further addressed the devastating economic impact of enacting draconian legislation on the American people that would have no climate gain.

INHOFE FLOOR SPEECH ON GLOBAL WARMING: 2007 - GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM REACHES A TIPPING POINT

To Read Senator Inhofe's views about Hollywood promoting fears to kids click here

To Read Senator Inhofe's views on costly "solutions" to global warming click here

To Read Senator Inhofe discuss activists who believe global warming has 'co-opted' the environmental movement click here

INHOFE FLOOR STATEMENT AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

The junior Senator from California has now claimed on several occasions that it would be cheaper in the long run to immediately enact regulatory policies aimed at controlling the Earth's global temperatures. The claim is clearly wrong. Of the half dozen major bills introduced in the Senate, all will harm the economy, yet none will put a dent in global warming, even if the worst fears were well-founded. Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that over the long run, each bill before Congress -- including those that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent -- will only reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases by about 4 percent. That's right, four percent.
 
Now most people getting their news from the mainstream media are likely shocked by this fact. They have heard over and over for years that the U.S. is the cause of global warming because it has the world's biggest economy and emits the most carbon dioxide. And this used to be true -- our nation stood alone among nations -- consuming vast energy resources relative to other countries and, and as a result, emitting more greenhouse gases. But it is no longer true.
 
In June of this year, China became the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. That's right, the biggest emitter on the planet. It is building a coal plant every three days. India, Brazil and others are not far behind. Does anyone honestly believe that if the U.S. reduces its emissions and these countries' emissions continue to explode upward that it will make any difference?
 
Of course, I can hear the rebuttal now. We will hear that if only the U.S. takes leadership in crippling its economy, other nations will follow. Just last Friday, I quoted the Chinese Deputy Director General of Global Environmental Affairs, who said "You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions." Now that isn't an official for Trade or Finance, but Environment! When a high-ranking environment official tells us his country has absolutely no intention of adopting ruinous economic policies, its time for even the elitists in the developed world to stand up and take notice.

Now, I never thought I would utter these words, but for all of their failed communist ideology, many Chinese leaders seem to understand the importance economic growth and capital formation better than many our political leaders. Wealth equals health! And the emerging economies also understand that. Our leaders used to understand that as well.

When Time magazine named the Model T the 20th Century's worst environmental product because it brought mobility and prosperity, it was clear that commonsense has been turned on its head in this country. Almost a century ago, when the first Model T was rolling off the assembly line, the average American could expect a lifespan of only 53 years, and an inflation-adjusted income of only $5,300 per year. The automobile changed all that, allowing people to drive to hospitals 25 miles away in time to save people's lives, allowing companies to use nationwide distribution systems to both make and deliver medicines, fresh produce, clothing and materials for homes and other products. Now the average lifespan is 78 years and annual income has risen to $32,000.

Yet despite this, some still make the claim that it won't be all that harmful to our economy to take drastic action, or still more unbelievable, that it will be good for the economy. They doggedly insist that China will mimic us in limiting growth. But I think it is pretty reasonable that when China's Deputy Director General for Environmental Affairs makes such uncompromising, clear statements of China's policies to pursue an economic growth agenda first and foremost, we would be wise to take him at his word. Adopting policies that will cost the economy trillions of dollars over time on the naive belief that if China sees how serious our country is, it will decide that being a good global citizen is better than prosperity, is -- to be kind -- foolhardy.
 
In fact, if the Unites States and the rest of the developed world were to completely eliminate our emissions over the next few decades, global greenhouse gas concentrations would still be higher than they are today because of the expected growth in the emerging economies.
 
Of course, it would be impossible to eliminate emissions in the developed world. In fact, attempts to merely cut them under the Kyoto Protocol have proven elusive. Despite national pride being at stake, Japan's emissions have grown, so too have Canada's. And of the EU-15 countries, only 2 of the 15 are expected to make their targets.
 
So if the emerging economies don't want to limit carbon emissions, and the developed world has only paid lip service to efforts to cap them, how can we expect that putting ourselves on a self-imposed energy diet will lead to reductions in global greenhouse gas concentrations? In fact, even if the United States cut emissions by 70 percent, and the rest of the world cut emissions 10 times more than us, global concentrations would still exceed 450 parts per million, well in excess of today's level - about 20 percent higher.
 
