Results tagged “Congress”

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 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.

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."

Members of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Labor-Management Committee, which includes API along with fifteen labor unions, have written to senior members of Congress encouraging them to support tax policies that will protect and encourage the development of quality U.S. jobs, while at the same time fortifying our nation's energy and economic security.

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.

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."

Although it appears that the Senate climate bill won't come to the floor for a few weeks, work continues on climate legislation in Washington. According to an AP news report, the White House has stepped up its lobbying efforts to push for a bill, and administration officials have met with more than half of the senators as well as mayors and governors to drum up support. The report also quotes Carol Browner, the president's assistant for energy and climate change, as saying the goal "is to get the bill moving and keep it moving."

In this blog, I've discussed a Heritage Foundation study that finds gasoline prices would increase significantly in order to meet emissions limits imposed by the Waxman-Markey legislation.

Now, Heritage has developed an interactive map that demonstrates Waxman-Markey's effect on gas prices in your state. It lists current prices as well as projections for 2012 and 2035 should this legislation be enacted.

Yesterday, API Chairman J. Larry Nichols told Congress that the Obama administration's $80 billion tax increase on America's oil and natural gas industry is based on myths and would result in less oil and natural gas for consumers, higher energy costs and kill jobs at a time when the nation's economy needs all the help it can get.

They wore hardhats and fluorescent orange safety vests, and their message was clear. These workers who demonstrated at yesterday's Energy Citizens rally in Anchorage, Alaska, want affordable energy and jobs.

The 49th state in the Union is marked by its uniqueness. Alaska is the largest of all 50 states. It is the only state where the sun doesn't set in summer and doesn't rise far above the horizon in the winter. It contains some of America's largest oil and natural gas deposits, many of which remain untapped. And its residents could be more affected by the Waxman-Markey climate bill than many other U.S. citizens.

As I've mentioned numerous times in this blog, the Waxman-Markey bill could sharply raise energy costs and kill jobs, according to studies. In Alaska, it also could have a severe impact on the purchasing power of each household, lowering it by as much as $3,890 a year by 2030.

If you ever want to see democracy in action, attend an Energy Citizens rally for jobs and affordable energy. Thursday, at the rally in Tampa, Florida, 175 people of all ages came together in hopes of sending a message to their elected officials in Tallahassee and Washington.

When she was asked why she decided to attend the Energy Citizens rally in Nashville, the woman in the white sweater said simply, "passion." And Tonya Jones' passion showed when she got onto the stage and explained that she is a small business owner who can't afford the provisions in the House-passed climate bill.

She wasn't alone. As the audience of 325 people listened respectfully, similar warnings were issued by speakers from the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau. They agreed that the U.S. Senate should scrap the Waxman-Markey bill and start over.

More evidence has surfaced indicating that the U.S. House of Representatives cap-and-trade legislation could do more harm than good.

On July 8, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report warning that the bill could lead to an international trade war. The study points out that the bill's provisions designed to protect particularly energy-intensive industries from overseas competition could "motivate retaliatory actions, undermine efforts to secure multilateral consensus, and...could lead [other countries] to implement restrictions against U.S. exports."

This week, the Senate began discussions on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, climate legislation that narrowly passed in the House last month. As a recent New York Times article mentions, this week and the remainder of the month will be a busy time on the Hill with a number of hearings taking place before the weeks of July 27-31 and Aug. 3-7--weeks Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) set aside for the bill's mark up. To follow the discussion, you can watch yesterday's Environment & Public Works Committee hearing.

Tonight, the House approved the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. In approving this bill, the House has chosen to ignore the legislation's harmful effects on American consumers, businesses and the economy. At a time when America is trying to recover from a serious recession, the House has approved legislation that would cost energy users billions of dollars and add new stress to the economy.

Today, newspapers all over America have published editorials and op-eds on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Here's a sample:

"We're not ignorant of political realities, and we don't believe the perfect should become the enemy of the good. Congress should deliver a bill to Mr. Obama this year. But given that congressional action could set a template for years or decades, we think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal." - The Washington Post, June 26

API shares President Obama's well-intentioned goal of having a comprehensive energy policy that grows the economy, creates jobs, promotes energy security and addresses climate change.

But independent analysis shows that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would burden American consumers and businesses with substantially higher energy costs. This is more than "a few postage stamps."