In The News
EPW FACT OF THE DAY: $300 MILLION
Tuesday September 1, 2009
In an above-the-fold article yesterday, the Washington Post reported that environmental groups “slacked off” after House passage of the Waxman-Markey bill, creating an open field for opponents to savage the bill’s high costs on consumers and families. In detailing how “progressives and clean energy types” have made tactical and strategic mistakes over the summer, the Post contends environmentalists are losing in part because of a lack of funding. According to the report, “Oil and natural gas groups have always had deeper pockets. In the first six months of 2009, the Center for Responsive Politics found they spent $82.1 million lobbying Washington on various issues, including climate policy. In the same time, environmental and health groups concerned with climate change spent about $6.6 million on lobbying and clean-energy firms $12.1 million, according to two other analyst groups, the Center for Public Integrity and New Energy Finance.”
Democrats Delay Climate Bill For Second Time in Two Months
Monday August 31, 2009
Joint Statement of Senator John Kerry and Senator Barbara Boxer
The Kerry-Boxer bill is moving along well and we are looking forward to introducing legislation that will create millions of clean energy jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and ensure American leadership in the clean energy economy.
Because of Senator Kennedy's recent passing, Senator Kerry's August hip surgery, and the intensive work on health care legislation particularly on the Finance Committee where Sen. Kerry serves, Majority Leader Reid has agreed to provide some additional time to work on the final details of our bill, and to reach out to colleagues and important stakeholders. We have told the Majority Leader that our goal is to introduce our bill later in September.
The Kerry-Boxer bill is moving along well and we are looking forward to introducing legislation that will create millions of clean energy jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and ensure American leadership in the clean energy economy.
Because of Senator Kennedy's recent passing, Senator Kerry's August hip surgery, and the intensive work on health care legislation particularly on the Finance Committee where Sen. Kerry serves, Majority Leader Reid has agreed to provide some additional time to work on the final details of our bill, and to reach out to colleagues and important stakeholders. We have told the Majority Leader that our goal is to introduce our bill later in September.
National Journal: Should EPA Bow To Chamber's Demand ?
Monday August 31, 2009
The National Journal asked politicians, academics and others the following questions: Should the Environmental Protection Agency be required to publicly defend its finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare? Should the climate change data be reviewed in a public administrative law hearing? Would a public hearing make any difference? Or is the hearing request just an excuse to delay the agency's climate change decision?
Background from National Journal:
In April, the EPA released a proposal concluding that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants cause health problems. Now the agency is poised to release the final version of that ruling. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that before the decision is finalized, EPA should be required to defend its scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge. Chamber officials and other critics claim that the Obama administration is suppressing internal agency studies that disagree with the proposed endangerment finding.
Background from National Journal:
In April, the EPA released a proposal concluding that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants cause health problems. Now the agency is poised to release the final version of that ruling. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that before the decision is finalized, EPA should be required to defend its scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge. Chamber officials and other critics claim that the Obama administration is suppressing internal agency studies that disagree with the proposed endangerment finding.
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY: Carbongate
Friday August 28, 2009
Junk Science: The EPA may be considering closing the watchdog office that exposed the flimsy evidence of man-caused warming. So much for the administration's promise to "restore science to its rightful place."
Recently we commented on the plight of Dr. Allen Carlin, the EPA senior research analyst at the National Center for Environmental Economics who dared to say, in essence, that emperor Al Gore and his environmental sycophants at the Environmental Protection Agency wore no clothes.
The EPA had been working on an "endangerment finding" that would say carbon dioxide, rather than being the basis for all life on earth, was a dangerous pollutant and allowing the EPA to regulate it and five other gases down to your lawn mower.
Along came Carlin, who decided to do something unheard of and actually check the empirical data. After examining numerous global warming studies, Carlin — who holds a doctorate in economics with an undergraduate degree in physics — said his research showed that "available observable data . . . invalidate the hypothesis" that humans cause dangerous global warming. The EPA has "tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups . . . as being correct without a careful and critical examination."
With the Democrats about to push the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, it didn't help for Carlin to report, for example, that ocean cycles, rather than anthropogenic carbon dioxide, appeared to be the single best explanation of temperature variations.
Recently we commented on the plight of Dr. Allen Carlin, the EPA senior research analyst at the National Center for Environmental Economics who dared to say, in essence, that emperor Al Gore and his environmental sycophants at the Environmental Protection Agency wore no clothes.