The facts above may be what prompted the journal Nature to publish an article declaring that Kyoto is dead, and that we need a new approach -- one remarkably similar to the Bush approach -- to dealing with the issue.
   
Of course, all these facts are routinely ignored by the chorus of people desperate to push global warming legislation. In claiming it is cheaper to act now, the Senator from California relied on the 2006 Stern Report from Britain to bolster her claim. 
 
"This is a very important moment in time. The cost of doing nothing, according to the leading economist on this topic in the world, Nicholas Stern, is five times what the cost will be to address this issue now. So let's be wise about what we do," Senator Boxer stated on the Senate floor on October 18.

Can it be that if the U.S. takes action -- the policy equivalent of spitting into the wind -- it would not be economically detrimental, but earn every $5 for every one spent, as Nicholas Stern would have us believe? Not according to the world's leading experts on the subject. Few major economic studies have been subjected to such an devastating assault from other leading economists. Few have been so thoroughly and publicly discredited.
 
So what do the experts have to say about the 2006 Stern report?
 
1) Economist Dr. Richard Tol of Hamburg University, one of the world's leading environmental economists, tore apart the Stern Report on January 26. "If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis... [it is] likely I would give him an "F" for fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make," Tol said according to the BBC.  "Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts," Tol added. Tol wrote this critique despite the fact that his work was cited by the Stern Report no less than 63 times.

2) Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg critiqued the Stern report in a November 2, 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed. "The report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure," Lomborg wrote. "It seems naive to believe that the world's 192 nations can flawlessly implement Mr. Stern's multi-trillion-dollar, century-long policy proposal. Will nobody try to avoid its obligations? Why would China and India even participate?" Lomborg added. "We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines," Lomborg concluded.

3) Roger Pielke Jr., the director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, also chided the Stern Report for "cherry picking" data on October 30, 2006. "The Stern Report's selective fishing out of a convenient statement from one of the background papers prepared for our workshop is a classic example of cherry picking a result from a diversity of perspectives, rather than focusing on the consensus of the entire spectrum of experts that participated in our meeting," Pielke wrote. "To support its argument the Stern Report further relies on a significantly flawed report from the Association of British Insurers, which we critiqued here. Its presentation of the future costs of disasters and climate change is highly selective to put it mildly," he added.

4) Australian Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter ridiculed the Stern Report in a November 3, 2006 article. "The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" and the "Club of Rome's Limits to Growth" in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded," Carter wrote. "The Stern review is not about climate change but about economic, technological and trade advantage. Its perpetrators seek power through climate scaremongering," Carter concluded.

5) Yale University's Sterling Professor of Economics William Nordhaus recently authored a study on the economic effects of climate change titled "The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy."  The study revealed that so-called global warming "solutions" would cost two or even three times the benefits they would theoretically achieve. Nordhaus was specifically critical Stern's use of a novel methodology in which he assumes a near-zero discount rate which dramatically inflates the benefits of addressing global warming.  

6) The New York Times captured the views of mainstream economists in its February 21, 2007 article by David Leonhardt when he cited Nordhaus's concerns, adding: "This was fairly tame compared with the comments of another Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn. ‘I was awestruck,' he said, comparing Sir Nicholas to ‘The Wizard of Oz.' But ‘my job is to be Toto.'" 
 
Against the clear international trend toward putting growth first, against the failure of cap and trade schemes attempted so far, against the consensus that unilateral actions by the U.S. will be futile, against federal agency reports from EPA and the Department of Energy, and against a multitude of experts that concluded the Stern report was flawed not only in its design, but its execution, yet another proposal has been introduced to unilaterally cap U.S. emissions. The Lieberman-Warner bill, S. 1291, like its cousins, is flawed. And for the same reasons.

In his new book, The Age of Turbulence" Alan Greenspan wrote:

"There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy," Greenspan wrote. "Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained."

