Results tagged “climate bill”

Members of the U.S. Senate met with President Obama at the White House Tuesday to discuss next steps for energy and climate legislation. In a statement, the White House called the meeting "constructive" and released information about the president's comments:

American motorists drove fewer miles in 2009, in part due to unemployment. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, Trilby Lundberg, author of the Lundberg Letter, says commuting to work--one of the most important reasons for driving--has been "hit in the guts" by unemployment.

The Wall Street Journal today published an editorial that explains the "dirty truth" about climate legislation such as the Waxman-Markey climate bill. In a few brief paragraphs, the editorial confirms what we've been saying on this blog for months--Waxman-Markey and similar bills could eliminate millions of jobs in the United States and them overseas.

There's more talk of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) endangerment finding and the agency's related efforts to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a Forbes article authored by Brian Wingfield.

The endangerment finding essentially means that either Congress must pass a climate bill, or the administration will control GHGs without input from those who've been elected to represent the American people.

At least two states are objecting to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) endangerment finding. As reported earlier this week, this finding paves the way for EPA regulators to restrict carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

Those of us who studied American history in school know that December 7 is Pearl Harbor Day, the commemoration of the day of "infamy" when the Japanese bombed the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. The nation countered by entering World War II in the Pacific and later in Europe, and Americans bought war bonds and scrimped to support the fighting men abroad.

On this December 7, Americans once again are being asked to make an economic sacrifice for a global cause. Today is the opening day of the two-week long international climate talks in Copenhagen where President Obama is expected to announce his desire to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

As international leaders gather in Copenhagen this week for climate discussions, an "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to make costly changes to reduce emissions--even if Congress doesn't approve pending climate change legislation.

At an event described by one participant as a World Wrestling Federation bout, API's President Jack Gerard discussed proposed climate legislation with members of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday evening, Dec.1. The discussion, titled "Climate and Energy Policy: Moving?" was jointly sponsored by API and Newsweek.

In addition to Jack, the event featured Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), and Rana Foroohar of Newsweek International, each of whom offered their perspectives on the climate change issue.

On Tuesday, yet another voice spoke out against the proposed climate legislation under consideration in Congress. This time it was Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), speaking before the Senate Finance Committee.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today voted to send the Kerry-Boxer climate bill to the Senate floor without amendments. Only Democrats were in attendance for the vote, and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.) voted against the bill, saying he would withhold his support contingent on the adoption of some pro-agriculture amendments.

A recent poll shows that the more Americans learn about climate legislation, the less they like it. Especially when they realize that it will take money out of their pockets.

How much money? About $2,300 per year per average U.S. household, according to the American Farm Bureau. That's nearly $200 a month.

The ongoing debate over the Kerry-Boxer climate bill has tended to focus primarily on two issues: the bill's potential costs and its proposed environmental benefits. But there are at least two other critically important items that have not been addressed adequately by the bill's sponsors. Both were mentioned briefly at yesterday's hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

One of America's largest refiners told a Senate panel yesterday that climate legislation could force his company to shutter some U.S. refineries. Bill Kleese, president and CEO of Valero Energy Corp. (not a member of API) made his comments during the second day of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill which proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent in 2020. The Kerry-Boxer bill would likely reduce U.S. refining jobs because refiners would be forced to pay billions of dollars for carbon credits.

This week, the National Journal's Energy & Environment Blog posed several questions about the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. Among them, "What's your take on the chairman's mark and EPA's analysis?" The blog also invited a number of individuals, including API's Jack Gerard, to discuss the bill's strong points, weak points and provide an overall perspective on the legislation.

In the first of a series of Senate hearings about the Kerry-Boxer climate bill today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mt.) said he has "serious reservations" about the bill's "overall direction."

Speaking at today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Baucus encouraged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to compromise with Republican members of the committee, who have expressed strong opposition to the bill. As Politico reported today, Republicans "see the legislation...as a nonstarter."

Friday night, Sen. Barbara Boxer issued an updated version of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill, and the more we learn about this bill, the more it resembles Waxman-Markey--only worse.

More voices are speaking out against the climate legislation being considered on Capitol Hill. Here's a sampling of some of the statements and studies that have been in the news during the past couple of days.

House and Senate leaders are continuing to push for climate legislation despite the fact that far fewer people believe that global warming is a serious problem, according to a new survey released today by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The survey, conducted among 1,500 adults from Sept. 30-Oct. 4, shows that 35 percent of respondents believe global warming is very serious as compared with 44 percent in April 2008.

As we've explained in this blog, there's no doubt that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would be very expensive for American consumers. According to studies, it could increase fuel costs, kill millions of jobs and increase the amount of refined fuels imported from overseas. An issue we have not yet discussed is that there is another provision that could result in a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to other countries.

The provision allows for international offsets, which means companies that are having difficulty meeting their U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowance obligations can pay to reduce emissions elsewhere in the world by purchasing international offsets. On the surface, this might appear to be a reasonable--and altruistic--way to recognize that climate change is a global problem. But in actuality, it is an extremely costly experiment that could fall on the backs of American consumers.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee held a hearing this morning to examine the Waxman-Markey climate bill's potential costs and benefits. But when the senators asked direct questions about the bill's impact, the government witnesses often had difficulty answering. As one witness said, "There's a significant degree of uncertainty."