In The News
EPW FACT OF THE DAY: THE TWO ASBESTOS LITIGATION WITNESSES SEN. BOXER DIDN’T TELL YOU ABOUT
Tuesday June 12, 2007
THE TWO ASBESTOS LITIGATION WITNESSES SEN. BOXER DIDN’T TELL YOU ABOUT
Tuesday June 12, 2007
During today’s EPW Committee hearing, “Examination of the Health Effects of Asbestos and Methods of Mitigating Such Impacts,” Senator Boxer went to great lengths to point out that two of the five witnesses testifying at today’s hearing had testified in asbestos liability litigation. Senator Boxer said, “Let me be clear, I think it’s important that we be totally honest before the committee,” and “I believe it’s important that this information be stated for the record.” She went on to say that banning asbestos would put the trial bar out of business.
FACT: Four of the five witnesses testifying on that panel have testified in asbestos litigation. Dr. Richard Lemen and Barry Castleman have been retained by plaintiff attorneys in asbestos litigation numerous times. Interestingly, Senator Boxer, in the spirit of being open and honest, failed to make clear today that these two witnesses have also participated in trials.
The current legislation, as introduced, expands the definition of what is asbestos beyond what is commonly thought of as asbestos. It bans prismatic rock formations, potentially including the state rock of California. Both Lemen and Castleman, paid experts of the trial bar, supported the expanded definition.
Expanding the definition of asbestos to include these rock-forming non-asbestiform minerals widens the scope of issues that could be attributed to asbestos, despite the fact that these minerals have never been shown to cause the same asbestos-related diseases. Thus, we may actually expand the universe of potential defendants and risk further lining the deep pockets of trial lawyers around the country.
As Senator Inhofe stated in his opening statement at today’s hearing, he believes there is real potential for a bipartisan compromise – if we don’t go beyond what the science shows to be true.
Inhofe Opening Statement: Examination of the Health Effects of Asbestos and Methods of Mitigating Such Impacts
Tuesday June 12, 2007
The health effects of exposure to certain kinds of asbestos are well known and tragic. Chest, lung and gastrointestinal cancers are horrible diseases. On that, there is very little debate. This is why the United States has essentially eliminated the use of the most dangerous forms of asbestos and our use of the other forms is severely limited to those critical uses for which there is no readily available substitute. That is also why bipartisan language to ban asbestos has been included in the bills addressing the asbestos liability situation in the last two Congresses.
Watch Video Clip of Senator Inhofe Discussing Energy Issues on Fox News
Monday June 11, 2007
Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (2:00pm ET)
Senator Inhofe discussed the “Cost of Going Green,” yesterday, Sunday, June 10, 2007, on Fox News. You can watch the interview by clicking here (YOUTUBE).
In Case You Missed It...History 101: Price Controls Don't Work (Op-Ed by Jack Rafuse, Chicago Tribune, June 7, 2007)
Friday June 8, 2007
For those with memories shorter than mine, President Richard M. Nixon imposed wage and price controls on Aug. 15, 1971. Oil and gas were two of many commodities affected. An initial 90-day freeze turned into more than 1,000 days before the controls were dismantled. Inflation -- just above 4 percent in 1971 -- was in double digits when the controls were lifted.
In Case You Missed It...History 101: Price Controls Don't Work (Op-Ed by Jack Rafuse, Chicago Tribune, June 7, 2007)
Friday June 8, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...
History 101: Price controls don't work
By Jack Rafuse
June 7, 2007
For decades, the price and availability of gas has generated political heat. As a former Nixon administration official, I've been there and seen that. But what is surprising is the unwillingness of some in today's Congress to learn from our mistakes. Bills in the Senate and House today want to impose price controls on gasoline.
For those with memories shorter than mine, President Richard M. Nixon imposed wage and price controls on Aug. 15, 1971. Oil and gas were two of many commodities affected. An initial 90-day freeze turned into more than 1,000 days before the controls were dismantled. Inflation -- just above 4 percent in 1971 -- was in double digits when the controls were lifted.
Nixon kept the wage-and-price controls on oil, gasoline and petroleum products in place, as did Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The results were disastrous. Oil exploration and domestic oil production slowed sharply. And foreign oil poured into the nation's gas tanks, filling the booming demand for price-controlled gas.
Thanks to this misguided policy, gasoline lines snaked along highways for hours during oil crises in the mid- and late-1970s. Stations ran out of gasoline and laws told consumers which days they could purchase gas. A windfall-profits tax compounded all the negative effects, and the shortages lasted until President Ronald Reagan repealed controls in 1981. The price of a gallon of gas at the pump fell by a third over five years.