Renowned economists Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden drove this point home in an October 2 op-ed in the Financial Post when they wrote:

"The costs of reducing [greenhouse gases] through cap-and-trade regulations are not trivial. If implemented, cap-and-trade policies would add significant costs to production and would likely have a severe negative impact on long-term U.S. growth, an amount we estimate at US $10,800 per family."

This bill [S. 2191] is patterned after the Lieberman-McCain bill which according to an EPA analysis, would impose a price increase for oil of 20% and for natural gas of 23%. An MIT study earlier this year found the bill would increase energy costs an amount equivalent to $3500 per family of four. This study demonstrates the enormous wealth transfers involved in cap and trade schemes.

Now, there is apparently some confusion about this study, so let me describe it as best I can. The study calculated the amount of money that would be raised from businesses regulated under the bill if all the allowances under these bills were auctioned and the monies distributed, per family of four. So this figure represents not only the cost to industry, but also theoretical distributions to households. But of course, none of the bills actually distribute the monies raised from auctioning allowances to households, nor has this even been proposed. The cost of buying allowances, however, would be substantial - equal to $3,500 per family of four, and would be passed onto investors as losses and consumers as higher prices, in short, families. So however you want to describe it, at the end of the day, households are left bearing the burden of this legislation.

This will have enormous impacts, especially on the poor. A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless. The Congressional Budget Office found that greenhouse gas cap and trade schemes are highly regressive and put the highest burden on the poor.

This bill apparently is designed to reward some states and penalize others to obtain votes, but is even less workable and more expensive than its predecessor, the Lieberman-McCain bill.

The bill also appears designed to drive up fuel costs in this country as quickly as possible. By setting the first emissions target only four years away, the bill creates a mandate which can only be met through massive fuel switching to natural gas for electric generation -- thus robbing home owners of affordable natural gas home heating, and driving factories overseas that depend on natural gas or low energy prices.  Just last week, we heard testimony from Alcoa that its future growth is not in the U.S., where it doesn't plan to build any more plants, but in countries where energy prices are low.

I agree with Greenspan's assessment, where he states:

"Cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence."

But for all its terrible consequences, I prefer a carbon tax because it is more honest. Even the Washington Post editorial board echoed this sentiment in its editorial this morning when it wrote:

A carbon tax would be more straightforward. With cap-and-trade, there's potential for games, fraud, evasion and abuse. Some companies could earn windfall profits, and the price volatility of emissions allowances could be disruptive.

A tax is still preferable to cap and trade schemes because it is transparent and prevents windfall profits to companies that will do nothing to help us achieve emission reductions - profits that grow as family pocketbooks shrink.

Unfortunately, we may not have an opportunity to fully examine the S.1291, as it is being rushed through the Committee process. Neither EPA nor the Energy Information Administration has had an opportunity to review it, not has it been subjected to analysis showing likely future developments in our energy infrastructure.
 
If we guess wrong about public acceptance of nuclear and wind power, for instance, the consequences could be severe. This was made clear in a new study released this month entitled "Greenhouse Gas Initiatives Analysis using the national Energy Modeling System" conducted by SAIC. In analyzing Lieberman-McCain's impact on the energy sector, it adopted what many believe is the far more likely developments under cap and trade in four key areas -- specifically, likely developments of nuclear power, renewables, carbon capture and storage, and availability of international offsets.
 
The study's results were startling: relative to the core case, it found that a more constrained supply of energy and carbon allowances results in prices 7 to 8 times higher for wellhead and gas and residential gas. This study underscores the need to thorough analysis of any bill that is introduced that includes not only the best case, but the worst case. 

Mr. President, I have to ask one simple question: Why?

Why is there such a head-long rush to take ineffective action that will cripple our economy and achieve nothing regardless of who is right and who is wrong about the science? I don't think this is about solutions. This is about energy policy, and whether our nation should grow and prosper or whether America's time has passed and we should step aside for the emerging nations. I, for one, do not intend to see this nation fade quietly into the sunset and will oppose all measures that would make this nation's greatness a historical footnote for future generations. 

CLIMATE BILL WILL COST "HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS"- LIEBERMAN CONCEDES

Thursday, November 1, 2007 

The Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill (S2191) would cost "hundreds of billions of dollars" to the electrical and industrial sectors of the economy, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) conceded today. Senator Lieberman made the remarks during today's Environment & Public Works (EPW) subcommittee markup on the bill.

