In The News
JOBS, THE PETERSON INSTITUTE, AND KERRY-LIEBERMAN
Tuesday July 13, 2010
"The first thing the intellect does with an object is to class it along with something else. But any object that is infinitely important to us and awakens our devotion feels to us also as if it must be sui generis and unique. Probably a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage if it could hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and thus dispose of it. ‘I am no such thing,' it would say; ‘I am MYSELF, MYSELF alone.'" -William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience
We always eagerly await the next iteration of cap-and-trade legislation, for with it comes the inevitable refrain that "this time, it's different." Claims that cap-and-trade means fewer jobs, higher energy prices for consumers, a weaker economy-well, maybe for those other bills, advocates say, but not this one. The American Power Act, aka the Kerry-Lieberman bill, is deemed a special case, because, according to one prominent Senate supporter, this time "we got the balance right."
That same supporter claims that, unlike those other unbalanced cap-and-trade bills, the Kerry-Lieberman bill will actually create jobs-203,000 jobs, in fact, according to a recent analysis by the Peterson Institute. Yet sadly for the bill's authors, the bill is not sui generis; it's fairly typical: close scrutiny of the Peterson Institute study shows Kerry-Lieberman is no different than Waxman-Markey and every other failed version of cap-and-trade-jobs will be lost and consumers will suffer.
According to the study, between 2011 and 2020, Kerry-Lieberman would actually kill 479,000 jobs. After tallying the jobs created from, among other things, "clean energy investment," "adaptation," and "energy efficiency," the Institute subtracts those lost in key sectors of the economy because of Kerry-Lieberman. Consider the fossil fuel industry, which would lose 72,000 jobs because of "lower demand for fossil fuels and foregone construction of new fossil fuel power generating capacity. This includes direct, indirect, and induced jobs as well." The study goes on: "We further subtract the jobs lost when households have less money to spend on other goods because energy has become more expensive." The number subtracted? 305,000.
We always eagerly await the next iteration of cap-and-trade legislation, for with it comes the inevitable refrain that "this time, it's different." Claims that cap-and-trade means fewer jobs, higher energy prices for consumers, a weaker economy-well, maybe for those other bills, advocates say, but not this one. The American Power Act, aka the Kerry-Lieberman bill, is deemed a special case, because, according to one prominent Senate supporter, this time "we got the balance right."
That same supporter claims that, unlike those other unbalanced cap-and-trade bills, the Kerry-Lieberman bill will actually create jobs-203,000 jobs, in fact, according to a recent analysis by the Peterson Institute. Yet sadly for the bill's authors, the bill is not sui generis; it's fairly typical: close scrutiny of the Peterson Institute study shows Kerry-Lieberman is no different than Waxman-Markey and every other failed version of cap-and-trade-jobs will be lost and consumers will suffer.
According to the study, between 2011 and 2020, Kerry-Lieberman would actually kill 479,000 jobs. After tallying the jobs created from, among other things, "clean energy investment," "adaptation," and "energy efficiency," the Institute subtracts those lost in key sectors of the economy because of Kerry-Lieberman. Consider the fossil fuel industry, which would lose 72,000 jobs because of "lower demand for fossil fuels and foregone construction of new fossil fuel power generating capacity. This includes direct, indirect, and induced jobs as well." The study goes on: "We further subtract the jobs lost when households have less money to spend on other goods because energy has become more expensive." The number subtracted? 305,000.
WSJ Editorial: The New-Old Drilling Ban
Tuesday July 13, 2010
When it comes to a showdown between jobs and ideology, the Obama Administration never fails to choose the latter. The latest example is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision yesterday to reimpose a ban on Gulf drilling after the courts had declared his first moratorium illegal.
Federal Judge Martin Feldman in late June halted the Administration's six-month deep water drilling moratorium, saying it was arbitrary, ignored science and underestimated the economic harm to the Gulf region. Last week the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.
Mr. Salazar's response is to fiddle with the ban's details in the hope of passing judicial muster. Instead of banning all drilling deeper than 500 feet, he now bans all drilling by floating rigs (the only equipment that drills in deep water). He also set a firmer moratorium deadline of November 30. The bottom line is that deep water drilling remains off-limits for months to come.
Federal Judge Martin Feldman in late June halted the Administration's six-month deep water drilling moratorium, saying it was arbitrary, ignored science and underestimated the economic harm to the Gulf region. Last week the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.
Mr. Salazar's response is to fiddle with the ban's details in the hope of passing judicial muster. Instead of banning all drilling deeper than 500 feet, he now bans all drilling by floating rigs (the only equipment that drills in deep water). He also set a firmer moratorium deadline of November 30. The bottom line is that deep water drilling remains off-limits for months to come.
Newsweek: A Green Retreat
Monday July 12, 2010
Just three years ago the politics of global warming was enjoying its golden moment. The release in 2006 of Al Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, had riveted global audiences with its predictions of New York and Miami under 20 feet of water. Within 12 months, leading politicians with real power were on board. Germany's Angela Merkel, dubbed the "climate chancellor" by her country's press, arranged a Greenland photo op with a melting iceberg and promised to cut Europe's emissions by 20 percent by 2020. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who called climate change a scourge equal to fascism, offered 60 percent by 2050. In December 2007, the world got its very first green leader. Harnessing the issue of climate change, Kevin Rudd became prime minister of Australia, ready to take on what he called "the biggest political, economic, and moral challenge of our times." Now, almost everywhere, green politics has fallen from its lofty heights.
Capito: Note to EPA: 'Coal' isn't a dirty word
Monday July 12, 2010
Through the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington continues to push an anti-coal agenda. It amounts to an assault on an industry that employs more than 500,000 hardworking Americans and supplies nearly half of America's electricity.