With this kind of record, you might wonder what Congress is doing considering price controls and windfall profits taxes on gasoline. The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly cautioned against reverting to this failed policy, warning: "If natural price signals are distorted by price controls, consumers ultimately might be worse off, as gasoline shortages could result." Artificial price caps ignore market forces and result in shortages during times of increased demand. Take the controls off to alleviate the shortages and prices rise higher than when controls went on.
A quarter century after the failed policy was repealed, the biggest determinant of prices at the pump is global and local supply and demand; crude oil and petroleum are internationally traded products. Then there's government. On average, state and federal taxes account for about 46 cents on the gallon. Typically, refining, marketing and transportation account for more than a quarter of the price.
The market price of oil and gas cannot be "controlled" by governments, corporations or consumers. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Gulf region's energy infrastructure was badly damaged. At the height of the U.S. drilling season in 2005, Katrina shut down platforms that produced one-sixth of America's domestic oil supplies. Ports that are conduits for almost a third of U.S. oil imports and refineries that process almost a third of the nation's oil supply were down. As a result, gasoline prices then hit $3.05, up $1.20 from 12 months earlier.
After Katrina, while the market encouraged everyone to cut back, there were no 1970s-style gas lines or closed stations elsewhere in the nation.
Other producers -- domestic and international -- were motivated by higher prices to take up the slack. In fact, oil exploration drilling is at a 20-year high and expenditures are at an all-time high. That's how markets work.
A Federal Trade Commission study, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, confirmed that common-sense conclusion. The FTC concluded that the market worked well -- without evidence of price gouging or illegal market manipulation -- and that price controls would have made the situation worse.
Drawing on experiences of the 1970s, the FTC concluded that price controls meant "gasoline shortages could result," leaving consumers worse off.
The history lesson for this Congress could not be clearer. Price controls could create shortages and leave our economy dangerously exposed to disruptions in supply. In the 1970s, we were the only nation on Earth to have gas lines. Why would anyone ever want to go back to that?
Jack Rafuse is a former energy adviser to the Nixon administration and currently heads Rafuse Consulting, which represents a variety of clients, including energy companies. He also is an independent consultant on energy and trade issues.
Bush 1, Greens 0 (In Case You Missed It...Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2007)
Friday June 8, 2007
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...
The Wall Street Journal
Bush 1, Greens 0 By Kimberley StrasselJust call him George W. Bush, star international diplomat. Don ' t snicker, don ' t spit out your coffee. Instead, read over the final document on climate change released yesterday by the Group of Eight. Yes, it ' s a major shift in how the world will address the supposed threat of global warming. It ' s also largely the vision put forth years ago by none other than George W. Bush -- that international cowboy -- even if few European politicians will admit it. Don ' t expect anyone to admit it. When Mr. Bush unveiled his new climate framework last week, calling on the world ' s powers to reduce greenhouse emissions, it was portrayed as a capitulation. He ' d removed the last "obstacle" to world unity on this issue, and seen the error of his ways. At this week ' s Democratic presidential debate, every candidate vowed to fix the damage Mr. Bush had done to America ' s international reputation, his Kyoto failure the obvious example.
There ' s been a capitulation on global warming, but it hasn ' t happened in the Oval Office. The Kyoto cheerleaders at the United Nations and the European Union are realizing their government-run experiment in climate control is a mess, one that ' s incidentally failed to reduce carbon emissions. They ' ve also understood that if they want the biggest players on board -- the U.S., China, India -- they need an approach that balances economic growth with feel-good environmentalism. Yesterday ' s G-8 agreement acknowledged those realities and tolled Kyoto ' s death knell. Mr. Bush, 1; sanctimonious greens, 0. Not that the president ' s handling of the climate issue has been stellar. The science of global warming is still unsettled, yet Mr. Bush in 2002 caved and laid out a voluntary emissions-reduction program. Instead of getting credit, he ' s spent the ensuing years getting shellacked for not doing more. This has laid the groundwork for today ' s calls for mandatory curbs that would harm the economy. It ' s also given Washington an excuse to re-micromanage the energy sector. Think ethanol. But compared to Kyoto , Mr. Bush ' s vision has been sublime. The basic Kyoto philosophy is this: Set ever lower mandatory targets, ratcheting down energy use, and by extension economic growth. The program was viewed by environmentalists and politicians as a convenient excuse for getting rid of unpopular fossil fuels, such as coal. In Kyoto-world, governments exist to create draconian rules, even if those dictates are disguised by "market" mechanisms such as cap-and-trade. President Bush ' s approach is opposite: Allow economies to grow, along the way inspiring new technologies and new forms of energy that lower C02 emissions. Implicit is that C02-control technologies should focus on energy sources we use today, including fossil fuels. In Bush-world, the government is there to incentivize industry, coordinate with it, and set broad goals.
