In The News
WSJ Editorial: Obamas Oil Crisis Politics
Monday June 7, 2010
Not too many weeks ago it looked as if President Obama's cap-and-tax program for energy was dead for this year. But with the political and media left whacking the President for his handling of the worst spill in U.S. history, Democrats have suddenly decided that this is one more crisis that shouldn't go to waste.
Consult Mr. Obama's remarks last Wednesday about "the future we must seize" at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon. "The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future," he said. "I want you to know, the votes may not be there now, but I intend to find them in the coming months."
Nancy Pelosi forced House Democrats to walk the cap-and-tax plank last July, and the White House now plans a summer push in the Senate, where Midwest and coal-state Democrats are still leery of imposing huge new energy costs on their constituents. But Democrats won't stop merely because cap and tax is unpopular and destructive. ObamaCare was too.
Consult Mr. Obama's remarks last Wednesday about "the future we must seize" at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon. "The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future," he said. "I want you to know, the votes may not be there now, but I intend to find them in the coming months."
Nancy Pelosi forced House Democrats to walk the cap-and-tax plank last July, and the White House now plans a summer push in the Senate, where Midwest and coal-state Democrats are still leery of imposing huge new energy costs on their constituents. But Democrats won't stop merely because cap and tax is unpopular and destructive. ObamaCare was too.
Oklahoma firm receives grant, local help to foster tech companies
Friday June 4, 2010
WASHINGTON - A $1 million federal grant was awarded Thursday to an Oklahoma City nonprofit that helps startups in technology fields, and five Oklahoma City entities announced they will match the money.
The U.S. Economic Development Administration made the grant to i2E Inc. to fund the Oklahoma City Technology Business Launch Program.
"This project will accelerate the growth of early-stage advanced technology companies and create new high-tech jobs where many manufacturing jobs have been lost," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa.
John Fernandez, U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for economic development, said the "investment to advance i2e's efforts to accelerate the technology commercialization sector in Oklahoma City will help create new job opportunities for local workers and prepare the region for growth and competitiveness."
The U.S. Economic Development Administration made the grant to i2E Inc. to fund the Oklahoma City Technology Business Launch Program.
"This project will accelerate the growth of early-stage advanced technology companies and create new high-tech jobs where many manufacturing jobs have been lost," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa.
John Fernandez, U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for economic development, said the "investment to advance i2e's efforts to accelerate the technology commercialization sector in Oklahoma City will help create new job opportunities for local workers and prepare the region for growth and competitiveness."
Examiner Editorial: EPA puts ideology ahead of common sense
Friday June 4, 2010
Do you recall what you were doing on April 22, 2010? Odds are good that lead paint in structures built before 1978 was not in your thoughts that day, but the issue was very much on the minds of the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. That was the day their agency's newest rule -- Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting -- officially took effect. While Lead RRP addresses a legitimate public health concern, it is also a massive addition to the hundreds of thousands of pages of existing EPA regulations covering much of the U.S. economy.
Inside EPA: Senate GOP Seeks Oversight Into EPA Implementation Of Lead Paint Rule
Thursday June 3, 2010
Days after the Senate voted to delay implementation of EPA's recently enacted lead renovation rule, Senate Republicans are calling for oversight hearings to examine "inconsistent and confusing" implementation, a move aimed at easing future implementation of the regulation.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee, and other Republican senators sent a May 28 letter to EPW Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asking for a hearing about the implementation of EPA lead paint renovation rule, which went into effect April 22. Republicans have long raised concerns about the number of properly trained and qualified contractors that would be available to carry out renovations under the rule. The letter is available on InsideEPA.com.
"Holding a hearing before the EPW committee would help to create public awareness of this rule and its requirements for renovators," the letter says. "It will also allow us to discuss the most expeditious and cost-effective means of ensuring that enough instructors are trained, enough contractors are certified and homeowners are educated so that pregnant women and children can actually realize the benefits of this rule."
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee, and other Republican senators sent a May 28 letter to EPW Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asking for a hearing about the implementation of EPA lead paint renovation rule, which went into effect April 22. Republicans have long raised concerns about the number of properly trained and qualified contractors that would be available to carry out renovations under the rule. The letter is available on InsideEPA.com.
"Holding a hearing before the EPW committee would help to create public awareness of this rule and its requirements for renovators," the letter says. "It will also allow us to discuss the most expeditious and cost-effective means of ensuring that enough instructors are trained, enough contractors are certified and homeowners are educated so that pregnant women and children can actually realize the benefits of this rule."
THE FAILURE OF AB 32
Thursday June 3, 2010
Flanked by "national and international dignitaries," Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, California's landmark global warming law, in September 2006. He said the law is "something we owe our children and grandchildren." For those who "challenged whether AB 32 is good for businesses," the Governor said: "I say unquestionably it is good for businesses." And not just for "large, well-established businesses," but "small businesses that will harness their entrepreneurial spirit to help us achieve our climate goals."
When Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 four years ago, California's jobless rate was 4.9 percent. It's now 12 percent, reaching as high as 20 percent in 8 counties. The state's budget bleeds with red ink (deficit: $19.1 billion) and its economy is among the nation's worst.