The EPA's attempts to control climate change through regulation and stall the approval of mining permits can only lead to coal states like West Virginia bearing the brunt of poorly thought-out policies that translate into greater job loss and higher energy costs.
President Barack Obama is intent on passing legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Should Congress fail to act, the EPA will exert its regulatory authority in an unprecedented manner that will have far-reaching effects on nearly every sector of the U.S. economy - from higher prices at the gas pump to skyrocketing utility bills.
The EPA cannot unilaterally set an agenda without the buy in of the American people. Decisions made by the EPA must take into account the real cost to families, their livelihoods and plans for the future.
West Virginia already is feeling the burden of excessive regulation with no consideration of our future.
The EPA's attempts to control climate change through regulation and stall the approval of mining permits can only lead to coal states like West Virginia bearing the brunt of poorly thought-out policies that translate into greater job loss and higher energy costs.
President Barack Obama is intent on passing legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Should Congress fail to act, the EPA will exert its regulatory authority in an unprecedented manner that will have far-reaching effects on nearly every sector of the U.S. economy - from higher prices at the gas pump to skyrocketing utility bills.
The EPA cannot unilaterally set an agenda without the buy in of the American people. Decisions made by the EPA must take into account the real cost to families, their livelihoods and plans for the future.
West Virginia already is feeling the burden of excessive regulation with no consideration of our future.
WSJ Op-Ed: The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Monday July 12, 2010
Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.
Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.
Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.
WATCH: Baucus Latest Dem To Expresses Concerns with Unlimited Liability
Wednesday June 30, 2010
Senator Baucus: I know we had a hearing on this subject, Madame Chairman. It's starting to bother me that last year, roughly, we don't legislate very much. I'm speaking generally, and I'm speaking only from my own personal experience with the Finance Committee. We don't' have any mark-ups any more. We don't burrow down and ask tough questions of witnesses, trying to establish proper policy, near as much as we used to. Rather, a lot of amendments and bills are more in the nature of message amendments and bills. And I find it disconcerting. I know there was a hearing on this subject, regrettably I wasn't here for that hearing. But I do have some concern about a total removal, a total unlimited liability.
Gulf Oil Spill More Than a 'Talking Point'
Tuesday June 29, 2010
President Barack Obama and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) engaged in a pointed exchange Tuesday during a bipartisan meeting on an energy overhaul, according to a GOP source.
The dust-up at the White House occurred when Alexander recommended that addressing the ongoing oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico be a part of any discussion on national energy policy. According to the source, Obama accused Alexander of raising a "talking point" and said the oil spill was not the topic of the meeting.
Alexander responded that suggesting the oil spill be addressed in a meeting about energy policy wasn't a talking point, but his opinion. In a brief interview following the White House meeting, Alexander downplayed the notion that the exchange was heated, noting that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) also raised the subject of the Gulf oil spill.
The dust-up at the White House occurred when Alexander recommended that addressing the ongoing oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico be a part of any discussion on national energy policy. According to the source, Obama accused Alexander of raising a "talking point" and said the oil spill was not the topic of the meeting.
Alexander responded that suggesting the oil spill be addressed in a meeting about energy policy wasn't a talking point, but his opinion. In a brief interview following the White House meeting, Alexander downplayed the notion that the exchange was heated, noting that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) also raised the subject of the Gulf oil spill.
WATCH: Inhofe: Dems Continue To Press For Cap-and-Trade
Tuesday June 29, 2010
Posted by Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe: Dems Continue To Press For Cap-and-Trade - FOX News
A Deal on Menendez Oil Spill Liability?
Tuesday June 29, 2010
MORNING ENERGY EXCLUSIVE –Jim Inhofe, ranking Republican on Environment and Public Works and one of the oil industry’s best friends on the Hill, says he’s ready to make a deal with Dems on a spill liability bill. On Wednesday, EPW will mark up New Jersey Dem. Robert Menendez’ Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, which would eliminate the $75 million limit on damages oil companies must pay in the case of a disaster like the one now unfolding in the Gulf. Menendez’ bill is the toughest of many oil liability cap measures now floating around the Hill – others would keep the cap but raise to up to $10 billion or $20 billion, and oil companies have been fighting hard against the prospect of unlimited liabilities. But Inhofe’s office said Monday that they could back Menendez’ bill – IF Dems add on an Inhofe amendment that would instead allow the President to set a liability cap on a case-by-case basis, using an Inhofe-provided set of guidelines.
E&E; News: Lame-duck session emerges as possibility for energy bill conference
Monday June 28, 2010
What Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) puts in the Senate climate and energy bill, and what gets added on the floor, may not matter as much as simply whether some bill passes.
In the end, a joint House-Senate conference committee will likely hammer out the final version of the bill. That might not take place until a "lame duck" session after the November election, when much of the political pressure on lawmakers has dissipated.
Which means that despite the oft-repeated assertion by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) that "cap and trade is dead," the House's bill based on cap and trade could be back in play -- someday, given the right conditions. Even if they do not enact cap and trade, Democratic leaders could use a conference to ratchet up the climate regulations past what the Senate agreed to and beyond what Democratic House centrists want.
In the end, a joint House-Senate conference committee will likely hammer out the final version of the bill. That might not take place until a "lame duck" session after the November election, when much of the political pressure on lawmakers has dissipated.
Which means that despite the oft-repeated assertion by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) that "cap and trade is dead," the House's bill based on cap and trade could be back in play -- someday, given the right conditions. Even if they do not enact cap and trade, Democratic leaders could use a conference to ratchet up the climate regulations past what the Senate agreed to and beyond what Democratic House centrists want.
