Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov

In Case You Missed It . . .  

USA Today 

Opposing view: ‘There is a better way'

Employ carbon-cutting strategies that don't kill jobs and raise costs.

November 17, 2009 

By: Kit Bond

Link to Op-Ed

Congress has the opportunity to promote cleaner, affordable, homegrown American energy that will result in lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, many remain preoccupied with energy tax-raising and job-killing cap-and-trade bills to address climate change. Until we can come together to push solutions where we agree, both the American people and the environment will suffer.

Many are calling on the U.S. to cap its carbon emissions. I support cutting carbon emissions; I just want to do it without killing jobs and raising energy costs. The Congressional Budget Office, Washington's official money scorekeeper, says that cap-and-trade climate change legislation would hurt the economy and cost U.S. jobs. Even CBO is probably underestimating the costs because CBO looked at only the cheapest first 10 years of the 40-year legislation. In later years, the legislation and its costs become even greater.

Many Americans might not know much about CBO, but they do know about job losses, high energy bills, the pain at the pump and the troubles of providing for a family during these tough economic times. Missouri families and workers are struggling to make ends meet and fighting to keep their jobs. They cannot understand why we will make their lives more expensive with higher energy costs and policies that would send their manufacturing jobs to countries that produce energy at a cheaper cost, such as China. They also do not understand why we might sign an international treaty letting China and India off the hook of emissions cuts, especially when scientists tell us that the U.S. acting alone would have no impact on world temperatures.

More than 30,000 Missourians recently sent cards to my office decrying cap-and-trade legislation that would raise their retail electricity rates up to 26% by 2012, 42% by 2020, and as much as 77% under worst case scenarios. The University of Missouri's Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute found that cap-and-trade would raise production costs at a representative Missouri grain farm by $11,650 in 2020 and $30,150 in 2050. These are costs my Missouri constituents do not want to pay, especially when U.S. unemployment tops 10%. Yet, that is exactly the environmental policy of cap-and-trade advocates: Make energy more expensive so people use less of it.

I think there is a better way than inflicting pain on the American people. I say cut carbon emissions without raising energy prices and killing jobs with zero-carbon nuclear energy, low-carbon biofuels, low-carbon technology to clean coal emissions, low-carbon hybrid and plug-in vehicle technology, energy efficiency and conservation where it makes economic sense, and opening U.S. reserves of clean natural gas. These are carbon-cutting strategies where we can come together, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to do so as soon as possible.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

###

Posted by Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov

In the News... 

Politico 

Deficit push sets climate bill back
By: Lisa Lerer

November 13, 2009

Link to article

An aggressive White House push on jobs and deficit reduction in 2010 may be yet another sign that climate-change legislation will stay on the back burner next year.

"There is a growing chorus in the party that thinks we should be doing more to spur job creation and not necessarily tackle cap and trade right now," said a moderate Democratic Senate aide.

White House officials told POLITICO on Friday that President Barack Obama plans curb new domestic spending beyond jobs programs and focus on cutting the federal deficit next year.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid has hinted that Democrats plan to take up a job-creation bill, in the wake of the announcement of a 10.2 percent unemployment rate. In the House, some lawmakers are beginning to push a major highway bill for next year to focus on job creation.

None of this is promising for a major climate change bill.

The focus on deficit reduction and jobs may allow coal and manufacturing state Democrats to continue their pushback on climate change legislation, warning that the bill could raise energy prices and hurt job growth in their region. Opponents of the legislation also jumped on October testimony by Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf that the House climate bill would slightly slow economic growth and lead to "significant" job losses from fossil fuel industries.

Moderate Democrats have argued that the Senate should pass a jobs bill instead of cap and trade in closed door caucus meetings, according to Democratic aides.

"While we must always be mindful of the cost of legislation, that's particularly true in today's economy," said Finance committee Max Baucus at a hearing this week.

Baucus was the only Democrat to vote against the climate change legislation in the Environment and Public Works committee, but says he is committed to passing "balanced" climate change legislation that includes lower short-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

Other moderate Democrats have pushed Reid to take up a "climate light" bill that focuses only on energy provisions included in the legislation - leaving the cap-and-trade provisions to be dealt with after the economy recovers.

The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. Dorgan and other say the vote signaled that a package including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.

"Good policy is going to be left behind by the insistence that the climate change bill has to be done first or together," warned Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).

Obama and Democratic supporters of the bill have repeatedly said that legislation would create millions of new green jobs by providing incentives for businesses to invest in green technologies.

They also note that the Senate bill sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is deficit neutral, largely due to a Senate rule that prohibits major bills from adding $5 billion to the federal deficit in any of the five decades following its enactment.

"There's just no credible way to turn these deficit-neutral bills into definitively-negative decisions for our country, especially since energy remains a top priority for the Obama administration and for the American people," said a House Democratic aide close to the bill.

Aides say that legislation currently being drafted by Kerry and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) will also be deficit neutral and focus on economic growth.

"If environmental policy is not good business policy, you'll never get 60 votes," said Graham. "So my goal is to try to make sure that we fashion environmental policy that will create millions of new jobs for Americans who are desiring to have new jobs."