Results tagged “climate change”

There'll be a show-down in the U.S. Senate today. At issue: Whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act.

On one side of the debate is the administration, which is threatening a veto if the Senate passes a resolution of disapproval stopping the EPA's proposed regulation OF GHGS. On the other side stands Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and the resolution's co-sponsors.

Next Tuesday, the Senate is expected to debate and vote on Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution of disapproval to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act.

API has said repeatedly that the Clean Air Act is unsuited for regulating GHGs, and despite EPA's efforts to delay the pain of implementation through its so-called "tailoring rule," the impact on the economy and jobs could be severe.

While members of Congress have been considering proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), the oil and natural gas industry has been investing in technologies that have reduced GHGs from its facilities and processes.

A new study, commissioned by API, found that GHG emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas industry declined more than 48 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2007 to 2008, a reduction comparable to taking 9.7 million cars off the roads.

President Obama today addressed attendees during the final hours of the Copenhagen climate summit, stressing the need to act "boldly and decisively" on climate change. Following his speech, I issued the following statement:

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.

In this episode, I recap the recent Newsweek-sponsored panel discussion about proposed climate legislation on Capitol Hill.

Panelists included Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Jack Gerard, President and CEO of API. They discuss what the climate bill could mean for the U.S. economy and for the oil and gas industry.

Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar delivered the keynote address at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen.

In his speech, Secretary Salazar pointed out that public lands are vital to the nation's energy future, both in producing alternative energy and supplying the oil and natural gas available there in massive quantities, which could generate thousands of new jobs if allowed to be developed. Public lands also have potential for managing greenhouse gas emissions, using carbon capture and storage technology pioneered by America's oil and natural gas industry many years ago.

The Harris Poll this week released the results of a survey showing that those who believe the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is affecting the climate has dropped from 71 percent two years ago to only 51 percent now.

In this episode, I interview Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau, on the potential impact of climate change legislation on agriculture.

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."

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."

The Boxer-Kerry Kerry-Boxer climate change bill leaves unaddressed key elements of how it intends to constrain carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it appears to be following the pattern the House followed, which resulted in a political bidding process that picked winners and losers.

The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies who rely on gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to get to work and to school and to run their businesses. As we've talked about on this blog, analysis shows that Waxman-Markey would kill more than two million American jobs, drive fuel prices up to between $4 and $5 a gallon and make our nation more dependent on imports of gasoline and other fuels.

This week's episode tells the story of the Energy Citizens rallies, which provided concerned Americans the opportunity to voice their opinions on the Waxman-Markey climate bill. The series of 20 rallies held across America gave people from all walks of life the chance to let their representatives in Washington know they need to protect jobs and support responsible energy legislation.

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.

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.