In The News
In Case You Missed It...Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Editorial: The Climate Security Act?: Reject the ignorami (June 1, 2008)
Sunday June 1, 2008
In Case You Missed It...
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The Climate Security Act? Reject the ignorami
Editorial
June 1, 2008
If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives with a devastating gut punch.
The U.S. Senate returns to session this week and will take up something deceptively labeled "America's Climate Security Act of 2008." It's a bill designed to combat man-made global warming.
But anybody with a brain should be able to understand that the only thing this bill would "secure" would be our national demise.
Not only is it one of those sadly classic bureaucratic "solutions" in search of a problem, it is a sad exercise in the ecocratic ignorami pushing command economics in the name of free markets.As Pat Toomey, the former Pennsylvania congressman who heads The Club for Growth, notes, "Americans can look forward to fewer jobs, lower income levels, rising electricity prices and higher fuel bills."
If that's not attractive enough, how about the real kicker of "America's Climate Security Act of 2008"? It will do virtually nothing about the greenhouse gases it supposedly is designed to reduce.
Thankfully, this proposal is not a slam-dunk in the Senate. It's not yet "filibuster-proof." That could change, however, if the ignorami rush the bandwagon.
But this bill has nothing to do with aiding the climate. It has everything to do with the government gaining ever more control of an economy that it, in large part, already is responsible for damping. America's security depends on its rejection.
###
Lieberman-Warner: With Hours to Go Before Debate, Challenges Continue to Surface News Round up
Sunday June 1, 2008
Lieberman-Warner ‘Decline in Domestic Natural Gas Production’ – Energy Restrictions – ‘Carbon Chastity’ News Round Up
Friday May 30, 2008
Democratic Votes Blocking Increasing Domestic Energy Production
Thursday May 29, 2008
Lieberman-Warner: 'Most Massive Bureaucratic Intrusion' Since IRS - Gas Prices 'Too Low?' - 'Train Wreck' - Round Up
Thursday May 29, 2008
(By Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-OH), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety)
Excerpt: The decisions made could result in the most massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service. […] There is a gathering storm on the horizon for Ohio - a storm that could deal a destructive blow to our state's already struggling economy and your quality of life. In its wake, Ohioans could see the loss of thousands of goodpaying jobs, shocking increases in natural gas, electricity and gasoline prices and pocketnumbing decreases in household incomes. This storm comes in the form of current legislative efforts in Washington to mandate massive reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The debate is not about whether or not these reductions are necessary - most agree that we must act quickly to address climate change. The debate is about whether or not to invest the time and effort necessary to do it in a responsible, comprehensive and pro-growth fashion as opposed to rushing through an irresponsible, piecemeal plan that will raise energy costs on already-hurting families, send jobs overseas and fail to help the environment as intended.
New York Times Makes Factual Blunder
Wednesday May 28, 2008
The May 28 Times editorial incorrectly claimed, “The Senate last addressed climate change in 2003 when it cast 43 votes in favor of a bill sponsored by Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman.”
WSJ Editorial: Climate Reality Bites (May 27, 2008)
Tuesday May 27, 2008
In Case You Missed It…
The Wall Street Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Climate Reality Bites
May 27, 2008; Page A20
Read More About the Impact of Lieberman-Warner: www.epw.senate.gov/lieberman-warnerbillexposed
The global warming debate arrives in the Senate next week, and it's about time. Finally, the Members will have to vote on something real, as opposed to their buck-passing to courts and regulators, and their easy trashing of President Bush.
The vehicle is a bill that principal sponsors Joe Lieberman and John Warner are calling "landmark legislation." They're too modest. Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.
Thankfully, the American system makes it hard for colossal tax and regulatory burdens to foxtrot into law without scrutiny. So we hope our politicians will take responsibility for the global-warming policies they say they favor. Or even begin to understand what they say they favor. For a bill as grandly ambitious as Warner-Lieberman, very few staff, much less Senators, even know what's in it. The press corps mainly cheerleads this political fad, without examining how it would work or what it would cost. So allow us to fill in some of the details.
* * *
Almost all economic activity requires energy, and about 85% of U.S. energy generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. For centuries, these emissions were considered the natural byproduct of combustion. As recently as the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, they were consciously not even described as a "pollutant." But now that the politicians want to decrease those emissions, the government must create a new commodity – the right to create CO2 – and put a price on it. This is an unprecedented tax that would profoundly touch every corner of American life.
The policy preferred by the environmental lobby is called cap and trade. The government would set a limit on emissions that declines every year. The goal of Warner-Lieberman is to return to 2005 levels by 2012, and to reduce that by 30% by 2030.
"Allowances" for emissions would be distributed to covered businesses – power, oil, gas, heavy industry, manufacturing, etc. If they produced less than their allotment, the companies could sell the allowances, or trade them. Cap and trade limits on energy are thus sometimes misleadingly described as a "free market" policy that would create the flexibility for CO2 reductions how and where they are least expensive. But the limits are still a huge tax.
And for the most part, the politicians favor cap and trade because it is an indirect tax. A direct tax – say, on gasoline – would be far more transparent, but it would also be unpopular. Cap and trade is a tax imposed on business, disguising the true costs and thus making it more politically palatable. In reality, firms will merely pass on these costs to customers, and ultimately down the energy chain to all Americans. Higher prices are what are supposed to motivate the investments and behavioral changes required to use less carbon.
The other reason politicians like cap and trade is because it gives them a cut of the action and the ability to pick winners and losers. Some of the allowances would be given away, at least at the start, while the rest would be auctioned off, with the share of auctions increasing over time. This is a giant revenue grab. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these auctions would net $304 billion by 2013 and $1.19 trillion over the next decade. Since the government controls the number and distribution of allowances, it is also handing itself the political right to influence the price of every good and service in the economy.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this meddling would cause a cumulative reduction in the growth of GDP by between 0.9% and 3.8% by 2030. Add 20 years, and the reduction is between 2.4% and 6.9% – that is, from $1 trillion to $2.8 trillion.
These estimates assume that electricity prices will increase by 44% above what they would otherwise be by 2030. They also assume that existing coal-fired power plants, which currently provide about 50% of U.S. electric power, will be shut down – to be replaced with at least 150% growth in new nuclear facilities, plus other "alternatives." Yet there are only 104 current U.S. nuclear plants, and the industry itself says it's optimistic to think even 30 more can be built by 2020.
In fact, it is pointless to project so far out over multiple decades, since no one knows how markets and consumers would respond, whether the rules would remain constant, or what new technologies might come along. While moralizing about America, most of Europe has failed to meet its mandatory cap and trade goals under the Kyoto Protocol. But the U.S. isn't Italy; we will enforce our laws. So our guess is that these cost estimates are invariably far too low.
In a bow to this reality, California Democrat Barbara Boxer last week introduced 157 pages of amendments to Warner-Lieberman. Most notably, she sets aside at least $800 billion through 2050 for consumer tax relief. So while imposing a huge new tax on all Americans, she vouchsafes to return some of the money to some people. Needless to say, the Senator will be the judge of who receives her dispensation.
Ms. Boxer's amendment shows that cap and trade is also a massive wealth redistribution scheme – all mediated by her and her fellow Platonic rulers. Oh, and she also includes an "emergency off-ramp," should costs prove too onerous. This is really a political "off-ramp" to make Warner-Lieberman seem less dangerous, but you can imagine her reaction if some future Republican President decided to take it.
The upshot is that trillions in assets and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and the bureaucracy, all for greenhouse gas reductions that would have a meaningless impact on global carbon emissions if China and India don't participate. And only somewhat less meaningless if they do.
* * *
Warner-Lieberman has no chance of becoming law this year with President Bush in the White House. But the goal of this Senate exercise is political – to get Members on the record early, preferably before the burdens of cap and trade become more widely understood; to give Democrats a campaign issue; and to pour the legislative foundation that the next Administration could cite as it attempts to regulate carbon limits while waiting for Congress to act.
So by all means let's have this debate amid $4 gasoline, and not only on C-Span. If Americans are going to cede this much power to the political class, they at least ought to do it knowing the price they will pay.
Watch Now: Inhofe-Allard-Stevens Continue Fight to Bring Down Gas Prices
Friday May 23, 2008
Lieberman-Warner Debate Nears - News Round Up
Thursday May 22, 2008
Heritage Blog: Cap and Trade Already Killing U.S. Economy – May 22, 2008
Excerpt: Unfortunately for the American people, past energy policy decisions are already slowing the U.S. economy in fundamentally the same way a fully implemented cap-and-trade plan would. […] And what has been the result of these caps on domestic oil production? Sky high energy prices. Retail gasoline is in its 15th straight day of record highs. American Airlines is mothballing planes, cutting flights and raising prices. For the first time since 1991, the Department of Energy reported that gasoline use was down. Goldman Sachs predicts that oil could top $140 a barrel this summer and average $200 a barrel next year. Such prices are already proving to be a major drag on the economy. Implementation of Lieberman-Warner would only worsen these trends. The Heritage Foundation released a study this month estimating that the impact of Lieberman-Warner on the U.S. economy would be a cumulative loss in gross domestic product of at least $1.7 trillion. And this is on top of what the Congressional Budget Office shows would be a $1.21 trillion increase in taxes between 2009 and 2018. No wonder so many Democrats are already backing away from their support of the bill. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) have all expressed second thoughts about the bill after considering how badly it would hurt their state economies. Hopefully after a summer on the campaign trail listening to voters’ concerns about gas prices and the economy, America’s presidential candidates will reach a similar conclusion.
In Case You Missed It...Wall Street Journal Editorial: President Boxer (May 22, 2008)
Thursday May 22, 2008
In Case You Missed It...
The Wall Street Journal
President Boxer
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
May 22, 2008; Page A14
When Senate Democrats tie one of President Bush's nominees to the whipping post, they usually bother to invent some substantive objection. Apparently the new standard for rejection is merely that a White House nominee dares to support White House policy.
In March, the White House nominated David Hill as general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency. He ought to have zipped through the Senate. Over two decades in Washington, Mr. Hill has accumulated no partisan ballast; when he was nominated as the Energy Department's general counsel three years ago, he was confirmed unanimously. He is roundly liked for his role in developing the Administration's loan programs for clean tech.
But yesterday, Mr. Hill was rejected for the EPA post by the Senate Environment Committee during a routine business meeting, a highly unusual maneuver. The 10-9 vote had no relation at all to Mr. Hill's qualifications to serve and everything to do with preventing any policy supervision at the EPA.
The committee is chaired by California's Barbara Boxer, who is livid that the EPA has so far declined to rewrite existing environmental laws to regulate greenhouse gasses. At a confirmation hearing, Ms. Boxer told Mr. Hill that he was incapable of "independent thought" because he didn't pay obeisance to her political agenda. Instead, Mr. Hill said he would only sign off on decisions that were "legally defensible." Anything but that.
This blackmail is especially appalling because the EPA is being sued on dozens of fronts, and needs someone competent to head its legal office. But by Ms. Boxer's standard no one who doesn't bow to her policy could possibly be confirmed, ever. Remember all the partisan jabbering, not so long ago, about the Imperial Presidency?
###