In The News
BLOOMBERG: Australian Senate Rejects Rudd’s Cap and Trade Emissions Plan
Thursday August 13, 2009
Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade.
Rudd, who needs support from seven senators outside the government to pass laws through the upper house, can resubmit the bill after making amendments. A second rejection after a three-month span would give him a trigger to call an election.
“We may lose this fight, but this issue will not go away,” Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate in Canberra. “Australia cannot afford for climate change to be unfinished business.”
Five members from the Australian Greens party sought bigger cuts to emissions while the opposition coalition and independent Senator Nick Xenophon wanted to wait for further studies on the plan’s impact on the economy.
Boxer, Baucus headed for turf war over cap-and-trade bill
Friday August 7, 2009
Both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Finance Committee are staking claim to the distribution of what is projected to be hundreds of billions of dollars in emission allowances for a range of industries, adding another layer of complexity to a legislative debate already rife with trap doors.
For now, the leaders of the two committees are playing nice -- at least publicly. They say they will work together on the legislation, and any disputes ultimately will get decided by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
But sources on and off Capitol Hill say Reid wants nothing to do with a parliamentary struggle that pits EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) against Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and he is pleading with them to resolve any differences should the legislation get the green light for a floor vote later this year.
NYTIMES: Climate Bill Is Threatened by Senators
Friday August 7, 2009
The letter warned that strong actions to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would add to the cost of goods like steel, cement, paper and aluminum. Unless other countries adopt similar emission limits, the senators warned, jobs will migrate overseas and foreign manufacturers will have a decided cost advantage.
EPW Committee Hearings Expose Costs of Cap-and-Trade Legislation
Thursday August 6, 2009
Boxer Says Goal is to "Soften the Blow" from Cap-and-Trade - Admits That Cap-and-Trade Will Hurt Jobs, Families, Consumers - During a hearing on July 16, 2009, in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA.), chairman of the committee, said that her goal is to "soften the blow" of cap-and-trade legislation, implicitly acknowledging that cap-and-trade will harm the economy. "The biggest priority is softening the blow on our trade sensitive industries and our consumers. I just want you to know that, that's the goal," Sen. Boxer said. In response, Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, dismissed claims that the government could redistribute revenues from cap-and-trade to "soften the blow" on the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and consumers. "Madam Chair, I will do that, I have been around the block a few times. People are not going to get that refund, it's not going to hit them, people are going to be unemployed, and they are not gonna have any recourse whatsoever, the government will have failed them again."
WATCH - EPA's Jackson Confirms EPA Chart Showing No Effect on Climate Without China, India: During a hearing on July 7, 2009 in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA's analysis. "I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain," Sen. Inhofe said. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate."
Surprise? Inhofe and Obama Admin Offical Appear to Agree on "All of the Above" Energy Policy
Thursday August 6, 2009
Posted by Matt Dempsey
Surprise? Inhofe and Obama Admin Offical Appear to Agree on "All of the Above" Energy Policy
Watch the exchange during the question-answer periord from today's EPW Committee hearing between Senator Inhofe and Tom Strickland Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks for the United States Department of the Interior. Apparently, at least in words, there is plenty to agree on.
Transcript:
Senator Inhofe: We've heard time and time again that America possesses just three percent of the world's oil reserves, that we use twenty-five percent of the world's oil. Yet, that three percent number refers only to the nation's twenty-one billion barrels of proven reserves. Now to prove reserves, you've got to drill. And if you can't drill, then you can't prove the reserves. Eighty-three percent of America's federal on-shore lands are either inaccessible or restricted, due to our policies here. Eighty-five percent of the off-shore continental United States is still off-limits. Now, more assessment, honest assessment, combines our twenty-one billions of proven reserves...and Senator Barrasso talked about this...with the MMS, the BLM, the USGS estimates of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources. That shows American oil resources equal to one hundred forty-nine billion barrels of oil, or seven times the number cited by the Democrats. Those are conservative government estimates. And you can say, don't forget coal, and methane hydrates, and oil shale. The RAND Corporation estimates up to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and to put that into perspective, 1.1 trillion barrels equals more than two thousand years worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. So, I think it's clear that we have the resources, and I would say this, in the statement that you made saying there are two alternatives...this is your statement Mr. - Secretary Strickland, you said, "Either we can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of oil." I think there should be a third one, and that is: develop our own resources. We're the only country in the world that doesn't develop our own resources. I guess the question I would have is: do you agree with these analyses, do you think we ought to develop our own resources. Let's start with you, Secretary Strickland.
Strickland: It is the position of the Administration and Secretary Salazar supports this position, as do I, that we should actively and aggressively develop our conventional energy resources. And since this new Administration came into office on January 21, our first day at the Department of Interior, we have offered just under two thousand parcels for lease, 2.3 million acres. There were bids brought in on eight hundred forty-five thousand acres. I accompanied Secretary Salazar to New Orleans for one of the OCS bids in the spring. We have another bid coming up in August with respect to additional off-shore lands. We're actively looking at the whole OCS in its entirety. We believe there is substantial opportunity to continue to develop conventional oil and gas. We believe we need a balance. We also think there has been an under-valued and under-developed alternative in renewable resource on our public lands up to this point. So we're moving quickly to try and bring some balance, but that is not at the expense of our conventional commitment. We agree that there's additional opportunities.
Sen. Inhofe: Secretary Strickland, I really appreciate that response. In fact, I agree with your response. It's an all-of-the-above response, and I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Join Me in Signing the No Climate Tax Pledge
Wednesday August 5, 2009
I have worked tirelessly over the past ten years to expose cap-and-tax for what it really is: the largest tax increase in American history. I began by leading the opposition against Kyoto in 1997 and have successfully led the fight against the cap-and-trade tax in 2003, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Today as American consumers continue to face tough economic times, the last thing Washington should be doing is raising the price of gas at the pumps, energy in our homes, and the cost of food in our grocery stores.
EPW POLICY BEAT: ACID RAIN MYTH, PART 2
Wednesday August 5, 2009
The myth goes something like this: cap-and-trade was successful in reducing SO2 and NOx at low cost; cap-and-trade is the method of choice for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, cap-and-trade will be successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions at low cost. For several reasons that we’ve stated before, this nifty syllogism is wrong.
There is yet another facet to the myth, as its propagators have recounted over the last several weeks. In an attempt to undercut numerous economic analyses showing cap-and-trade of the greenhouse gas variety destroying jobs and raising energy prices (see, for example, the release yesterday of the Energy Information Administration’s analysis of Waxman-Markey), proponents of energy rationing note with relish the industry’s “doomsday” cost estimates of the Acid Rain program in 1990. As two Senators recently wrote in the Washington Post, “Naysayers said the cost to business [from the Acid Rain program] would be more than $50 billion a year, but health and other benefits outweighed the costs 40 to 1.”
What are we to believe from this? It seems that industry said the program would cost billions more than it actually did; note that these are the same people making the same arguments today about cap-and-trade; therefore, don’t believe them. Case closed. Or so it seems.
FT: Treasury Acts on Carbon-Credit Fraud Fears
Monday August 3, 2009
Losses to the exchequer so far are unlikely to have exceeded a few hundred millions pounds, but the Treasury said in a statement that “there now exists a substantiated and increasing risk of the UK becoming a major target for the fraudsters during the next few months”.
The move is highly unusual because changes to VAT need to be agreed by the European Parliament. The decision to press ahead with the change without prior permission reflects the severity of the threat posed by the fraud. Similar steps have already been taken by France and the Netherlands.
The ease of trading carbon credits means that the fraud, if unchecked, could have been even more costly than similar VAT frauds committed with mobile telephones and computer chips. These cost many billions, but have now been substantially reduced by changes to the VAT system.
International Cap-and-Trade Regime Could Benefit Organized Crime by Creating Carbon Credit Black Market, Senator Warns (CNS NEWS)
Friday July 31, 2009
Barrasso spoke Thursday after a hearing by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that focused on climate change and national security.
"The hearing this morning was specifically about national security and climate change, and I view a big part of that is what Interpol is saying--187 different countries are involved--and they're saying if you need carbon credits, the place to turn to is organized crime if we put in a cap-and-trade program."
Barrasso asked that a May 30 article by Reuters News Service be entered into the record. The article features an interview with Peter Younger, an environmental crimes specialist with Interpol, the world's largest international police agency.
In the article, Younger refers to the United Nations REDD program--Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation--that would generate billions of dollars by rewarding countries that conserve forests and allowing them to sell for profit "carbon credits" to developing countries, an idea similar to the cap-and-trade legislation being debated in the U.S. Senate.
"If you are going to trade any commodity on the open market, you are creating a profit- and-loss situation," Younger told Reuters. "There will be fraudulent trading of carbon credits."
"In future (sic), if you are running a factory and you desperately need credits to offset your emissions, there will be someone who can make that happen for you," Younger said. "Absolutely, organized crime will be involved."
HIGHWAY FLOOR UPDATE: Inhofe Urges Supports of Vitter Amendment
Thursday July 30, 2009
With the current $1.8 trillion 2009 deficit and out-of-control spending by this President and Democrats in Congress, it is critical that we protect American families and focus more on offsets.
The underlying bill transfers $7 billion from the general fund to the trust fund to repay it for historic emergency spending that should have come out of the general fund.
This amendment takes unobligated stimulus funds and redirects them to the Highway Trust Fund. I support this. However, this amendment ensures that these actions will be fully paid for.
Taking the funds from unobligated stimulus funds is the right way to go.
Stimulus spending is supposed to be fast and generate jobs. If money has not even obligated yet, it is, by definition, not stimulating the economy. Thus, it should be targeted for cuts.
This approach is very similar to an amendment to the stimulus bill Senator Boxer and I crafted that would have tripled infrastructure spending by taking unobligated stimulus money from elsewhere in the bill and redirecting it to ready to go infrastructure projects.
This amendment would take idle stimulus money and redirect it to repaying states for construction projects that are underway now.
I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
