In The News
Senator Edward's attack on Clear Skies
Monday March 3, 2003
FACT: The “regular” people Edwards cares so much about would face severe hardship under the Jeffords bill. According to a July 2001 report by the Energy Information Administration, the Jeffords bill would increase consumer electricity prices by as much as 32 percent by 2010. Tom Mullen of Cleveland Catholic Charities said it best: “The elderly on fixed limited incomes and the working poor with families have made it clear to…me on a daily basis that they cannot afford increases in costs for their basic needs. Many indicate that, currently, they cannot afford basic needs without either falling behind in payments and/or ignoring one of those needs like…utility…bills.”
New Source Review attack by California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Monday March 3, 2003
FACT: In February of 2000, California government officials allowed one of California’s largest polluters to increase toxic discharges into San Francisco Bay shortly after the company donated $70,500 to Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. Despite a widespread popular outcry, State Attorney General Lockyer declined to investigate the matter.
The Sierra Club: nothing more than an appendage of the Democratic Party
Wednesday February 26, 2003
FACT: The Sierra Club has consistently supported policies that would negatively impact Hispanic communities. Take the Kyoto Protocol, for example. The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and other Hispanic groups found that Kyoto would cause 1.4 million African Americans and Hispanics to lose their jobs. Other adverse effects included 10 to 20 percent increases in housing costs and the closure of 10,000 minority-owned businesses. At the report stated: “Hispanic and African-American families, many of whom are just lifting themselves out of poverty, will unfairly suffer the harsh reality of seeing those gains disappear if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented."
Sierra Club and and Senator Jefford's "Clean Power Act"
Tuesday February 25, 2003
FACT: The Jeffords bill is very bad—ugly even. According to a July 2001 report by the Energy Information Administration, the Jeffords bill would increase consumer electricity prices by as much as 32 percent by 2010. It would impose a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, which is, according to the Congressional Budget Office, equivalent to a regressive energy tax on the poor. And it would create energy supply problems (EIA) by decimating the coal industry, making us more dependent on foreign energy sources.
Just what is CO2 anyway?
Friday February 21, 2003
FACT: Dr. Andrew Weaver, who helped shape the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, and who heads the climate modeling group at the University of Victoria, describes it this way: “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and no scientist would ever say it is. Carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. Humans breathe it out with every breath.”
By comparison, here’s how Webster’s dictionary defines sulfur dioxide, which EPA now regulates and President Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative seeks to reduce by 73 percent: “A heavy pungent toxic gas (SO2) that is easily condensed to a colorless liquid, is used especially in making sulfuric acid, in bleaching, as a preservative, and as a refrigerant, and is a major air pollutant especially in industrial areas.”
Or what about nitrogen oxide, which EPA now regulates and Clear Skies would reduce by 67 percent? Again, from Webster’s: “Any of several oxides of nitrogen most of which are produced in combustion and are considered to be atmospheric pollutants.”
Carbon Dioxide Regulation
Thursday February 20, 2003
FACT: Curiously, the state AGs are suing EPA for…abiding by the law. During consideration of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress specifically rejected proposals to authorize EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. That means EPA has no authority to do so. As the Supreme Court has said: “[f]ew principles of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded.”
Democrat leadership and the SUV Loophole
Friday February 7, 2003
House Democratic Stimulus Plan: “Democrats propose that small businesses be allowed to expense up to $50,000 of the cost of new investments made in 2003, to boost cash flow and investment now.”
Senate Democratic Stimulus Plan: “This proposal would triple the amount of investments small businesses can write-off immediately to $75,000 in 2003.”
CAFE Standards
Tuesday January 7, 2003
FACT: CAFÉ levels advocated by extremist groups will cost Americans more money, not less, and will result in greater congestion, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office. Interestingly, CBO’s conclusion is predicated on CAFÉ increases that are much lower than those preferred by green groups. Raising fuel economy standards to 31.3 mpg for cars and 24.5 mpg for light trucks, CBO found, would cost an additional $3.6 billion, or $228 to the price of every new vehicle sold. CBO also found that fuel economy increases—again, those that are less stringent than what green groups support—could worsen social welfare by increasing traffic congestion and accidents (for more data on the latter, read the 2001 NAS study on CAFÉ and traffic fatalities). “Higher CAFE standards would lower the per-mile cost of driving, providing owners of new vehicles with an incentive to drive more,” CBO said. “While the increase in driving associated with higher CAFE standards might be relatively small, some studies suggest that the resulting costs of the increased congestion and traffic accidents may nevertheless be large.”
American Geophysical Union
Monday January 6, 2003
FACT: In its December statement titled “Human Impacts on Climate,” the American Geophysical Union effectively defenestrated the idea that stabilization, at least at this point, is knowable or quantifiable. “AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined.” To put it mildly, this is devastating to supporters of Kyotoesque “solutions” to global warming. For, if stabilization cannot be defined, then it would seem that targets under Kyoto and McCain-Lieberman are totally arbitrary. Why, for example, do we need to reduce emissions to 2000 levels, or 1990 levels? What is the scientific foundation underlying these targets? Alarmists ignored this, stressing instead vague statements from the AGU—“Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate”—in the quite desperate attempt to save Kyoto from its imminent demise.