The EPA had been working on an "endangerment finding" that would say carbon dioxide, rather than being the basis for all life on earth, was a dangerous pollutant and allowing the EPA to regulate it and five other gases down to your lawn mower.
Along came Carlin, who decided to do something unheard of and actually check the empirical data. After examining numerous global warming studies, Carlin — who holds a doctorate in economics with an undergraduate degree in physics — said his research showed that "available observable data . . . invalidate the hypothesis" that humans cause dangerous global warming. The EPA has "tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups . . . as being correct without a careful and critical examination."
With the Democrats about to push the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, it didn't help for Carlin to report, for example, that ocean cycles, rather than anthropogenic carbon dioxide, appeared to be the single best explanation of temperature variations.
ON LIBERTY
Thursday August 27, 2009
It is well known that questioning the science underlying climate change policy—that is, publicly raising doubts about various aspects of it, or even disbelieving the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis entirely—is outré, something that simply cannot be raised in polite society, or in the halls of Congress. This is a reality we know well, and one we accept with ironic amusement. Moreover, we are, in various forums, happy to stipulate the so-called consensus science—i.e. mankind’s consumption of fossil fuels is fueling a planetary disaster—given that the policies (read: cap and trade) driven by it do absolutely nothing to remedy the problems—droughts, disease, general decimation of all kinds—that are identified by it.
This is not to say, of course, that questioning should stop—to the contrary: it should continue, unabated, in the true spirit of open, Baconian scientific inquiry, if only because such questioning, by numerous, respected, well-credentialed scientists, including those once convinced of the accuracy of the “consensus” position, has revealed serious, in fact devastating, flaws, in what some believe to be an open and shut case deserving of no dissent. For this reason, we welcomed the news that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has asked EPA to hold a hearing on the scientific evidence supporting the agency’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
One would expect EPA and the environmental community, so convinced of the absolute certainty of their position, to welcome such a challenge, which would once and for all dispose with “denier” doubting about the supposed harms of carbon dioxide emissions. Yet we found just the opposite. According to the LA Times an EPA spokesman dismissed the Chamber’s request for an open hearing as a “waste of time” and “frivolous.” A representative from the Union of Concerned Scientists, following that group’s usual penchant for nuance and subtlety, compared the Chamber’s request to “the Salem witch trials, based on myth.” “In this case,” according to the UCS’s Brenda Ekwurzel, “[the Chamber filing], would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence.” Joe Romm, of the Center for American Progress, asks the board members of the Chamber “to declare whether they are evolved members of humanity or dedicated to our self-destruction.”
This is not to say, of course, that questioning should stop—to the contrary: it should continue, unabated, in the true spirit of open, Baconian scientific inquiry, if only because such questioning, by numerous, respected, well-credentialed scientists, including those once convinced of the accuracy of the “consensus” position, has revealed serious, in fact devastating, flaws, in what some believe to be an open and shut case deserving of no dissent. For this reason, we welcomed the news that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has asked EPA to hold a hearing on the scientific evidence supporting the agency’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
One would expect EPA and the environmental community, so convinced of the absolute certainty of their position, to welcome such a challenge, which would once and for all dispose with “denier” doubting about the supposed harms of carbon dioxide emissions. Yet we found just the opposite. According to the LA Times an EPA spokesman dismissed the Chamber’s request for an open hearing as a “waste of time” and “frivolous.” A representative from the Union of Concerned Scientists, following that group’s usual penchant for nuance and subtlety, compared the Chamber’s request to “the Salem witch trials, based on myth.” “In this case,” according to the UCS’s Brenda Ekwurzel, “[the Chamber filing], would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence.” Joe Romm, of the Center for American Progress, asks the board members of the Chamber “to declare whether they are evolved members of humanity or dedicated to our self-destruction.”
WSJ: Climate Bill Exposes Rifts Within Political Families
Thursday August 27, 2009
The debate over how to curb carbon-dioxide emissions and other gases linked to global climate change is splitting some prominent political families in both parties.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is one of the Obama administration's leading advocates of strong action on climate change. His older brother John, a Democratic congressman from Colorado, voted with many House Republicans against a bill to cap U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.
John Salazar said the House climate bill would be "unfair" to Colorado and lead to "dramatically" higher electricity bills for his constituents.
"He has his job to do; I have my job to do," said his brother, the interior secretary.
John Podesta knows that feeling. Mr. Podesta, a White House chief of staff under President Clinton who advised President Barack Obama on his White House transition, is one of the House bill's most outspoken supporters.
