.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Democrats in Washington are aggressively working to pass global warming cap-and-trade legislation that, if passed, would drastically increase energy costs at the gas pump, in the grocery store, and in our homes - all for no environmental gain.

The purpose of this webpage is to serve as an online resource center for anyone looking to learn more about the severe economic impacts of the cap-and-trade legislation. This page will be updated frequently with the latest news and additional links will be added as the debate continues in Congress.

*If you feel we are missing important information, please feel free to contact us and we will consider adding links to the page. Contact: matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov

EPW Republicans to Majority: American Public Deserves to Know What Is In the Global Warming Bill: U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with all EPW Republican members, on July 7, 2009 sent a letter to Chairman Boxer requesting that the majority hold hearings on actual climate legislation, so that the American people know which global warming bill will be considered by the Senate.

Inhofe Kicks Off Series of Floor Speeches Exposing Waxman-Markey Climate Bill: “In the coming weeks, I intend to go through every single page of this climate bill, revealing the massive amount of spending, the labyrinth of new regulations, and expansion of government agencies and programs,” Senator Inhofe said on the Senate Floor today. “I think the time is right to peel back the green veil and expose this 1,400-page monument to big government. There’s a lot in there, and at times the bill gets very complicated. But over the next several weeks, I plan to focus on some of the bill’s most damaging provisions, as well as those that reinforce the criticisms I’ve been making. Before the United States Senate moves to vote on the largest tax increase in history, the American public deserves to know exactly what is in this bill.”

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."

"The Climate Change Climate Change" - The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere- Kim Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009: "Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as ‘deniers.' The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S." Strassel adds, "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."

IT'S BTU ALL OVER AGAIN: Go back to 1993: the House considers a destructive BTU (British Thermal Units) tax on energy, passing it by just six votes, 219 to 213. The Senate thinks briefly about the tax, and then unceremoniously dumps it, leaving those House members who voted for the measure holding the proverbial bag. Fast forward to 2009: proponents of the Waxman-Markey bill are studying history, and they know that ramming through a controversial energy tax, only to have it die in the Senate, is bad politics.

Inhofe Aug. 6, 2009 Hearing Statement: What We Have Learned from EPW Global Warming Hearings: Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the last hearing on climate change before the August recess, so I think it's appropriate to take stock of what we've learned. Madame Chairman, since you assumed the gavel, this committee has held over thirty hearings on climate change. With testimony from numerous experts and officials from all over the country, these hearings explored various issues associated with cap-and-trade-and I'm sure my colleagues learned a great deal from them. But over the last two years, it was not from these, at times, arcane and abstract policy discussions that we got to the essence of cap-and-trade. No, it was the Democrats who cut right to the chase; it was the Democrats over the last two years who exposed what cap-and-trade really means for the American public. We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."

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."

Inhofe Hearing Statement on Climate Change and National Security: What I am going to focus on is the link between developing American resources and America’s national security. And I’m going to explain why passing cap-and-trade won’t solve any of the legitimate issues you identify in your reports. Let’s be clear from the outset: even if we experience catastrophic changes in climate, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, and its soon-to-be Senate variant, will do nothing to stop them. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said as much before this committee a few weeks ago. She agreed that unilateral action to address global warming is futile without meaningful participation from China, India, and other developing countries.

Testimony on Climate and National Security -David B. Rivkin: The most basic problem is that enactment of Waxman-Markey represents unilateral emissions disarmament. In negotiations with other emitting countries, our most obvious bargaining chip is the ability to promise to reduce our emissions if they reduce theirs. A desirable emissions treaty would try to spread the pain of emissions reductions across the world's economies, so that no individual country would have to accept too great a relative disadvantage vis-à-vis its economic competitors. By committing the U.S. to reductions - and drastic reductions - regardless of what other countries do, Waxman-Markey makes such a grand bargain on emissions impossible. The U.S. would consign itself, by statute, to the worst of all possible bargaining positions.