Take your pick. Under the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets. There ' s rampant cheating, and endless stories of how select players are self-enriching off the government "market" in C02 credits. Meanwhile, in the U.S., under the president ' s oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period. Europeans may be slow, but they aren ' t silly, and they ' ve quietly come around to some of Mr. Bush ' s views. Tony Blair has been a leader here, and give him credit for caring enough about his signature issue to evolve. He began picking up Mr. Bush ' s pro-tech themes years ago, as it became clear just how much damage a Kyoto would do to his country ' s competitiveness. By the end of 2005, he admitted at a conference in New York that Kyoto was a problem. "I would say probably I ' m changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years," he said. "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." He doubted there would be successor to Kyoto , which expires in 2012, and said an alternative might be "incentives" for businesses. Mr. Bush couldn ' t have said it better. Or consider nuclear plants. President Bush has pushed hard for more nuclear, with its bountiful energy at zero C02 cost. This was long anathema to British and German politicians, whose populations are virulently anti-nuke and who balked at any official recognition of nuclear benefits. As Kyoto has ratcheted down other energy sources, nuclear has looked better. By 2005, the G-8 document out of Gleneagles contained an explicit acknowledgment that nuclear energy mattered. The EU ' s energy pact, signed earlier this year, also contained a nod to nuclear. Europe has also gone from trying to banish coal, to using tech to make it cleaner. Then there ' s Mr. Bush ' s insistence that any "global" program must include big emitters such as China and India ( Kyoto doesn ' t). Though it received little press, the U.S. in 2005 started the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a voluntary climate pact between it and Australia, Japan, South Korea, China and India . Unlike Kyoto -- in which a government sets a national target for emissions, and then forces a few unlucky industries to make cuts -- the Partnership gets industry execs from every sector across the table from relevant government ministers, and devises practical approaches to reductions. This parallel diplomatic approach has proved far more acceptable to countries like China , and played a role in that country ' s own recently released climate plan.
Pride is pride, and the Europeans haven ' t entirely given up on Kyoto principles. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has spearheaded these climate talks, went into this G-8 meeting in Heiligendamm advocating binding reductions. Yet she admitted earlier this week that her plan was off the table, as the U.S. held firm. Yesterday ' s declaration, far from mandatory targets, instead sets a "global goal" of halving emissions by 2050. It invites the "major emerging economies" to join in this endeavor. It acknowledges that different approaches across the world can "coordinate rather than compete." It reports that "technology is a key to mastering climate change" and lauds government "incentives." It admits that "over the next 25 years, fossil fuels will remain the world ' s dominant source of energy," and talks up the "peaceful use of nuclear energy." It even explains that any program "must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies." Close your eyes, and you might think this was President Bush in the Rose Garden.
Will congressional Democrats prove as pragmatic? Even as Europeans have wised up, the left has been pushing for a Kyoto here. Should Democrats start to stumble on the difficulties, they could always ask Mr. Bush -- that new international climate ambassador -- for some advice.
Bush 1, Greens 0 (In Case You Missed It...Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2007)
Friday June 8, 2007
Yes, it ' s a major shift in how the world will address the supposed threat of global warming. It ' s also largely the vision put forth years ago by none other than George W. Bush -- that international cowboy -- even if few European politicians will admit it.
PRESS RELEASE: INHOFE INTRODUCES OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND ACCOUNTABILITY BILL
Thursday June 7, 2007
Opposition to new U.S. refinery plants fuels foreign boom
Thursday June 7, 2007
Meanwhile, a bill that is designed to ease America’s souring gas prices, address true energy independence and increase refinery capacity was introduced on May 24 by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord;_id=BFF7FC5F-802A-23AD-4A89-8EB6DD1F70E1
Senator Inhofe’s Gas Price Act would improve the permitting process for the expansion of existing and construction of new domestic fuels facilities, as well as encourages ultra-clean syn-fuels and cellulosic ethanol refineries to be placed in economically distressed communities. Senator Inhofe has called on the Senate to act on his legislation and send the bill to the President.
