From the U.S. Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works
Democrats Delay Global Warming Bill – Again
Obama Agenda In “Disarray”
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today said that he was not surprised to learn that Senate Democrats were forced once again to delay introduction of their global warming cap-and-trade bill. Throughout hearing after hearing in the EPW Committee this summer, it became apparent that Democrats were a long way off from reaching the votes necessary in the Senate to pass the largest tax increase in American history.
“The news today-that Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry will delay introduction of their cap-and-trade bill-came as no surprise. The delay is emblematic of the division and disarray in the Democratic Party over cap-and-trade and health care legislation-both of which are big government schemes for which the public has expressed overwhelming opposition. With the climate change debate on Capitol Hill, it’s safe to report that bipartisanship is nowhere in evidence. Cap-and-trade has pitted Democrat against Democrat, or, put another way, it centers on those in the party supporting the largest tax increase in American history against those in the party who oppose it. As to just who will win this intra-party squabble, I put money down on those representing the vast majority of the American people, who are clear that cap-and-trade should be rationed out of existence.”
In the last hearing before the EPW Committee before the August recess, Senator Inhofe spoke directly to the mounting concerns raised by Senate Democrats to cap-and-trade legislation:
Full opening statement provided below:
Climate Change and Ensuring that America Leads the Clean Energy Transformation
August 6, 2009
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the last hearing on climate change before the August recess, so I think it’s appropriate to take stock of what we’ve learned.
Madame Chairman, since you assumed the gavel, this committee has held over thirty hearings on climate change. With testimony from numerous experts and officials from all over the country, these hearings explored various issues associated with cap-and-trade-and I’m sure my colleagues learned a great deal from them.
But over the last two years, it was not from these, at times, arcane and abstract policy discussions that we got to the essence of cap-and-trade. No, it was the Democrats who cut right to the chase; it was the Democrats over the last two years who exposed what cap-and-trade really means for the American public.
We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”
We learned from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that cap-and-trade is “a tax, and a great big one.”
We learned from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) that “a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. A cap-and-trade has been operating in Europe for three years and is largely a failure.”
We learned from Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that with cap-and-trade “the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to go. I’m not.”
We learned from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.) that “a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”
We learned from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that unilateral U.S. action to address climate change through cap-and-trade would be futile. She said in response to a question from me that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”
We learned from Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) that “there is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India.”
We learned from Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) that if “we go too far with this,” that is, cap-and-trade, then “all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”
In sum, after a slew of hearings and three unsuccessful votes on the Senate floor, the Democrats taught us that cap-and-trade is a great big tax that will raise electricity prices on consumers, enrich Wall Street traders, and send jobs to China and India-all without any impact on global temperature.
So off we go into the August recess, secure in the knowledge that cap-and-trade is riddled with flaws, and that Democrats are seriously divided over one of President Obama’s top domestic policy priorities.
And we also know that, according to recent polling, the American public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming.
But all of this does not mean cap-and-trade is dead and gone. It is very much alive, as Democratic leaders, as they did in the House, are eager to distribute pork on unprecedented scales to secure the necessary votes to pass cap-and-trade into law.
So be assured of this: We will markup legislation in this committee, pass it, and then it will be combined with other bills from other committees. And we will have a debate on the Senate floor.
Throughout the debate on cap-and-trade, we will be there to say that:
According to the American Farm Bureau, the vast majority of agriculture groups oppose it;
According to GAO, it will send our jobs to China and India;
According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, it will destroy over 2 million jobs;
According to EPA and EIA, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
According to EPA, it will do nothing to reduce global temperature;
And when all is said and done, the American people will reject it and we will defeat it.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
# # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“William (16:28:08) :
I was in Switzerland about 20 years ago and it was the law back then that you had to turn off your car engine at all stop lights.”
Agreed, that was stupid, and more or less forgotten. But then the country has a functioning health care system, with private insurance companies only, and the people voted 70% to 30% against a public option.
Roger Sowell (14:50:33) :
“Nogw (13:27:18) — Exactly.
I had (on another site) a writer from Czech Republic tell me that his country sells nuclear power for 1.5 cents per kWh.
I invited him to replicate those plants by the hundreds, and solve the world’s energy problems by exporting power across Europe and Asia — but only at a price of 1.5 cents per kWh.
Never heard back from him…I wonder why…”
Maybe because your suggestion is stupid.
Europe is small, the western part is AC-connected, and buying and selling of electricity is done every day. There are DC-cables between France and Britain, and Czech Republic and Austria, to do that. But it gets more difficult with distance.
1.5 cents per kWh is very cheap; he might have erred in calculating that.
