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

In Case You Missed it . . .  

The Oklahoman 

Editorial: Senate Climate Bill Would Place U.S. on Wrong Path

Measure Should Be Spiked 

October 21, 2009

Link to Editorial 

SINCE spring, Washington's political oddsmakers have figured climate change legislation had two chances in the U.S. Senate: slim and none. While a similar bill got through the House of Representatives, consensus was that legislation built on carbon emissions caps, effectively creating a national energy tax, would stall in the Senate.

Still, when liberal Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts launched their global warming bill three weeks ago, they got the endorsement of conservative Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - reportedly lured to the bill by provisions calling for new nuclear power plant construction. Might cap and trade rally in the Senate?

Let's hope not. As Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, noted recently, Boxer-Kerry is still a bad idea at its core. Tacking on a few nuclear power provisions, which are needed, "doesn't cancel out or eliminate a national energy tax," Inhofe said.

Indeed, Boxer-Kerry would dramatically change life in America - as would the House-passed bill - if it became law.

The bill's chief feature would mandate a 20 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Kerry said the bill is a "pollution reduction bill," resisting the cap-and-trade label that refers to the government setting limits on emissions of carbon dioxide. Generally, businesses and industries that are under the caps can sell or trade their excess to those that are over the caps.

Whatever Kerry and Boxer call their bill, opponents believe it will create what amounts to a tax on any good, service or activity that involves carbon emissions - ultimately to be borne by Americans.

Steven Hayward at the American Enterprise Institute estimates that to reduce emissions 20 percent would require returning the United States to levels last seen in 1977, when there were about 100 million fewer Americans, the economy was about half its current size and 100 million fewer vehicles were on the roads.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the House-passed bill, similar to Boxer-Kerry, would reduce economic output by up to 0.75 percent by 2020 and 3.5 percent by 2050.

The statistics suggest impact on job creation and prosperity, which necessarily would affect low- and middle-income Americans the most.

As for nuclear power, the bill rightly recognizes the necessity of incorporating nuclear in America's energy mix. But Boxer adamantly opposes nuclear power, and there's every reason to believe fellow Democrats in the Senate will drop the provisions once the legislating starts.

The debate on Boxer-Kerry is scheduled to open soon. Passage would be bad for America and Americans. The Senate should kill it.

The Boxer-Kerry bill would dramatically change life in America.

###