Inhofe Hearing Statement on Costs to American Manufacturing Sector: In total, Waxman-Markey would cause a net reduction of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs. Again, that's a net reduction, including green jobs. This is a fact that cap-and-traders don't want the public to know. In the final analysis, despite what its supporters say over and over again, Waxman-Markey is not a jobs bill, it's a big government pink slip.

Testimony - Harry C. Alford, President and CEO National Black Chamber of Commerce The thing that concerns me and many of the 95,000 business members of the National Black Chamber is that any legislation Congress enacts must consider the impact that costs will have on small and minority-owned businesses, their ability to create jobs and the impact on the communities that they serve. Regretfully, the current legislation out of the U.S. House of Representatives will negatively impact the most vulnerable of our society. I'm sure that those who proposed it had the best intentions, but the bill doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and it does so at a very high cost -- especially high for working families and small business owners. I learned a long time ago to beware of any document that has more authors than readers. The fact that so few people have actually read the House bill may explain why the full costs that American businesses and everyday people would shoulder are not readily apparent. Let me quote from a recent study that we did with CRA International:

Inhofe Hearing Statement on Costs to American Transportation Sector: But there's no debate about this: cap-and-trade will make gasoline more expensive for American consumers. What's more, it will actually increase our dependence on foreign oil. The consumers represented here today are America's truckers. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins. This explains why, as fuel prices increase, many trucking companies are reporting lower profits, if they are reporting any profits, at all. In 2007 and 2008, for example, over 5,000 trucking companies with at least 5 trucks went out of business and thousands of independent operators, drivers, and employees have lost their jobs. If we enact cap-and-trade legislation, fuel prices will rise, and more jobs in the trucking sector will be destroyed.

Testimony - Ray Kuntz, Chief Executive Officer Watkins and Shepard Trucking: The trucking industry is concerned that climate change legislation will significantly increase the price of fuel we consume. Numerous experts have indicated that climate change legislation will dramatically increase the price of transportation fuels. One major petroleum supplier to the trucking industry has advised that fuel costs could rise by up to 77 cents per gallon for gasoline and 88 cents for diesel fuel. Fleets are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent. These low profit margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry to reduce emissions from trucks. For instance, new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average between $3,000 to $5,000 while decreasing fuel economy between 6-8 percent. EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove up the cost of engines between $8,000 to $10,000 and decreased fuel economy an additional 2-4 percent. Diesel engine emission standards set to take effect in 2010 could again increase new engine costs up to $10,000. However, we hope to experience a reversal of downward fuel economy trends with the introduction of these new engine technologies.

Inhofe Hearing Statement On Impacts of Waxman Markey on State and Local Governments: The debate over cap-and-trade does is not partisan; it's regional. And I can tell you, when it comes to energy policy, Democrats in the Midwest and the South think differently than Speaker Pelosi and Henry Waxman. On the one hand, the policy of the coasts is to ration energy and make it more expensive through regulations and mandates. On the other hand, the policy of the heartland is to increase domestic energy supplies-including wind, solar, geothermal, as well as oil, gas, nuclear, and coal-to make energy cleaner, more affordable, more abundant, and more reliable. In our part of the world, we invite new energy development, whatever its form, because we know it creates jobs and expands our economies. This is the policy of North Dakota, as Gov. Hoeven will describe in his testimony. North Dakota is finding success in deploying new technologies to burn coal more cleanly and to drill and extract oil and gas with a minimal environmental footprint.

Testimony: North Dakota Governor Johnn Hoeven: Our nation is facing the worst economic downturn in decades, and while North Dakota retains a budget surplus, we are not immune to its effects. North Dakota's continued economic health and the recovery of the nation's economy depends on a strong, balanced, and comprehensive energy policy, because energy not only drives North Dakota's economy, it drives our national economy. For that reason, it is extremely important we seriously consider the effects that the Waxman-Markey legislation would have on our nation, in a global, competitive economy.