Power companies in New Zealand can shut down domestic water heaters using a process called ‘ripple control’, but I don’t think they can control anything else short of cutting off the power. This was designed as a form of rationing power in times of shortage. Shortages are mainly caused by drought and mismanagement, because hydro is a major source of power in NZ. Indeed, the South Island is almost entirely powered by renewables, mainly hydro, but with increasing plans for wind. This works because the South Island is the same area as England and Wales, but, while they have 60 million people, we only have one million and a lot of water.
The unlamented previous government had plans to ban incandescent bulbs and to ration the amount of water per shower, but those rather silly ideas were cancelled by what promised to be a more grown up new administration. Sadly, John Key’s centre-right government has totally dropped the ball on climate change. They now wish to seek a broad consensus with the failed leftists on emission control legislation and, apparently, are seeking a common approach with Rudd in Australia.
This is an enormous disappointment to all who looked to them for leadership on this issue; instead we have seen a gutless capitulation – a betrayal, really. Fortunately, the farming community, who are somewhat influential, don’t believe a word of it. Nor do large numbers of voters.
CZECH electricity: According to this
http://xmldemo.hernler.com/pics/atomfrei/866/3/download_001.pdf
the Czech Republic sold electricity for about 3 cents per kWh in 2002.
Since the price has gone up because of privatisation and EU-rules, and they were accused of dumping in the 1990’s, and Temelin was highly controversial in Austria, a price of 1.5 cents seems possible.
Among the exporters France leads with 68 billion kWh per year, CZ is 6th with 25, and the USA 8th with 20.
Lucy Skywalker (16:18:52) :
I know just what you mean. The deviousness is astounding. They keep saying they have no proof of leprechauns either. And yet we know that there is a huge leprechaun cover up going on precisely because there is no proof of it. See how devious things can get? How do I know a cover up is going on? Every one has heard of leprechaun. So much so that there is a word for them.
I think every one who is afraid of vaccination should avoid getting them. Just to thin the herd. Given the relative magnitude of the problems: disease vs potential autism I know which risk I’d rather assume or impose on dependent minors.
I hope that people understand the extent to which the future well being of this nation seems to rest on a thin thread being held by basically one man; Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma.
Americans who care about this country’s future should make a point of keeping Senator Inhofe fully informed of their concerns about the pseudo science that is at the root of all this taxing madness; and in addition they need to keep their own legislators know that they will be buying a one way ticket to the streets, if they try to foist this foolishness onto the American taxpayers.
As for committee chairman; Madam Barbara (bouncer) Boxer; who can’t even balance her own checkbook; California voters should send her packing; it would be nice if she went back to New York or wherever it was that she germinated.
Thank you Senator Inhofe; you can be MY Senator; since I get no representation from the two dingalings that Californaia sent to Washington.
“”” M. Simon (00:02:54) :
So seeing how Climate Change has morphed to Health Care change, and the dreaded socialistic takeover of the world, I take it those opposed to “socialized medicine” are
1. Too young for Medicare or
2. Too rich for Medicaid or
3. Have rejected participation in Medicare and Medicaid (and their pinko counterparts everywhere) on matters of principal and in efort to save the world.
A show of hands please-who posting has rejected their eligibility ?
How about “don’t want to join a scheme that is going broke”?
In other words: we guarantee your eligibility to a plan that will not be able to pay for your health care. Sign up at once before this golden opportunity passes you by. For a limited time only – no one will be refused. “””
My needs are very simple:- I’ll have what they are having.
Let the Congress and administration come up with a socialized medicine plan for ALL US Government workers from the CIC, the Congress, and the Supremes, on down to all the Government Union workers, the Veterans administration, and the armed forces.
So they can roll out that plan and be the guinea pigs that work out the bugs in the system, till they get it right. Then once they have it fixed to their liking, they can have open enrollment for US ordinary Americans to sign up for THEIR plan.
George
Ron de Haan (15:15:59) :
Roger Knights (13:03:17) :
“EPA to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, regulate ghg emissions”
“If that occurs, it would take the heat off the Senate to pass Waxman-Markey, allow Obama a graceful way to back down on passing W-M, allow Obama to go to Copenhagen with something to show the US is taking action, and give more time before something irrevocable happens (because the EPA’s regulation would be tied up in the courts for years)”.
Robert, you are wrong. Obama uses EPA to blackmail the Senate into the Waxman Bill.
The climate bill has to be defeated in the Senate and the EPA plans must be fought in US Court.
I’m not “Robert,” and you didn’t read the rest of my item carefully either. What I said was that “If that occurs”–i.e., if the EPA declares CO2 a pollutant–then “it would take the heat off the Senate to pass Waxman-Markey, [etc].” And it would.
It’s time to rethink this bill. Go to http://tinyurl.com/klut8 and voice your opinion.
