In The News
Inhofe Welcomes Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce to DC
Wednesday September 16, 2009
Senator Inhofe was pleased to welcome back the Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce to Washington D.C. this week to discuss a number of wide-ranging issues important to Oklahoma businesses, including critical transportation issues. At the invitation of Senator Inhofe, Secretary of Transportation Roy LaHood addressed the group and took questions.
E&E; News: Reid Says Cap-and-Trade Bill May Wait till 2010
Tuesday September 15, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today said the Senate may not act on comprehensive energy and climate change legislation until next year, given the chamber's busy fall schedule.
Speaking to reporters about the possibility of taking up the bill this fall, Reid said the Senate must first finish work on health care and regulatory reform.
"So, you know, we are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year," Reid said. "And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged the current focus on health care but said he is hopeful climate will remain part of the packed agenda this year. Asked whether he and Reid are discussing the climate and energy bill amid the current health care push, Durbin said, "It's all health care, all the time. I shouldn't say all the time, because we have a list of about a dozen things we have to do, and that is one of the elements that we want to finish before the end of the year."
Speaking to reporters about the possibility of taking up the bill this fall, Reid said the Senate must first finish work on health care and regulatory reform.
"So, you know, we are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year," Reid said. "And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged the current focus on health care but said he is hopeful climate will remain part of the packed agenda this year. Asked whether he and Reid are discussing the climate and energy bill amid the current health care push, Durbin said, "It's all health care, all the time. I shouldn't say all the time, because we have a list of about a dozen things we have to do, and that is one of the elements that we want to finish before the end of the year."
GOP Beware: Though Now Stalled, Cap-and-Trade is Alive and Well
Monday September 14, 2009
Now that the debate on cap-and-trade has stalled indefinitely in the Senate, inquiring minds are wondering: what’s next? While there’s no question the Democrats have declared a cease fire on cap-and-trade—many of them want nothing to do with the issue—their allies outside the Beltway are preparing a massive $20 million campaign to push legislation forward.
This effort should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who believes cap-and-trade is dead and buried—it is very much alive. So Republicans remain ever vigilant, preparing to defeat any cap-and-trade energy tax that will drive up unemployment, slow our economic recovery, and make America less competitive in the global marketplace.
A key component of this pressure group campaign will be the so-called “endangerment” finding now under review at the White House. This finding under the Clean Air Act will declare that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and thus will trigger a cascade of new regulations that will crush small businesses and raise electricity, food, and gasoline prices.
Green groups and the Obama Administration are threatening Congress with this finding, arguing that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, or any cap-and-trade bill, will take care of it. They argue that cap-and-trade is more efficient than command-and-control regulation. But this is a smokescreen for the truth: cap-and-trade would simply substitute one bad policy for another, as Congress would be replacing one energy tax with another. Republicans reject both, and both should be defeated.
This effort should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who believes cap-and-trade is dead and buried—it is very much alive. So Republicans remain ever vigilant, preparing to defeat any cap-and-trade energy tax that will drive up unemployment, slow our economic recovery, and make America less competitive in the global marketplace.
A key component of this pressure group campaign will be the so-called “endangerment” finding now under review at the White House. This finding under the Clean Air Act will declare that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and thus will trigger a cascade of new regulations that will crush small businesses and raise electricity, food, and gasoline prices.
Green groups and the Obama Administration are threatening Congress with this finding, arguing that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, or any cap-and-trade bill, will take care of it. They argue that cap-and-trade is more efficient than command-and-control regulation. But this is a smokescreen for the truth: cap-and-trade would simply substitute one bad policy for another, as Congress would be replacing one energy tax with another. Republicans reject both, and both should be defeated.
Dismal Outlook For Climate Bill As Congress Returns From August Recess
Friday September 11, 2009
Reuters - U.S. Senate Democrats Skeptical About Climate Bill (09/10/09) - WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Several U.S. Senate Democrats, including a top leader, on Wednesday questioned whether it would be possible to vote on a climate change bill this year, especially with healthcare reform eating up so much of the lawmakers' time. "It's a difficult schedule" with many members already "anxious" about healthcare reform, Senator Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat, told Reuters when asked about prospects this year for a bill to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. President Barack Obama is engaged in the toughest fight of his presidency in trying to win passage of expanded healthcare. Obama also has called on Congress to approve legislation this year to control climate change by reducing pollutants from utilities, oil refineries and factories. Besides the need to pass the complex healthcare bill this year, which Durbin said was "first in the queue," he also noted the need to tackle legislation imposing stricter rules on the U.S. financial industry.Durbin said it was unclear whether the climate bill or financial industry reform would be a higher priority in 2009. With most Senate Republicans expected to oppose a climate change bill in the 100-member Senate, nearly all of the 60 seats controlled by Democrats would have to line up in favor of the legislation for it to clear procedural hurdles.