Testimony: Honorable John Lowery Representative Arkansas House of Representatives: Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and Members of the Committee, my name is John Lowery. I am a Democrat, serving my third term as Representative of Arkansas House District 6. The population of my district is approximately 27,734. I serve as Chair of Revenue and Tax Committee. I also serve on Agriculture, Forestry, Economic Development, and Natural Resource Committee and Joint Energy Committee. I am also testifying in my role as Chairman of the Committee of Concerned Citizens Against Cap-and-Trade. The Committee was formed in direct response to the threat that the Waxman-Markey bill will be to my district and to the State of Arkansas.

WATCH: COLORADO GOV REFUSES TO ENDORSE WAXMAN-MARKEY: During a hearing today of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO), when pressed during an exchange with Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), refused to endorse the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. Ritter's refusal is a retreat from his previous endorsement of cap-and-trade in 2007-and comes in the wake of a voter backlash across the country against the bill. Along with Ritter, the Governors Gregoire (D-WA) and Corzine (D-NJ) remained silent on Waxman-Markey.

Inhofe Hearing Statement on Costs to American Agricultural Sector: Let's face it: as anyone familiar with agriculture knows, farming is an energy-intensive business with high-costs and low profit margins. So when the price of diesel, electricity, or natural gas goes up, farmers really feel the pinch. So it's not surprising that a significant portion of the agricultural community opposes cap-and-trade, the purpose of which is to raise prices on the energy that farmers use.

Farmers Lose Big in Climate Bill, Farm Bureau Warns In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today, (watch) Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau warned of the devastating costs imposed on farmers if the Waxman global warming bill is signed into law. In his testimony before the committee, Stallman stated, "increased input costs will put our farmers and ranchers at a competitive disadvantage with producers in other countries that do not have similar GHG restrictions. Any loss of international markets or resulting loss of production in the United States will encourage production overseas in countries where production methods may be less efficient than in the United States."

Ag Opposes Cap-and-Trade: EPW Policy Beat decided to highlight the significant, broad-based opposition to cap-and-trade and Waxman-Markey in the agricultural sector. Four themes ring loudly and clearly in the comments below: cap-and-trade is simply bad for business; cap-and-trade won't have any effect on climate without meaningful participation from China and India; cap-and-trade could undermine agriculture's competitiveness in the global marketplace; and any provisions allowing for offsets won't defray the devastating price increases of farm inputs, such as gasoline, diesel, electricity, and natural gas. The following Top Ten is abstracted from comments written by 120 agriculture groups opposed to cap-and-trade and Waxman-Markey

Will China Follow This Time?: A mantra repeated endlessly in the cap-and-trade debate is that unilateral U.S. action on climate change will spur China (and other developing countries) to follow suit. This mantra is spoken with metronomic regularity, despite China's unequivocal opposition, stated over and over again, to accepting mandatory emission cuts. Such opposition should be no surprise: China has amassed a long and ignominious record of divergence on issues in which the United States has taken the lead.

China Wins Big with Waxman-Markey - Inhofe Floor Speech - Says Road to Copenhagen on Collision Course: WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on June 25, 2009 delivered a Senate floor speech noting that China's resistance to join any international efforts to reduce their carbon emissions will mean any global warming bill signed into law in the US would severely damage the US economy while having a negligible impact on climate.

WSJ Editorial: Carbon Reality, Again It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

INDIA SAYS, ‘HECK NO, WE WON'T GO': "If the U.S. acts, the rest of the world will follow." This is a common trope asserted by eco-enthusiasts bent on passing cap-and-trade. No international agreement is possible, they say, unless the U.S. first assumes the burden of mandatory carbon reductions. We now hear that the U.S. can gain "leverage" in international negotiations in Copenhagen later this year if EPA makes a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. Presumably, this means such action will coax China, the world's leading emitter of CO2, and India, the world's third largest CO2 emitter, into accepting binding emissions cuts. "Unless we show that we are capable and willing to regulate and limit our emissions, we are not going to get an international agreement," said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. Similarly, Annie Petsonk, international counsel with the Environmental Defense Fund, said, "To the extent that the endangerment finding pushes that process domestically, that's important for our negotiating partners to know."

EPW POLICY BEAT: DOWN ON THE FARM: In March, the House Agriculture Committee sent a lengthy questionnaire on various aspects of climate change policy to members of the agricultural community. The committee cast a wide net, having sent questions to "a diverse group, including commodity, conservation, forestry, research, energy, business, and nonprofit interests." The questions covered everything from allowance allocation, offsets, commodities trading, and regional economic impacts. That last topic piqued our curiosity, as it is incontestably clear that cap-and-trade harms consumers in the Midwest, Southeast, and Great Plains-regions that are heavily rural and coal-dependent-much more so than denizens of the East and West coasts.

EPW POLICY BEAT: FARM FIASCO: Over the last week, agriculture took center stage in the climate debate, as some in Congress threatened to derail the Waxman-Markey bill over, among other things, the Obama Administration's biofuels policy. This ag-fueled drama heightened concern within the agricultural community about cap-and-trade and greenhouse gas regulation-and the devastating impacts both would have on farms. The negative consequences of carbon regulation for American farmers are undeniable. But don't take our word for it: EPW Policy Beat sorted through the regulatory docket on EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). There we found numerous comments filed by farm groups staunchly opposed to CAA regulation. A few themes predominate: CAA regulation will mean new, burdensome taxes and fees on farms; CAA regulation will be a futile attempt to address a global problem through controls on American farms; and CAA regulation will destroy farming jobs and force many farms out of business.

Rep. Frank Lucas Op-Ed: Waxman-Markey Measure Portends Devastating Results: These groups realize that agriculture is a prime target for a national energy tax because it is an energy-intensive industry. Whether it's the fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of food to the grocery store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy throughout production. On average, 65 percent of farmers' variable input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer, and chemicals. Even a small increase in the operating costs for our producers will hurt American agriculture. Estimates vary, but experts predict that under this national energy tax, energy prices will increase anywhere between 15 percent and 125 percent. Additionally, as these higher energy prices ripple throughout the economy, producers will pay more for seed, equipment, machinery, steel and other supplies needed for their agriculture operations. Ultimately, higher costs will be passed onto consumers with higher food prices. People will pay more for food, or be forced to buy less to meet household budgets.

CLIMATE AND THE KEYSTONE STATE: EPW Policy Beat came across an interesting perspective on climate change legislation-this time from three Pennsylvania utility commissioners. In a May 7 letter to the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation, Tyrone Christy, Kim Pizzingrilli, and Robert Powelson, all of whom, incidentally, were nominated by Gov. Ed Rendell (D), wrote that climate legislation, "[l]eft unexamined and unchecked," will have "a profound adverse impact on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." How so? For one thing, as the commissioners note, Pennsylvania gets 58 percent of its electricity from coal, and is the nation's 4th largest coal producer, distributing over "75 million tons of coal" each year. "However," the commissioners warn, "if the Waxman-Markey bill were to pass, Pennsylvania is looking at a bleak scenario by 2020: a net loss of as many as 66,000 jobs, a sizeable hike in the electric bills of residential customers, an increase in natural gas prices, and significant downward pressure on our gross state product."

MITCH DANIELS: Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade: The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories. Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

Colorado: "Cap and Trade is Wrong Solution"- Denver Post Round-up of Recent Headlines on Waxman-Markey from Colorado DENVER POST EDITORIAL: Cap and trade is wrong solution - The U.S. needs to cut its greenhouse emissions, but legislation expected to be taken up today isn't the way to go about it: But Waxman-Markey isn't the solution. Fashioned to avoid appearing like a new tax, the measure nevertheless would work like one, as the higher costs of meeting the caps get passed on to consumers. The measure risks hurting our competitiveness globally without effectively lowering global greenhouse gases. Congress should instead consider a simpler carbon tax, creating a "nuclear-arms race" to harness atomic power to replace fossil fuels and provide incentives to speed new-energy innovation.