EPA proposes illegal rule:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/02/epa-proposes-illegal-rule/
Wise words from Lubosz Motl:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/09/trillions-to-be-wasted-for-co2-madness.html
Re: Roger Knights (13:03:17) :
“EPA to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, regulate ghg emissions”
“If that occurs, it would take the heat off the Senate to pass Waxman-Markey, allow Obama a graceful way to back down on passing W-M, allow Obama to go to Copenhagen with something to show the US is taking action, and give more time before something irrevocable happens (because the EPA’s regulation would be tied up in the courts for years)”.
Obama has openly threatened EPA rule-making to drive the legislation he desires. That threat only has value to strong-arm legislators so long as it is not implemented. Once implemented, the heat is off the legislators. Taking on the EPA in court over carbon restrictions, if the legislators balk and it comes to that, will be an uphill fight. The critical battle was already lost when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was subject to EPA regulation. Getting that one reversed will “take some doing”.
On the bright side, by the time the issue is revisited by the Court, I expect those justices to be shivering in their long-Johns under those black robes and that may sway their judgment a bit. However, getting an injunction to delay EPA implementation in the meantime may not be possible.
CH
I say no more:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-communists.html
For all of you that may have dismissed some of what I wrote as “fantasy” please find the following:
The Wall Street Journal (Editorial), 9/3/09
Cap and trade may be flopping around like a dying fish in Congress, but the Obama Administration isn’t about to let the annoyance of democratic consent interfere with its climate ambitions.
The White House is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency’s April “endangerment finding” that as a matter of law CO2 is a pollutant that threatens the public’s health and must therefore be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such a rulemaking would let the EPA impose the ossified command-and-control regulatory approach of the 1970s across the entire economy, even if Democrats never get around to passing a cap-and-tax bill.
Because the act was never written to apply to today’s climate neuroses, clean-air regulation is based on an extremely low threshold for CO2 emissions that will automatically transfer hundreds of thousands of businesses into the EPA’s ambit. The agency is required to regulate sources that emit more than 250 tons of a given air pollutant annually, which may be reasonable for conventional pollutants like NOX or SOX.
But this is a very low limit for ubiquitous CO2, and so would capture schools, hospitals, farms, malls, restaurants, large office buildings and many others. To exempt these sources, the tailoring rule unilaterally boosts the rule for greenhouse gases from 250 tons to 25,000 tons, an increase of two orders of magnitude.
Well, well. In a speech in February, Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson ridiculed those of us who warned about these consequences, saying that it was “a myth” that “EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin’ Donuts, Pizza Hut, your lawnmower and baby bottles. . . . Somebody said to me today, ‘kittens,’ I like that one.” Her routine got a big laugh from the like-minded Georgetown audience, but the new draft rule is a flat-out admission that the critics are right.
The Supreme Court said nothing that would let the EPA simply decide on its own to apply the law to some unfavored business while giving others a pass. And the Clean Air Act is explicit about the 250-ton threshold. Team Obama’s real motive in “tailoring” this rule is to limit the immediate economic impact of carbon limits to head off a political backlash.
But even businesses that do get a pass shouldn’t rest too easily. The green lobby will quickly sue to force the EPA to enforce fully its own rules and go after all carbon sources. And why not? The Obama Administration is deliberately flouting its own legal claims for political reasons. Its cynical political hope is that if Congress won’t impose cap and tax, the courts will do it anyway.
Start looking for a hand pushed lawn mower and get ready to scrap your barbeque grills!
Thanks
William
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388642894879438.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Power grab by EPA:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/epa-attacks-appalachian-coal-industry.html
How to tax carbon and maintain the public’s buying power?
The people don’t accept it and they don’t like Government to change their habits.
THEREFORE IT WON’T WORK.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/tax-and-redistribute-in-france.html
Przemysław Pawełczyk (07:59:31) :
>>Merrick (06:37:19) :
>>Przemysław Pawełczyk (01:55:39) :
>>“BTW A word to moderator. If you play politics, let it be played to the end.”
>>Please, no lectures on politics. You’re not a victim. Get over it.
>>Believe me, I will be a victim too. You are short sighted. Probably you look >>on Mr Inhofe from voters’
No. I simply accept the fact that I’m an adult and just because someone has a different opinion that me, particularly regarding politics or the environment, doesn’t make me a “victim.” There’s no “too” involved here. I’m NOT a victim.
>>Apropos my “BTW”. I was afraid my comment would be not approved >>hence my remark to moderator. Did I do something wrong?
Once again showing your aparent propensity to see your self as a victim. No moderator *here* (unlike at many of the pro-AGW sites) has ever failed to post a comment simply because they didn’t agree with it or thought it was out of place. Over-the-top ad hominem, vicious attacks, etc. do get moderated out – and thank you moderators!