Inside EPA - Senators Offer No Firm Plan For Passing Cap-And-Trade This Year (09/10/09) - Senate leaders have set no firm deadline for committees to finish work on climate change legislation, a revelation that comes amid increasing talk that the chamber may be unable or unwilling to act on a controversial cap-and-trade plan before the end of the year given a host of other competing concerns. In interviews, Democratic lawmakers were split on whether the Senate can or should even try to enact climate legislation ahead of December talks in Copenhagen aimed at crafting a new global climate change treaty, and none put forward a clear plan for how the chamber will tackle the issue. Given the dwindling amount of time left for lawmakers to address the topic this year, some senators suggested Congress may be better off passing piecemeal measures, such as a utility-only cap-and-trade scheme, or simply leaving the issue for EPA to handle. In late August, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, announced their climate bill would not be introduced until at least the end of this month, the most recent in a series of delays for the bill’s introduction…The lack of a firm deadline -- or a public consensus on the plan even from committee chairmen tasked with drafting aspects of the bill -- may be an indication Senate leaders are not fully committed to holding a vote on climate legislation before the end of the year. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), for instance, said in an interview that “there hasn’t been a lot of discussion” within the Senate about the climate and energy agenda for the rest of the year, evidence the health care debate has been dominating lawmakers’ attention. That said, he didn’t rule out that there would be some form of action. “My expectation is that we are going to move forward,” he said. “Once health care is done, that is next up on the agenda.”
Inside EPA - Senators Offer No Firm Plan For Passing Cap-And-Trade This Year (09/10/09) - Senate leaders have set no firm deadline for committees to finish work on climate change legislation, a revelation that comes amid increasing talk that the chamber may be unable or unwilling to act on a controversial cap-and-trade plan before the end of the year given a host of other competing concerns. In interviews, Democratic lawmakers were split on whether the Senate can or should even try to enact climate legislation ahead of December talks in Copenhagen aimed at crafting a new global climate change treaty, and none put forward a clear plan for how the chamber will tackle the issue. Given the dwindling amount of time left for lawmakers to address the topic this year, some senators suggested Congress may be better off passing piecemeal measures, such as a utility-only cap-and-trade scheme, or simply leaving the issue for EPA to handle. In late August, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, announced their climate bill would not be introduced until at least the end of this month, the most recent in a series of delays for the bill’s introduction…The lack of a firm deadline -- or a public consensus on the plan even from committee chairmen tasked with drafting aspects of the bill -- may be an indication Senate leaders are not fully committed to holding a vote on climate legislation before the end of the year. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), for instance, said in an interview that “there hasn’t been a lot of discussion” within the Senate about the climate and energy agenda for the rest of the year, evidence the health care debate has been dominating lawmakers’ attention. That said, he didn’t rule out that there would be some form of action. “My expectation is that we are going to move forward,” he said. “Once health care is done, that is next up on the agenda.”
WAXMAN-MARKEY’S ENDANGERMENT MESS
Friday September 11, 2009
As EPA prepares to finalize its proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, many are wondering: doesn’t Waxman-Markey take care of that endangerment mess? It’s true that in the bill’s vast wasteland of mandates, restrictions, and controls, there are provisions preempting specific provisions of the Clean Air Act. One such is Section 831, prohibiting EPA from establishing a national ambient air quality standard for greenhouse gas emissions. This is indeed helpful, considering the mess such a standard setting process would cause.
Yet despite this and other narrow preemption provisions, Waxman-Markey is in no way a panacea for endangerment, as there is nothing in the bill that overturns Massachusetts v. EPA, or blocks EPA from making an endangerment finding (not to mention tying the hands of Interior and NOAA on the Endangered Species Act, or preempting GHG regulation under the National Environmental Policy Act). What’s clear is that the bill’s authors attempted to manage some of the potential results of an endangerment finding. But their attempt, while admirable in some respects, in no way prevents a regulatory nightmare from occurring.
What’s more, Waxman-Markey uses existing provisions of the Clean Air Act to drive emissions reductions. In Section 811, EPA is required to utilize Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to impose new source performance standards on certain sources emitting between 10,000 and 25,000 tons of GHG per year. Also, Section 821 explicitly preserves existing Clean Air Act authority for EPA to regulate GHG emissions from mobile sources. And to make matters worse, Section 705f(3)(C) instructs EPA to “develop strategies and approaches for achieving additional reductions” of GHG beyond those established in the act. One would bet the farm that EPA would use this authority to mandate any and all sources not covered under Waxman-Markey, even to invoke Clean Air Act authorities otherwise preempted by the bill.
Yet despite this and other narrow preemption provisions, Waxman-Markey is in no way a panacea for endangerment, as there is nothing in the bill that overturns Massachusetts v. EPA, or blocks EPA from making an endangerment finding (not to mention tying the hands of Interior and NOAA on the Endangered Species Act, or preempting GHG regulation under the National Environmental Policy Act). What’s clear is that the bill’s authors attempted to manage some of the potential results of an endangerment finding. But their attempt, while admirable in some respects, in no way prevents a regulatory nightmare from occurring.
What’s more, Waxman-Markey uses existing provisions of the Clean Air Act to drive emissions reductions. In Section 811, EPA is required to utilize Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to impose new source performance standards on certain sources emitting between 10,000 and 25,000 tons of GHG per year. Also, Section 821 explicitly preserves existing Clean Air Act authority for EPA to regulate GHG emissions from mobile sources. And to make matters worse, Section 705f(3)(C) instructs EPA to “develop strategies and approaches for achieving additional reductions” of GHG beyond those established in the act. One would bet the farm that EPA would use this authority to mandate any and all sources not covered under Waxman-Markey, even to invoke Clean Air Act authorities otherwise preempted by the bill.
Inhofe Highlights Energy Report: Common Sense for Concerned Americans
Thursday September 10, 2009
Senator James Inhofe spoke on the Senate Floor this week highlighting a recent report from Robert P. Smith, Ph.D., P.E., of Strategic Resource Consulting. In his speech, Inhofe outlined energy policies that would help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and make energy more affordable by increasing domestic energy supplies and fostering new energy technologies.
Organized into seven chapters, and written in non-technical language, the report is a perfect primer for any citizen concerned about America’s energy future.
Organized into seven chapters, and written in non-technical language, the report is a perfect primer for any citizen concerned about America’s energy future.
News Round Up: Too Much Drama for Obama – Rise and Fall of Van Jones – Resigns Amid Controversy
Tuesday September 8, 2009
Obama’s Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones was forced to resign Saturday after reporting by several investigative blogs and show host Glenn Beck led to main stream media coverage on his extreme views and incendiary statements. Vowing he would not be a distraction to the Administration, Jones resigned quietly, refusing to take responsibility for his past associations.
In a statement, Jones wrote: "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
Van Jones: "The environmental justice community that said, 'Hey, wait a minute, you know, you're regulating, but you're not regulating equally.' And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame." (January 2008)
Van Jones: “Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society." (April 2008)
In a statement, Jones wrote: "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
Van Jones: "The environmental justice community that said, 'Hey, wait a minute, you know, you're regulating, but you're not regulating equally.' And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame." (January 2008)
Van Jones: “Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society." (April 2008)
Houston Chronicle Science Reporter Raises Inconvenient Questions
Sunday September 6, 2009
I'm the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle, the daily newspaper in the petrochemical capital of the United States, if not the world. I've been called a global warming skeptic by environmentalists, and I've been called an environmentalist toady by the skeptics.
I'm neither of these things. Rather, I'm just trying to grasp what is happening to the planet's climate, and how humans are impacting it.
For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this.
I'm neither of these things. Rather, I'm just trying to grasp what is happening to the planet's climate, and how humans are impacting it.
For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this.
10 SENATORS
Thursday September 3, 2009
Now that cap-and-trade legislation is taking another hiatus, we turn again to significant events in August that fell beneath the radar. One such was a letter sent to President Obama on August 6 by ten Democratic Senators, representing states heavily reliant on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs. Its contents present serious problems for proponents of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate. The letter, signed by Senators Brown (Oh.), Feingold (Wis.), Stabenow (Mich.), Levin (Mich.), Casey (Pa.), Specter (Pa.), Byrd (W. Va.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Franken (Minn.), and Bayh (Ind.), is a constructive attempt to influence the design of cap-and-trade architecture. The Senators’ concern, expressed in the letter, for the fate of American manufacturing in a cap-and-trade regime is both warranted and welcome. What struck us as interesting is the statement from the Senators that they “would find it extremely difficult to support a final measure” without the proposals outlined in the letter. The proposals, noted below, have sparked the ire of the White House, and could have serious global trade implications. Beyond that, their inclusion in climate legislation would no doubt further complicate the Senate debate.
WSJ Editorial: Terms of 'Endangerment'
Thursday September 3, 2009
Cap and trade may be flopping around like a dying fish in Congress, but the Obama Administration isn't about to let the annoyance of democratic consent interfere with its climate ambitions. Almost as bad is the new evidence that it understands how damaging its carbon regulations and taxes will be and is pressing ahead anyway.
The White House is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency's April "endangerment finding" that as a matter of law CO2 is a pollutant that threatens the public's health and must therefore be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such a rulemaking would let the EPA impose the ossified command-and-control regulatory approach of the 1970s across the entire economy, even if Democrats never get around to passing a cap-and-tax bill.
Yet a curious twist is buried in the EPA's draft rule. The trade press is reporting that the agency thinks it enjoys the discretion to target the new rules only to major industrial sources of carbon emissions, such as power plants, refineries, factories and the like. This so-called "tailoring rule" essentially rewrites clear statutory language of the Clean Air Act by bureaucratic decree.
The White House is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency's April "endangerment finding" that as a matter of law CO2 is a pollutant that threatens the public's health and must therefore be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such a rulemaking would let the EPA impose the ossified command-and-control regulatory approach of the 1970s across the entire economy, even if Democrats never get around to passing a cap-and-tax bill.
Yet a curious twist is buried in the EPA's draft rule. The trade press is reporting that the agency thinks it enjoys the discretion to target the new rules only to major industrial sources of carbon emissions, such as power plants, refineries, factories and the like. This so-called "tailoring rule" essentially rewrites clear statutory language of the Clean Air Act by bureaucratic decree.