GOLDEN STATE GAFFE: The only problem with CARB's conclusions is that they have no basis in fact. In a peer review of CARB's analysis, Harvard University's Robert Stavins reached the "inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and should not be used by the State government or the public for the purpose of assessing the likely costs of CARB's plans." "I say this with some sadness," he continued, "because I was hopeful that CARB would produce sensible policy proposals analyzed with sound scientific and economic analysis." The analysis is "severely flawed," Stavins said, and "hence not useful for the purpose for which it was intended."

EPW POLICY BEAT: GIVE AND TAKE: One of the more ironical provisions concerns merchant coal generators. More specifically, it's aimed at the potential for merchants in a cap-and-trade scheme to reap windfall profits. Under the bill's allocation distribution, merchants receive about 5 percent of allowances. That such allowances were freely given was considered to be a legislative "win" for the sector. Yet, as stated on page 582, that "win" quickly turns into a loss.

THE ‘DE FACTO' BAN ON NEW COAL PLANTS: Should coal be part of the energy mix in a carbon-constrained world? It's not surprising that we think it should. And we suppose it's not earth shattering that the Waxman-Markey climate bill answers this all-important question with nuance. True, the bill supports carbon capture and sequestration technology for new coal plants. But Congress can't legislate this technology into existence. So this "bridge to a low carbon future" is a bridge to nowhere: the bill effectively sends the prospect of new coal plants into oblivion. Why? In section 116 (beginning on page 60), the bill establishes a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for new coal plants that will be, from an economic standpoint, just about impossible to meet. According to an analysis by ClearView Energy Partners, this amounts to a "de facto ban on new PC [pulverized coal] plants."

Inhofe-Bond Issue Warning on Green Jobs: On April 27, 2009, Senator Inhofe joined Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), Ranking Member on the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee, to announce a report highlighting the poor performance of taxpayer-funded green jobs programs. The report details a number of misconceptions and exaggerations propagated by green job advocates. In fact, many so-called green jobs pay lower wages, require expensive taxpayer subsidies, and often are created at the expensive of well-paying manufacturing jobs.

EPW FACT OF THE DAY: GREEN DYSTOPIA: It's a common (green) refrain: pass cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent and the ineluctable result is a growing economy, greater prosperity, and green jobs galore. "If the American Clean Energy and Security Act were enacted tomorrow," Frances Beinecke, president of NRDC, said, "millions of clean energy jobs would be created, starting right away." Worried about the drought in capital investment? How about corporate profits? Beinecke says pass cap-and-trade. "[Waxman-Markey] will unlock large-scale private sector capital investments starting today, saving companies money in the short and long term and boosting the recovery." Want to encourage technology innovation? Strengthen energy security? Restore the balance of trade? End world hunger? Enact cap-and-trade, the green unified field theory: "Properly designed legislation," declared Beinecke, "will encourage innovation, enhance America's energy security, foster economic growth, improve our balance of trade, and provide critically needed U.S. leadership on this vital global challenge."

Fact Check: Free Market?: The centerpiece of Waxman-Markey is a cap-and-trade scheme, but a significant portion of the bill is a liberal litany of mandates, including, but not limited to: a renewable electricity standard (Section 101); performance standards for new coal plants (Section 116); greater efficiency in building codes (Section 201); lighting efficiency standards (211); appliance efficiency standards (Section 212); auto emissions standards (Section 221); and industrial plant energy efficiency standards (Section 241). Or, as a recent Washington Post editorial put it, the bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot tubs, and it will reshape America’s economy in dozens of ways that many don’t realize …”

BROKEN WINDOWS AND GREEN JOBS: With all of the talk these days about green jobs—or, more precisely, the Democrats’ version of taxpayer subsidized green jobs—EPW Policy Beat wondered whether they will usher in a “clean energy future.” They won’t. We came to this conclusion after reading Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, “Economics in One Lesson.”