The debate over how to curb U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global climate change is splitting some powerful political families, environmental reporter Stephen Power says.
In blog posts on the Web site of the Center for American Progress, an Obama-friendly think tank, Mr. Podesta has accused "coal lobby groups" of waging "a massive campaign" to defeat the measure.
Mr. Podesta's older brother Tony is a registered lobbyist for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The coalition, which represents major coal producers such as Peabody Energy Corp. and electric utilities such as American Electric Power Co., said the House legislation "does not adequately protect consumers and the domestic economy."
The coalition has come under attack from the younger Mr. Podesta's group over the former's use of a subcontractor that has acknowledged sending members of Congress fake letters purporting to be from nonprofit groups opposed to climate legislation.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is one of the Obama administration's leading advocates of strong action on climate change. His older brother John, a Democratic congressman from Colorado, voted with many House Republicans against a bill to cap U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.
John Salazar said the House climate bill would be "unfair" to Colorado and lead to "dramatically" higher electricity bills for his constituents.
"He has his job to do; I have my job to do," said his brother, the interior secretary.
John Podesta knows that feeling. Mr. Podesta, a White House chief of staff under President Clinton who advised President Barack Obama on his White House transition, is one of the House bill's most outspoken supporters.
The debate over how to curb U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global climate change is splitting some powerful political families, environmental reporter Stephen Power says.
In blog posts on the Web site of the Center for American Progress, an Obama-friendly think tank, Mr. Podesta has accused "coal lobby groups" of waging "a massive campaign" to defeat the measure.
Mr. Podesta's older brother Tony is a registered lobbyist for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The coalition, which represents major coal producers such as Peabody Energy Corp. and electric utilities such as American Electric Power Co., said the House legislation "does not adequately protect consumers and the domestic economy."
The coalition has come under attack from the younger Mr. Podesta's group over the former's use of a subcontractor that has acknowledged sending members of Congress fake letters purporting to be from nonprofit groups opposed to climate legislation.
A Closer Look at Defeat of Australia Climate Bill
Tuesday August 25, 2009
After a short (and much needed) break, EPW Policy Beat is back (as if anyone, at least in the waning days of August, really cares). After cleaning out in-boxes and taking stock of the last three weeks, it occurred to us that, as the siren calls of August recess rang out, several notable events occurred that were lost in the mad rush to leave town. These were events, upon closer inspection, that could have ramifications for the climate change debate expected in the Senate this fall. We plan to focus on them in the next few days. Our first installment covers the (welcome) defeat of cap-and-trade in the Australian Senate.
First, some background. 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.
According to Sen. Penny Wong, who serves as the Rudd government’s Minister for Climate Change and Water, the CPRS “is a highly complex reform and like all serious action on climate change, it is not without cost. But we know that for Australia, and indeed the world, the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of responsible action now.” Link
First, some background. 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.
According to Sen. Penny Wong, who serves as the Rudd government’s Minister for Climate Change and Water, the CPRS “is a highly complex reform and like all serious action on climate change, it is not without cost. But we know that for Australia, and indeed the world, the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of responsible action now.” Link
Just What The Doctor Ordered: Health Care Could Make Climate Change Legislation “Unlikely”
Monday August 24, 2009
The Washington Post asked politicians, academics and others whether the health-care debate has made it unlikely that climate change legislation will be passed in the near future. Below is Senator Inhofe’s response posted on the Post website.
SEN. JAMES M. INHOFE (R-Okla.):
As lawmakers return to Washington and assess the fiery backlash of constituent opposition to government-run health care, those mired in the thick of the climate change debate are wondering: What does it all mean for us?
The warring factions over climate policy should step back and try to discern whether constituents are signaling a more basic distrust of new government schemes. Polling data from the past several months indicates that such public distrust is real, deep and widespread. This means the Democrats' government-run, cap-and-trade scheme -- in fact, an energy tax that extends into every corner of American life -- now faces an even higher hurdle, including growing opposition from many Democrats in the Senate. Such distrust will only grow if Democrats insist, as they did in the House, on crafting climate legislation in their inner sanctums, with no time for serious public input and debate. And this is exactly the course being drawn in the Senate.
Still, Washington's appetite for spending, taxing and regulating -- cap-and trade contains elements of each -- is boundless. So, despite having public opinion on our side, those opposed to cap-and-trade are facing a monumental battle this fall in the Senate. There will be a mad race for 60 votes, and the outcome will reverberate beyond 2010.
SEN. JAMES M. INHOFE (R-Okla.):
As lawmakers return to Washington and assess the fiery backlash of constituent opposition to government-run health care, those mired in the thick of the climate change debate are wondering: What does it all mean for us?
The warring factions over climate policy should step back and try to discern whether constituents are signaling a more basic distrust of new government schemes. Polling data from the past several months indicates that such public distrust is real, deep and widespread. This means the Democrats' government-run, cap-and-trade scheme -- in fact, an energy tax that extends into every corner of American life -- now faces an even higher hurdle, including growing opposition from many Democrats in the Senate. Such distrust will only grow if Democrats insist, as they did in the House, on crafting climate legislation in their inner sanctums, with no time for serious public input and debate. And this is exactly the course being drawn in the Senate.
Still, Washington's appetite for spending, taxing and regulating -- cap-and trade contains elements of each -- is boundless. So, despite having public opinion on our side, those opposed to cap-and-trade are facing a monumental battle this fall in the Senate. There will be a mad race for 60 votes, and the outcome will reverberate beyond 2010.
Former Sen. Wirth Joins Anti-Cap-And-Tax Chorus
Tuesday August 18, 2009
Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Cap-and-trade legislation to limit U.S. carbon dioxide emissions has "gotten out of control" and needs to be scaled back in Congress, said former Democratic Senator Timothy Wirth.
"The Republicans are right -- it's a cap-and-tax bill," Wirth, a climate-change negotiator during President Bill Clinton's administration, said in an Aug. 14 interview. "That's what it is because they are raising revenue to do all sorts of things, especially to take care of the coal industry, and it makes no sense."
A system to cap carbon emissions and then create a market for the trading of pollution allowances is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's proposal to fight global warming. Wirth, who helped craft a successful emissions-trading market two decades ago that cut sulfur-dioxide pollution causing acid rain, is among Democrats questioning House-passed legislation set to be taken up next month in the Senate.
"I'm not critical of cap-and-trade," said Wirth, head of the UN Foundation, a philanthropy established in 1998 with $1 billion from medial mogul Ted Turner. "But it has to be used in a targeted and disciplined way, and what has happened is it's gotten out of control."
Wirth, who represented Colorado in the Senate, says the House-passed plan is "too broad across the economy." Instead of capping carbon pollution generally, the measure should focus solely on coal-fired power plants, he said.
"The Republicans are right -- it's a cap-and-tax bill," Wirth, a climate-change negotiator during President Bill Clinton's administration, said in an Aug. 14 interview. "That's what it is because they are raising revenue to do all sorts of things, especially to take care of the coal industry, and it makes no sense."
A system to cap carbon emissions and then create a market for the trading of pollution allowances is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's proposal to fight global warming. Wirth, who helped craft a successful emissions-trading market two decades ago that cut sulfur-dioxide pollution causing acid rain, is among Democrats questioning House-passed legislation set to be taken up next month in the Senate.
"I'm not critical of cap-and-trade," said Wirth, head of the UN Foundation, a philanthropy established in 1998 with $1 billion from medial mogul Ted Turner. "But it has to be used in a targeted and disciplined way, and what has happened is it's gotten out of control."
Wirth, who represented Colorado in the Senate, says the House-passed plan is "too broad across the economy." Instead of capping carbon pollution generally, the measure should focus solely on coal-fired power plants, he said.
Dem Senators Say “Let’s Wait On Passing an Energy Tax.”
Friday August 14, 2009
Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say.
"The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift," Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. "I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem."
The resistance by Lincoln and her Senate colleagues undercuts President Barack Obama's effort to win passage of legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions and establish a market for trading pollution allowances, said Peter Molinaro, the head of government affairs for Midland, Michigan- based Dow Chemical Co., which supports the measure.
"Doing these energy provisions by themselves might make it more difficult to move the cap-and-trade legislation," said Molinaro, who is based in Washington. "In this town if you split two measures, usually the second thing never gets done."
The House passed cap-and-trade legislation in June.
"The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift," Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. "I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem."
The resistance by Lincoln and her Senate colleagues undercuts President Barack Obama's effort to win passage of legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions and establish a market for trading pollution allowances, said Peter Molinaro, the head of government affairs for Midland, Michigan- based Dow Chemical Co., which supports the measure.
"Doing these energy provisions by themselves might make it more difficult to move the cap-and-trade legislation," said Molinaro, who is based in Washington. "In this town if you split two measures, usually the second thing never gets done."
The House passed cap-and-trade legislation in June.
