I would like to thank Chairmen Boucher and Dingell for holding this hearing. However, the nature of the bills we’re examining today is disappointing. I agree that climate change needs to be addressed - I am a strong proponent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- but I find it hard to believe that a “cap-and-trade” scheme is the only way to address this global problem. We’re fortunate to be serving on a committee with some of the brightest minds in Congress. How is it, that for an issue of paramount importance we can only come up with one approach – “cap-and-trade?” By design, a “cap-and-trade” approach works by increasing energy costs and slowing down economic growth. Rather than making energy more expensive and sending American jobs overseas, we should be pursuing an approach that promotes and encourages clean energy, builds economic strength through exporting American technology and thus creates jobs rather than exporting those same jobs.
Climate change policy must adhere to a set of commonsense principles. Legislation must 1) provide a tangible environmental benefit to the American people; 2) advance technology and provide the opportunity for export; 3) protect American jobs; 4) strengthen U.S. energy security; and 5) require global participation. I’m sure that every one of us is in agreement with many of these principles, yet not one of the bills we’re discussing today would meet these principles.
We must take a sector-by-sector approach that cultivates innovations in technology and efficiency rather than arbitrary government mandates. Thoughtful choices need to be made on how we’re going to meet our ever increasing energy demand as we keep our economy moving. Arbitrary mandates are not sound policy. Both the United States and the European Union reduced emissions between 2005 and 2006. The United States’ percent reductions were 4.3 times greater than the EU’s. They’ve been using a “cap-and-trade” scheme - we have not.
We have a wealth of resources and ingenuity to meet this challenge. By investing in clean coal, providing incentives for renewable power, giving tax credits to businesses to increase their energy efficiency, helping our auto manufacturers develop more fuel efficient vehicles, and creating a regulatory environment that spurs a renaissance in nuclear power, we can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No mandates. No lost jobs. No spike in costs. Rather, just the opposite, cleaner air, more jobs, and stable prices.
Last week, I along with Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Barton, and other members from both sides of the aisle took a step in the right direction by introducing legislation that will create a carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology fund. This legislation will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote exciting new technologies that will not only keep energy costs down for consumers, but also foster new jobs and a stronger economy. With this approach, we will fortify our nation’s energy supply with American-made energy and protect the pocketbooks of our nation’s consumers, exporting American ingenuity, not jobs.
The recent failure in the Senate highlights the many problems with a “cap-and-trade” approach. Members of both parties have repeatedly raised objections and the Democratic Leadership in the Senate withdrew the bill because it failed to garner enough support from either party. In fact, my state’s two Democratic senators expressed serious concerns in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid and Chairwoman Boxer. In their correspondence, Senators Levin and Stabenow recognized that the “cap-and-trade program developed in the Lieberman-Warner bill has the potential to raise over $7 trillion. Much of these funds will be indirectly paid for by consumers through increased energy prices.” Concluding that they “cannot support final passage of the Boxer Substitute (to the Lieberman-Warner bill) in its current form.” The only consensus achieved during the Senate debate was that “cap-and-trade” is not the right approach.
I commend my two Senators for recognizing that the cap-n-trade legislation would cost Michigan families $7,000 per year by 2050 and increased national electricity rates by 44% by the year 2030. Some analysts see electricity rates increasing 115% to pay higher fuel costs, build new plants and recover global-warming fees.
At a time of economic slowdown, do we really need legislation that would cut GDP by $2.8 trillion. At a time when our economy is squeezed by record gasoline prices, we are considering legislation that would increase gasoline prices 144% or more by 2030. Under a “cap-and-trade” regime, we will all be unified in our longing for the “good old days” of $4 gasoline.
On top of the skyrocketing costs for consumers, “cap-and-trade” legislation will send American jobs and energy intensive industries overseas. Take the steel industry for example – in the United States, steel producers are the most efficient in the world. On average, American steelmakers emit 1.2 tons of greenhouse gases per ton of steel. Compare this to Chinese steel emissions estimated to be in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 tons of greenhouse gases per ton of steel. We’re not helping the environment by sending industries that operate cleanly and efficiently in the U.S. to a regulation free China. China is the number one emitter in the world, with greenhouse gas growth every year that equals the current output of Germany.
In closing, I would like to put the scale of the emissions reductions being called for in these bills into perspective. These proposals would mean that the United States cannot emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. This is a daunting task considering that in 1910 the United States had only 92 million people - compared to an estimated 420 million in 2050—and a per capita income, in current dollars, of about $6,000. Michigan’s working families are already struggling to get by – how can we in good conscience pursue a policy that will not only have little environmental benefit, but also puts the costs squarely on the backs of hard working American families. Not to mention that the only nations in the world today that emit at the level mandated in this bill are poor developing nations, such as Belize, Haiti, and Somalia.
Shouldn’t our solution to global warming, actually lower temperatures? Can anyone here today, tell us with certainty what the global temperature reductions will be as a result of this legislation? In fact, a strong argument can be made that these bills would be worse for the environment.
I yield back.
