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.

A Walton Sun (Florida) op-ed, authored by geoscientist Al Swiercz and published last week, discussed the benefits of offshore drilling for Florida residents and the United States. Swiercz said that exploration would "not only protect the beauty of our beaches, but allow us to reap the benefits of offshore exploration," including tax revenues, jobs--including "blue-collar" rig jobs which pay upwards of $75,000 per year--and great fishing areas around offshore platforms.

Eighteen oil and natural gas companies had reported their third quarter 2009 earnings as of yesterday afternoon, and the results have been a mixed bag. Companies that focus on oil and natural gas production--also called the upstream sector of the business--experienced a better financial quarter than large integrated companies that have both upstream and downstream operations--refining and marketing. The companies that fared worst are in the downstream portion of the business, and some of them actually lost money.

The chart below puts the companies' earnings in perspective.

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.

In this episode, I interview Alan Gelder of Wood Mackenzie, who recently conducted a study on the potential impact of climate change legislation on refiners.

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."