Results tagged “climate change”

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.

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.

As the Senate Finance Committee continues its series of hearings on climate change, it is encouraging that senators are considering issues related to the distribution of free allowances under a cap-and-trade system.

Senators should understand that copying the ill-conceived House approach will not contribute to a comprehensive energy policy that creates jobs, grows the economy and addresses climate change. The House approach places a disproportionate burden on all consumers of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, propane and other petroleum products.

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.

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."

The media are handicapping the upcoming vote on the Waxman-Markey bill as though it were The Kentucky Derby. In today's 24-hour-a-day news cycle, reporters, anchors and pundits are asking whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the votes for passage, whether the bill could be more costly than previously anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and they are dissecting President Obama's comments delivered in the Rose Garden this afternoon.

No one likes the prospect of paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, but API economists who analyzed the bill say $4 gasoline easily could become a reality. They based on their calculations on two recent studies--the Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill, and two Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports.