In The News
Senator DeMint's Blog: Lieberman-Warner Unlikely to Reduce Global Temperatures, Cap & Trade Scheme INCREASING Emissions in Europe
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Following up on yesterday's release on how Lieberman-Warner will destroy jobs and hike gasoline prices, please see this post from Senator DeMint's blog . Supporters of the $7 Trillion Lieberman-Warner Climate Tax (S. 2191 / S.3036) assure us the bill is necessary to combat global warming, even though the bill would kill 3-4 million American jobs and double gasoline & home energy prices. However, according to numerous experts, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Tax bill would not measurably reduce global temperatures: Dr. Anne E. Smith, CRA International: "It is worth asking however, the question of how much change in global greenhouse gas emissions would be achieved by S.2191, relative to the growth expected from sources other than the United States... None of these scenarios [under Lieberman-Warner] are sufficient to prevent global emissions from continuing to increase through 2050, due to the unchecked growth of emissions from developing countries, principally China and India."
Senator Voinovich Speaks out on Climate Change
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Today, I rise to address the legislative proposal introduced by Senators Lieberman and Mr. Warner to address global climate change. Like many of my colleagues, I share the desire to take proactive steps to address this important global environmental challenge. That said, I have serious reservations about this proposal: I feel that is both overly aggressive – vastly outpacing what technology can provide and thus ensuring enormous economic pain on the country; and, it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation – representing an unprecedented expansion of government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion into Americans lives that will have a profound impact on businesses, communities and families. EPA has stated this program will take between 350 and 400 people to implement.
Senator Cornyn Statement on Climate Change and Energy Prices
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Mr. President, I heard the distinguished Majority Leader criticize the Republicans for wanting to have a debate on this piece of legislation. Frankly, we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't discuss this important piece of legislation. as complex and difficult a topic as it is, and frankly, ask questions that I know our constituents would ask of us were we to vote for or against this particular piece of legislation. So I, for one, would make no apologies for doing what I consider to be my duty, and I think all of us would do well to ask questions about this legislation which proposes a $6.7 trillion price tag. That's trillion, not billion, not million; but trillion. $6.7 trillion dollars.
Senator Sessions discusses the Lieberman-Warner Bill
Tuesday June 3, 2008
Mr. President, I don't think, with all due respect to my good friend, the majority leader, who decided to bring up this bill, that discussing one of the most massive bills we have seen is a waste of time. I don't think 30 hours is too long. The Wall Street Journal, which he dismisses--I don't dismiss it--said: This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. That was today's Wall Street Journal editorial. I wish to say, this is not a matter that should be lightly dealt with. Thirty hours is not enough. We need to spend a lot of time talking about what the provisions are in this legislation, what we can do, as the majority leader says--and I agree, there are a lot of things we can do and we can do now--but what we ought not to.
Inhofe: "We Don't Need a Climate Tax on the Poor" - Wall Street Journal
Tuesday June 3, 2008
With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump. The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill (America's Climate Security Act) represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods.
Boxer Claims Recession is Best Time to Raise Energy Costs
Monday June 2, 2008
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, declared in her opening floor speech today that a “recession is the precise time to" enact the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill because it “brings us hope.”
The Lieberman-Warner global warming bill would have many consequences, but “hope” is not among them. The Cleveland Plain Dealer editorialized on June 1, that the bill "will just bore new holes into an already battered economy."
The Lieberman-Warner global warming bill would have many consequences, but “hope” is not among them. The Cleveland Plain Dealer editorialized on June 1, that the bill "will just bore new holes into an already battered economy."
Statement of Senator Bond on Proceeding to Consideration of the Senate Climate Bill
Monday June 2, 2008
Mr. President, I support cutting carbon emissions, but we must cut carbon without cutting family budgets or worker payrolls. At a time when Americans are suffering record pain at the pump, high energy costs, a home mortgage crisis, and a soft economy, this is not the time to raise energy prices on our families and workers. I just returned from a six city energy tour of my home State of Missouri. From Joplin, Missouri in the southwest part of the State to Palmyra in the northeast, families and truckers are suffering from record high gas prices. Drivers are fed up with gasoline prices approaching $4.00 and diesel prices even higher.
Senator McConnell Speaks out on the Boxer Climate Tax
Monday June 2, 2008
‘At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills and when the price of gas seems to be rising higher and higher every day, the Democrat leadership is showing itself to be laughably out of touch by moving to a bill that would raise the price of gas even higher…There is a better way to move forward. Climate change is a serious issue, and we should continue taking action to address it’
Statement of Administration Policy: S. 3036 – Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act
Monday June 2, 2008
The Administration believes that climate change is an important issue and is taking significant domestic and international actions to address it. As Congress debates this important issue, it must recognize that bad legislation would raise fuel prices and raise taxes on Americans without accomplishing the important goals the Administration shares. This debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a right way and a wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Boxer Climate Tax to ‘bore new holes into an already battered economy’ – ‘Green Slush’ - ‘Monopoly money’ – News Round Up
Monday June 2, 2008
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Carbon cap-and-trade bill is going nowhere, for good reason – editorial – June 01, 2008
Excerpt: The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an already battered economy. It also doesn't have a prayer of becoming law. [...] the bill's supporters evince crass disregard for the economic realities of hard-hit manufacturing states. [...] Yet the hammer-and-tong approach of the Senate bill - originally sponsored by Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican John Warner of Virginia and recently tweaked by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California - lacks even a semblance of balance. Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy prices - Ohio, for instance - would take a double hit in economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and damage to manufacturing nationwide. Those who have watched the Europeans' cap-and-trade system deteriorate into a nightmare of bureaucratic costs, nonsensical investments in outdated factories in China and puzzling price spikes in which the utilities were the only clear winners can be excused for scratching their heads over why cap-and-trade remains the "only" idea worth pursuing. Surely there are less cumbersome, more equitable ways of making carbon emissions more expensive, and thus spurring investment in new technologies, without breaking the banks of both small-town and industrial Ohio.
Excerpt: The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an already battered economy. It also doesn't have a prayer of becoming law. [...] the bill's supporters evince crass disregard for the economic realities of hard-hit manufacturing states. [...] Yet the hammer-and-tong approach of the Senate bill - originally sponsored by Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican John Warner of Virginia and recently tweaked by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California - lacks even a semblance of balance. Coal-dependent states with partially deregulated energy prices - Ohio, for instance - would take a double hit in economic dislocations and electricity price spikes, with barely any financial cushions to make the disruptions more palatable. The bill also lacks the kind of consumer fairness and flexibility necessary to avoid fuel-price shocks and damage to manufacturing nationwide. Those who have watched the Europeans' cap-and-trade system deteriorate into a nightmare of bureaucratic costs, nonsensical investments in outdated factories in China and puzzling price spikes in which the utilities were the only clear winners can be excused for scratching their heads over why cap-and-trade remains the "only" idea worth pursuing. Surely there are less cumbersome, more equitable ways of making carbon emissions more expensive, and thus spurring investment in new technologies, without breaking the banks of both small-town and industrial Ohio.