"It's hard to imagine that [Lieberman-Warner] will not cost - over time -- these two sectors (electric power and industrial), hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the demands of this bill," Senator Lieberman said during the business meeting today.

Senator Lieberman, along with Senator John Warner (R-VA), is the co-author of "America's Climate Security Act."

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee, has already warned that the Lieberman-Warner bill is "real economic pain, for no climate gain."

"The Lieberman-Warner bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy," Senator Inhofe said on October 18. "Senators are going to be asking the American people to pay more for home energy and pay higher prices at the gas pump for no climate benefit," Senator Inhofe added. (LINK)

Inhofe also noted that former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan is very skeptical of cap-and-trade legislation. Greenspan wrote in his new book, The Age of Turbulence: "There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy," Greenspan wrote. "Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained."

Greenspan has also said: "Cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence."

On Thursday, Senator Inhofe criticized the committee process for placing the Lieberman-Warner bill on a fast track.

"This does not seem like a good faith attempt to conduct a thorough and collaborative process which is substantive. It seems like a staged process to create a sideshow at [the December UN meeting in] Bali at how far we've come in the U.S. Senate," Senator Inhofe said during today's subcommittee business meeting. "It is just checking the process box," he added. (LINK)

Related Links:

INHOFE SLAMS NEW CAP-AND-TRADE BILL AS ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT AT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL WARMING

Senator Inhofe Exposes Costly Global Warming 'Solutions'

INHOFE, BOXER DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING ON SENATE FLOOR

# # #

OPENING STATEMENT: EPW BUSINESS MEETING

November 1, 2007

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVATE SECTOR AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL WARMING AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr. Chairman, several Senators on this Committee recently sent you and Chairman Boxer a letter to express our concerns about the lack of process. I am gratified that as a result, the full Committee plans to hold two legislative hearings. But to be blunt, by itself, merely providing back-to-back legislative hearings within weeks of introduction of the bill is not the substantive process this Committee has engaged in for major legislation in past Congresses. It is just checking the process box. Let me remind you what others have said in the past.  

*With all due respect to Senator Baucus and his support of S. 2191, in the first full Committee hearing on Clear Skies in February of 2005, he said: “A rush to mark-up, without laying any foundation for a bipartisan compromise to take to the floor, is not a strategy for success.”  He emphasized the need for dialogue and compromise, and insisted that “the process needs time to work itself out.”   

*Also in February of 2005, Senator Carper also emphasized the importance of dialogue and working with majority and minority staff to enact multi-emissions legislation. To address his concerns, we postponed the vote on Clear Skies until March. 

I must ask why those principles of dialogue and working through the provisions of the bill are not at work in this process. Instead, the Committee was given a manager’s amendment – not 72 hours in advance of markup as Committee rules provide for – but yesterday. It contained dozens and dozens of changes, yet no redline version was provided until almost noon yesterday, and we still don’t have a complete summary of the changes made. This does not seem like a good faith attempt to conduct a thorough and collaborative process which is substantive. It seems like a staged process to create a sideshow at Bali at how far we’ve come in the U.S. Senate.  

# # #

EPW FACT OF THE DAY: DEMOCRATS NEED TO ANSWER TOUGH QUESTIONS: IF NOT YUCCA, THEN WHERE?

Friday, November 2, 2007

Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton said its “time to move on from Yucca Mountain” at Wednesday’s Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, and has previously stated that, “As president, I will not go forward with Yucca Mountain. My administration will not proceed with Yucca Mountain.” And as Senator Craig pointed out, that means returning nuclear waste back to New York and storing waste onsite indefinitely in 39 states.  It also means delaying the clean-up of defense nuclear facilities.  Clearly, the United States needs a permanent resting place for nuclear waste. Therefore, the question remains, if not Yucca, then where? That’s the big question left unanswered by EPW Committee Democrats at this week’s hearing.