A NET LOSS ON EARTH DAY: As the New York Times recently put it, "No one believes that renewable energy can fully replace what has been lost on the American factory floor..." Except, of course, President Obama. Upon closer inspection, one finds that the Times is right: the plant that "was sold and then stopped operations" in 2007 was the Maytag washing machine factory, which employed 1,800 people in a town of 16,000. Obama today highlighted green jobs at wind energy facilities amidst the rubble of Maytag. Both would employ 700 workers-no doubt a welcome development for Newton, but it represents a net job loss. Moreover, workers at the Maytag plant earned $20 an hour with health benefits; workers at the TPI Composites wind turbine facility, across the way from where Obama delivered his speech, would earn $13 an hour. For the record, this is not the first time Obama has raised an example of green jobs that fell short.

WSJ Editorial: California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well (1/31/09) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 -- in anticipation of the new mandates -- California has led the nation in job losses.

Inhofe Hill Blog Post: Don't Let Green Job Mandates Push Us into the Red (2/5/09): With the backdrop of a severe recession, President Obama and Congressional Democrats are pitching the ideas that the regulation of greenhouse gases will result in a "green job" boom and have the desirable side-effect of cleaning up the environment. In short, limiting carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions will force Americans to turn to clean energy sources that will employ millions of people. Reality, however, suggests otherwise. In all likelihood, energy bills will rise, manufacturing costs will soar, and there will be an exodus of well-paying jobs.

REPOWERING THE RECESSION: With green jobs being so much in vogue, EPW Policy Beat had occasion to review a recent ad by the estimable "Repower America," a group whose raison d'être is, as Al Gore urged last July, to "repower" the nation with 100 percent clean electricity within ten years. Repower America is a project of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman of the board is Al Gore. Here are excerpts of the ad as recounted in a press release from the group, followed at intervals by our critique:

Inhofe Calls EPA's Endangerment Finding a ‘Ticking Time Bomb': Senator Inhofe spoke out on the Senate Floor on May 1, 2009 about the Obama Administration's recent announcement of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Senator Inhofe calls the decision a "ticking time bomb" that presents "policymakers with a false choice: Use an outdated, ill equipped and economically disastrous option under the Clean Air Act, or pick another bad option-cap-and-trade-that commits us to requirements for which affordable and reliable technology does not exist."

WSJ Editorial: Reckless 'Endangerment': The Obama EPA plays 'Dirty Harry' on cap and trade: President Obama's global warming agenda has been losing support in Congress, but why let an irritant like democratic consent interfere with saving the world? So last Friday the Environmental Protection Agency decided to put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy. The pistol comes in the form of a ruling that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. This so-called "endangerment finding" sets the clock ticking on a vast array of taxes and regulation that EPA will have the power to impose across the economy, and all with little or no political debate.

‘SCARE TACTICS': In their comments on EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, both groups did ask EPA to regulate such sources; moreover, both groups asserted that EPA is required by law to apply the PSD program to sources emitting above 100 or 250 tons per year. No exceptions. Scary indeed.

Inhofe Floor Speech: Trial Attorney's Dream: Another Attempt to Regulate Greenhouse Gases without Public Debate: Senator Inhofe delivered a March 3, 2009 speaking out against back-handed attempts to regulate greenhouse gases without transparency of public debate: Once again we are faced with a back-handed attempt to regulate greenhouse gases without the transparency of public debate. Section 429 of the omnibus appropriations bill currently includes yet another Congressional handout to extreme environmental interests and the trial bar. This rider is clearly an attempt to legislate on a spending bill - just the sort of bad habit that Democrats in Congress and the White House promised to give up during the last election.

Inhofe, Voinovich Request Updated Analysis on Waxman-Markey: (July 24, 2009) WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with Republican Committee member Senator George Voinovich (R-Oh.) today sent a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson requesting a more thorough and comprehensive economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009. "An updated and more complete analysis of Waxman-Markey is critical to the legislative process," Inhofe said. "Congress needs this information in order to act in the best interest of constituents, the economy, and the nation's energy security."

Recent Speeches*

July 2009

07/27/09
Inhofe Kicks Off Series of Floor Speeches Exposing Waxman-Markey Climate Bill

October 2007

10/29/07
INHOFE, BOXER DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING ON SENATE FLOOR

*Currently displaying the latest 5 records. Select a month and year from the Browse by select box to view more records.

Cap-and-Tax Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed