Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, joined Senators George V. Voinovich (R-OH) and John Barrasso (R-WY) in saying today that new Energy Information Administration (EIA) analysis reinforces the need for a full analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill now before the EPW Committee. New analysis from the EIA released this week shows energy costs for consumers and employers will be even more expensive – and burdens on hard-working Americans, the elderly and the poor will be even more severe – if Congress adopts carbon mandates but fails to enact policies to increase domestic energy supplies.

In response to a request from Senators Voinovich, Barrasso and Inhofe sent in mid-September, EIA found that cap-and-trade legislation, without new nuclear power plants and rapid deployment of biomass and clean coal technology, will cause huge increases in electricity and natural gas prices.
At today's Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, several Senators called for more time to review and analyze the economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chair of EPW, rejected such calls saying no more time or analysis was needed to mark up the bill (S.2191).

But during the 2005 Clear Skies bill debate (S.131), Democrat Senators consistently called for more time, more analysis and a delayed mark up, despite having significantly more time and analysis of Clear Skies than is now available on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. The Democrats called for more time during the Clear Skies debate despite the fact that Bush Administration provided the Committee with more than 10,000 pages worth of modeling on air quality, costs, job impacts, fuel switching, and deaths avoided for the various proposals. The EPW Committee had more data on Clear Skies in 2005 than they had when they passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 out of Committee.

First, the Inhofe EPW Press Blog would like to be one of the first to congratulate New York Times environment reporter on his new blog, Dot Earth.

In his post last night, America's Leaky Buildings and the Climate Challenge, Revkin asked Senator Inhofe for a comment on the findings of a new report "North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle."


Senator Inhofe provided the following quote touting his commitment to increasing energy efficiency and his work on promoting the use of geothermal heat pumps:

"Increasing energy efficiency has long been a top priority for me. One of the least known but most effective ways to increase energy efficiency in our homes and businesses is utilizing an exciting new technology called geothermal heat pumps. Geothermal heat pumps are a proven, effective, and efficient technology that can meet consumer heating and cooling needs while simultaneously conserving energy. That's why I teamed up with Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) on November 6 to introduce the bipartisan Geothermal Heat Pump Development Act of 2007, which would provide American homes and businesses with tax credits to promote greater use of geothermal heat pumps. Geothermal heat pumps are electrically-powered devices that use the earth's natural heat storage ability to heat and cool homes and meet energy demands. Our legislation encourages the use of this renewable and cost-effective energy source by providing tax credits for businesses and residents who install geothermal heat pumps. Similarly, I introduced legislation in June to encourage the use of this renewable source in federal buildings. I worked with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to see that it was added to the Senate-passed energy bill."

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) director, Peter Orszag, testified before the House of Representatives on November 1 and cautioned that giving emission allowances away to companies under a cap-and-trade system "could create 'windfall' profits for those firms." The CBO also warned that "price increases would disproportionately affect people at the lower end of the income scale" and said a tax on emissions "is generally the more efficient approach" than a cap-and-trade system.

A misguided environmental-policy bill meandering through the Senate would slap U.S. businesses with pie-in-the-sky requirements for cutting greenhouse gases by unattainable amounts.

The proposed bill introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and John Warner, Virginia Republican, would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and 1990 levels by 2020. Over the longer haul, the bill would mandate a 65 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. Companies that wish to exceed the greenhouse-gas limits would be allowed to purchase credits from companies whose emissions meet the standards, purportedly to offset their environmental impact.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...  

Washington Times Editorial on Lieberman-Warner Bill - "Globaloney"

Link to The Washington Times Editorial 

Globaloney
November 11, 2007

A misguided environmental-policy bill meandering through the Senate would slap U.S. businesses with pie-in-the-sky requirements for cutting greenhouse gases by unattainable amounts.

The proposed bill introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and John Warner, Virginia Republican, would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and 1990 levels by 2020. Over the longer haul, the bill would mandate a 65 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. Companies that wish to exceed the greenhouse-gas limits would be allowed to purchase credits from companies whose emissions meet the standards, purportedly to offset their environmental impact.

Titled the "America's Climate Security Act," the bill's end results would cause serious damage to our economic security and at best have a negligible impact on the world's rising greenhouse-gas emission levels. It also does nothing to boost nuclear-energy development, one of the cleanest and most efficient energy sources. The bill fails to compensate and protect consumers from rising natural gas prices and harms job security by encouraging companies to move overseas to nations with less draconian standards. In short, the bill's effects would land a crippling encroachment on U.S. power plants, factories and transportation sectors.

One analysis by CRA International estimates the Lieberman-Warner bill will cost $4 to $6 trillion over 40 years. The American Council for Capital Formation has concluded that the legislation's emissions-swapping scheme would lead to "higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced [gross domestic product]." During testimony before a House committee, Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), stated that such swapping programs known as "cap-and-trade" would create "windfall" profits - profits that have even been denounced by presidential candidate John Edwards. The CBO has also cautioned that "price increases would disproportionately affect people at the lower end of the income scale." It is baffling that congressional Democrats, who never cease to spout their populist rhetoric, are ignoring such a clarion call for ensuring economic stability among low and middle-income families.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his new book, "The Age of Turbulence," described how these programs have unintended effects when he wrote that "[c]ap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence. There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy," he argued. Democrats in Congress would do well to listen to Mr. Greenspan's cogent views.

The rhetoric surrounding the issue of greenhouse gases has been fraught with emotion rather than reason.

"We would never leave a child alone in a hot, locked car, and I believe the [committee] will not leave this issue of global warming burning for another generation to address," said Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, in a fit of melodrama from the Senate floor when the bill was introduced last month.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Boxer chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is overseeing the bill's movement. Last week a subcommittee of the panel advanced the Lieberman-Warner bill by a 4-3 vote.

In a letter to Sens. Lieberman and Warner last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pointed out that this flawed bill does not address the international nature of emission standards.

"Chinese emissions are projected to increase 119 percent and Indian emissions 131 percent between 2004 and 2030," the chamber wrote. "Without participation by developing nations, the carbon constraints imposed by [Lieberman-Warner] would penalize domestic businesses attempting to compete in the world market while non-participating developing nations continue to get a free ride."

Even the British environmental journal Nature last month suggested that Europeans should trash the Kyoto Protocol because it has failed to substantially reduce global greenhouse gases. It is puzzling that Congress is now seeking to adopt Kyoto-type standards, which will do nothing to help our Earth and do much to harm its citizens.

# # #

A new analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill (S.2191) by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) finds the bill will lead "to higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced GDP (gross domestic product)."

According to the new ACCF analysis, embargoed for release until November 8, "the biggest obstacles to the success of S. 2191 are the projected increases in U.S. population and energy use, both of which will make GHG (greenhouse gas) reductions very challenging, since more people means more energy needed for home heating and cooling, job growth and transportation."
A Washington Post article today stated that the Democrats' current global warming proposals "will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society." The article by Post staff writer Juliet Eilperin noted that Democrat presidential candidates' climate proposals would "cost billions of dollars," and detailed exactly what the American people will face when it comes to cap-and-trade proposals. (LINK) [Note: Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the co-author of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill, conceded last week that his bill would cost "hundreds of billions of dollars." LINK Others are concerned the real cost will be even higher, in the trillions of dollars. ]

The Post article cited an MIT expert who said climate proposals would drive up the costs of energy on already overburdened American families.

In Case You Missed It... 

TULSA WORLD 

Vain Veto?

November 5, 2007

Link to Editorial

Override promised on water bill

Despite the prospect of an almost-certain override, President Bush on Friday defiantly vetoed a water-resources bill that includes major funding provisions and other significant measures for Oklahoma projects.

Members of both the House and Senate promised the override would be forthcoming, and the hefty approval margins in both chambers just about guarantee that outcome.

Our hope is the override does occur, for more than one reason.

Obviously the $23 billion act would go far to help address major issues in Oklahoma as well as other states, including the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast states.

A total of $50 million in funding for Arkansas River infrastructure projects, and $30 million for relocation of Tar Creek Superfund site residents is authorized in the Water Resources Development Act -- elements included thanks to the insistence of U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

Appropriation of the funds would come at a future date, if at all.

But in addition to funding authorizations, the bill includes new language that would relieve cities of questionable debt and allow public-private lake developments to move forward. Also included is a citizen oversight element for Lake Eufaula.

Obviously these Oklahoma measures are greatly desired by various elements of the population. Most if not all have significant economic development potential.

And that is the other reason we'd like this bill to become law. While it's popular to cry "pork" when a big price tag is attached to a bill, the other side of the argument is that included elements are important, justifiable objectives.

That's not to say the federal government should fork over funding for any and every little project. But everyone knows major projects often can't be undertaken at the local, or even state level.

It appears Bush vetoed this bill only in an attempt to politically damage Democrats, despite the fact it received strong Republican support, and despite the fact he refused to veto equally costly bills while the GOP controlled Congress.

We soon will see who is damaged most by this questionable strategy.