And now, the California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the Golden State equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, has issued a dire warning that AB 32 will mean more economic pain and joblessness for a state already mired in both. According to the LAO's Mac Taylor:
When Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 four years ago, California's jobless rate was 4.9 percent. It's now 12 percent, reaching as high as 20 percent in 8 counties. The state's budget bleeds with red ink (deficit: $19.1 billion) and its economy is among the nation's worst.
And now, the California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the Golden State equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, has issued a dire warning that AB 32 will mean more economic pain and joblessness for a state already mired in both. According to the LAO's Mac Taylor:
NEWSWEEK: Uncertain Science
Tuesday June 1, 2010
Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate "sensitivity"-the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.
The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports-including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.
Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts."
None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels-including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast-and how much-global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons.
The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports-including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.
Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts."
None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels-including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast-and how much-global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons.
Tulsa World: Senate moves to put off lead-paint violation fines
Friday May 28, 2010
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate passed legislation Thursday to block fines temporarily under a rule that requires certification to remove lead paint in homes and certain facilities built prior to 1978.
Sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the proposal was attached to a supplemental funding bill by a vote of 60-37.
Senators later passed that spending bill and sent it to the House for further action.
In pushing her amendment, Collins accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of botching implementation of the lead-paint rule, which took effect in April.
"I support the EPA lead-paint abatement rule. There simply is no question that we must continue our efforts to rid lead-based paint from our homes,'' she said.
Sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the proposal was attached to a supplemental funding bill by a vote of 60-37.
Senators later passed that spending bill and sent it to the House for further action.
In pushing her amendment, Collins accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of botching implementation of the lead-paint rule, which took effect in April.
"I support the EPA lead-paint abatement rule. There simply is no question that we must continue our efforts to rid lead-based paint from our homes,'' she said.
Democrats Send Mixed Messages on Liability
Wednesday May 26, 2010
Earlier this month, Interior Secretary Salazar told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee the White House and Congress need to work in bipartisan harmony to determine how much more companies should pay for damages linked to a major oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico. The same day, President Obama sent a more pointedly partisan message to Senate Republicans.
Obama released a statement while Salazar was still testifying accusing Republicans of engaging in "special-interest politics" in rejecting attempts by some Senate Democrats to increase a $75 million liability cap to $10 billion. Salazar had reminded two Senate panels just hours earlier that Obama had sent legislation to lawmakers the prior week, saying more work was needed to specify how much liability limits should be raised.
The events of May 18 were merely one example of how the administration's rhetoric regarding the Gulf spill has not always kept officials on the same page.
"It's not consistent," Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski said. "I don't know if they're consulting one another before they speak."
Obama released a statement while Salazar was still testifying accusing Republicans of engaging in "special-interest politics" in rejecting attempts by some Senate Democrats to increase a $75 million liability cap to $10 billion. Salazar had reminded two Senate panels just hours earlier that Obama had sent legislation to lawmakers the prior week, saying more work was needed to specify how much liability limits should be raised.
The events of May 18 were merely one example of how the administration's rhetoric regarding the Gulf spill has not always kept officials on the same page.
"It's not consistent," Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski said. "I don't know if they're consulting one another before they speak."
Inside EPA: Six-Month Delay To Lead Rules
Wednesday May 26, 2010
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is pushing to attach an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that would delay by six months full implementation of EPA's lead paint renovation rule by temporarily curtailing the agency's ability to enforce the rule's requirements against untrained workers.
But a top adviser to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says delaying the rule's requirements will stymie agency efforts to protect children. "We don't think at this point a rider to delay will be helpful to accomplish that goal of protecting children," Peter Grevatt, head of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection & Environmental Education and a senior adviser to Jackson, said at a May 25 meeting of the National Safe & Healthy Housing Coalition.
But a top adviser to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says delaying the rule's requirements will stymie agency efforts to protect children. "We don't think at this point a rider to delay will be helpful to accomplish that goal of protecting children," Peter Grevatt, head of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection & Environmental Education and a senior adviser to Jackson, said at a May 25 meeting of the National Safe & Healthy Housing Coalition.
E&E;: Obamas face-to-face pitch does little to sway GOP
Tuesday May 25, 2010
President Obama's visit to Capitol Hill today seemingly did little to move the ball forward on a sweeping climate and energy bill, as Republican senators said they continue see deep philosophical differences between the two sides and urged the president to a support a scaled-down version of the legislation.
Energy policy was one of several topics of discussion during a rare meeting between Obama and Senate Republicans today. The 90-minute visit marked only the second time during his presidency that Obama met with the Senate Republican caucus.
Obama did not answer questions from reporters upon exiting the meeting, saying only, "We had a good, frank discussion on a whole range of issues."
Energy policy was one of several topics of discussion during a rare meeting between Obama and Senate Republicans today. The 90-minute visit marked only the second time during his presidency that Obama met with the Senate Republican caucus.
Obama did not answer questions from reporters upon exiting the meeting, saying only, "We had a good, frank discussion on a whole range of issues."