FACT: Before the Congress directed the DOE to focus its efforts on the Yucca Mountain site in 1986, over 37 states had been considered as potential hosts for a repository beginning with Lyons, Kansas, in the 1960’s.  The map below highlights all of those states that have been considered to have geologic formations worth evaluating for repository development. 

 

By the end of 1986, DOE had conducted over 5 years of extensive scientific study and spent over $1.1 billion studying multiple sites, with a multi-attribute analysis indicating Yucca Mountain as the best site of the nine that were studied.  Confidence in Yucca Mountain and escalating costs led the Congress to direct DOE to focus solely on Yucca Mountain.Since 1986, DOE has spent over $6 billion, engaging more than 2500 scientists from the five National Laboratories, the U.S. Geologic Survey, and dozens of U.S. universities.  All this study and analysis was subjected to exhaustive peer review, including the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).No later than June of 2008, DOE will submit an application to the NRC for authorization to build a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

This application is the culmination of 25 years of research costing over $6 billion.  The NRC has developed detailed regulations to guide the very public process of intensively and accurately assessing whether Yucca Mountain can be safely developed as a repository.  NRC technical staff and independent experts will scrutinize the application, and then panels of judges will adjudicate contentions. 

Essentially, every element of the application will be put on trial twice with the public and stakeholders able to review and dispute everything except security-sensitive information.  How can the Federal government throw away $6 billion dollars without even bothering to find out if Yucca Mountain can withstand the level of scrutiny required by the NRC?  Especially when starting over means searching the country for a new site?

OPENING STATEMENT: EXAMINATION OF THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for holding this hearing today.  It's been just over a year since this Committee last held a hearing on Yucca Mountain, under my leadership, and I'm glad to once again ask tough questions about this very important project.  Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security and environmental progress.  However, I am concerned that the resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there isn't sufficient progress toward development of a repository for spent fuel.

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to provide for the development of repositories for disposing of high-level nuclear waste and commercial spent fuel.  The process was designed to be a rigorous and thoughtful one whereby our government would research locations, select a site, and license a repository with each relevant Federal agency playing its respective role.  The DOE is charged with development and operation of the repository.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will assess the safety of the proposed facility and regulate its operation, if approved.  The EPA is responsible for developing the radiation standard by which the repository's safety will be evaluated.  I must observe that the EPA committed in a hearing in March of last year that the radiation standard would be finalized by the end of 2006.  However, it is still not final and there is no clear indication when it will become final. 

DOE's filing of a license application with the NRC next year will be the culmination of over 25 years of research.  Ward Sproat has shown exemplary leadership in preparing the organization to take that step and working to instill the discipline that the NRC requires of its licensees. 

So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking for authorization to build the repository.  Yet there are those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over without the NRC ever even considering the project.  I think that view raises some very tough questions.

My first question is: Why should DOE abandon the Yucca Mountain site before the NRC has even evaluated it?  DOE has spent 25 years and $6 billion dollars studying the site and developing the license application.  The NRC has developed detailed regulations to guide the process of intensively and accurately assessing whether Yucca Mountain can be developed as a safe repository, a process that will take at least 3 years.  First, NRC technical staff and independent experts will scrutinize the application.  Then, panels of judges will adjudicate contentions.  Essentially, every element of the application will be put on trial twice.  Then, if the repository gets built, DOE will have to go through a second process before it can begin operations and receive any nuclear waste.  How would you explain to ratepayers that the Federal government threw away $6 billion dollars without even bothering to find out if Yucca Mountain can withstand the level of scrutiny required by the NRC?

My next question is: How do you justify this to our taxpayers?  Electricity ratepayers pay for the cost of the repository, but taxpayers pay the costs of DOE's delay.  DOE estimates that approximately $7 billion dollars in liability costs will be paid to the utilities if DOE begins accepting spent fuel in 2017.  For each year of delay beyond 2017, it's at least another $500 million per year, not to mention the costs to DOE of delaying clean-up of DOE sites which is about another $500 million per year.  This liability is paid by the U. S. taxpayer by way of the Federal government's judgment fund.  How do you justify wasting a billion dollars a year while ignoring binding contracts signed with the utilities and refusing to proceed with the process mandated in law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?

To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain, then where are we going to build a repository?  Before the Congress directed the DOE to focus its efforts on the Yucca Mountain site, over 37 states had been considered as potential hosts for a repository.  I have a map here that highlights all those states that have been considered to have geologic formations worth evaluating for repository development.  I encourage everyone to take a good look at this map and think about what it means to abandon the Yucca Mountain site and look for a new one.  THAT is  a tough question.

 

 

 

I am not prepared to embrace any new long-term storage concept or any alternative repository sites unless and until the Yucca Mountain facility is given a fair, thorough, and transparent review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  I am not in favor of devoting the time and expense of the rate-payers, the government, or this body in pursuing sites in 37 states without first learning whether a safe repository can be built at Yucca Mountain. The prospect of such an effort should give every Member, especially those from these states, great pause.

It's time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

What They Are Saying About Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill

Contact:

Marc Morano 202-224-5762

marc_morano@epw.senate.gov

Matt Dempsey 202-224-9797

matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov

 

What They Are Saying About Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill

Climate Bill Meets Resistance from Unexpected Sources

WASHINGTON, DC - Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said today that the wide ranging reactions to the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill underscores the need for a thorough, full, open, and honest debate on the bill.  

Yesterday, the EPW subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection passed the bill by a vote of 4-3. The bill now goes to the EPW full committee for consideration. Senator Barbara Boxer has said she intends to hold a vote on the bill at full Committee in the next couple of weeks.

"American families deserve to know the tremendous economic burden that will be imposed on them if the Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law," Senator Inhofe said. "This bill, if enacted into law, would impose the equivalent of the largest tax increase in America history - larger than the Clinton-Gore 1993 tax increase. Unfortunately, it appears that the chair of the committee is committed to rushing this bill through the committee in just two weeks. As the ranking member of the committee, I am committed to working to ensure a thorough review of this bill takes place and Committee members have all the facts before they vote on this devastating legislation."

"To have a major Democratic Presidential candidate oppose Lieberman-Warner this strongly reveals the bill's serious economic flaws. Senator Lieberman's candid admission this week that the bill would cost ‘hundreds of billions of dollars' was yet another wake up call about the costs that will be imposed on American families."

# #  

What They Are Saying About Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill:

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards:

"Worst of all, [Lieberman-Warner] gives away pollution permits to industry for free - a massive corporate windfall - instead of doing what is right and selling them so that we can use these resources to invest in clean energy research and help regular families go green," Edwards said on November 1.  

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the co-author of Lieberman-Warner:

"It's hard to imagine that [Lieberman-Warner] will not cost - over time -- these two sectors (electric power and industrial), hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the demands of this bill," Senator Lieberman said November 1 during the EPW subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection mark up.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan:

"Cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence," Greenspan said.  

"There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy." "Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained," Greenspan wrote in his new book, The Age of Turbulence.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Lieberman-Warner "fatally flawed."

The Lieberman-Warner bill "does not adequately preserve American jobs and the domestic economy," wrote Chamber Executive vice president for government affairs R. Bruce Josten in an October 31, 2007 letter to Senators Lieberman and Warner.

"The bill requires American companies to undertake dramatic emissions reductions-15 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 70 percent by 2050-regardless of whether its economic competitors do the same, at least prior to the year 2019. By then much of the United States' energy-intensive industry could be gone, having either shut down or moved overseas," the Chamber letter stated.

The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association:  

"China has outpaced the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of CO2 and India is not far behind. Without meaningful international participation, the U.S. will face a regulatory regime costing potentially billions of dollars that would do little to address climate change," read a November 1 letter from NPRA's executive vice president Charles T. Drevna.

Related Links:

Climate Bill Will Cost ‘Hundreds of Billions of Dollars' - Lieberman Concedes

INHOFE SLAMS NEW CAP-AND-TRADE BILL AS ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT AT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL WARMING

Senator Inhofe Exposes Costly Global Warming 'Solutions'

INHOFE, BOXER DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING ON SENATE FLOOR

Cutting Emissions May Cost U.S. Economy Up to $1.8 Trillion

Senators Propose $4500 Climate Tax on American Families

# # #