IER President: “The American people are smarter than the political class in Washington think – they see this tragic accident playing out in the Gulf, and are overwhelmingly opposed to the Obama Administration’s plan to capitalize on it politically by pushing a national energy tax.”

Washington, DC – The Administration’s ongoing effort to use the unprecedented tragedy in the Gulf as “an opportunity” to restrict domestic energy production and push a national energy tax was dealt a major blow today, as new polling data released by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) finds that a vast majority of Americans oppose the underlying agenda that is currently costing thousands of jobs in the Gulf, and soon could be costing millions more across the country.

Some top-line findings in the attached report show that 70 percent of Americans oppose a new tax to address global warming. While consistent with historical trends, this number is somewhat surprising based given the president’s recent investment of time and political capital in support of “pricing carbon” in the wake of the BP oil spill. The same percentage of respondents (70%) said that such a tax would also have no discernable effect on global warming.

In contrast, voters are very much more interested in creating jobs (38%) and reining in profligate government spending (31%) – which ranked high above new regulations for the oil industry (4%) or global warming (3%).  Nearly every (99%) American is somewhat familiar with the BP oil spill.

“The American people are smarter than the political class in Washington think – they see this tragic accident playing out in the Gulf, and are overwhelmingly opposed to the Obama Administration’s plan to capitalize on it politically by pushing a national energy tax, ” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. “And while some in Washington are focused on ways to increase tax revenue on the backs of hardworking Americans, this poll shows once again the massive disconnect between Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, and Main Streets all across America.

Pyle continued, “The American people want Washington to focus on cleaning up the gulf, creating an environment that puts folks back to work and reducing our federal deficit. That’s it. There is no interest in pushing through a radical agenda in the name of global warming and there is no interest on the part of consumers to pay more at the pump for a gallon of gasoline.  It’s time for Washington, DC to get serious about its priorities, and start getting back in line with those of the American people.”

A majority of respondents believe things in this country are on the wrong track (59% wrong track, 34% right track) while two-thirds (68%) disapprove of the job being done by Congress. A slight majority (53%) approve of President Obama’s job performance overall.

To view the complete survey, click HERE.

NOTE: This survey of 1005 respondents was conducted between June 17 – June 22, 2010 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent.

To speak with Mark Blankenship, the pollster that conducted this survey, please contact Patrick Creighton at pcreighton@ierdc.org or 202.621.2947.

#####

Instead of allowing the American people to choose the cars that best fit their safety, convenience, size, and fuel economy needs, the Obama Administration announced today that the federal government is better equipped to make those choices, and will require that new cars and light trucks get an average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. As a result, each vehicle will cost over $1,100 more and more autoworkers will lose their jobs. The real joke? This policy will have zero impact on carbon emissions or climate change—its purported goal.

Why Limit American’s Automobile Choices?

For decades, Americans have had the option to purchase fuel efficient vehicles. Twenty-five years ago, Honda produced the Civic Coupe HF, which got 40 mpg in the city and 48 on the highway. But when it comes to making choices about vehicles, it turns out that fuel economy is just one of many factors Americans use to make their car purchase choices. Americans also want cars that are comfortable, safe, practical, and fun to drive.

Over time, cars have become bigger, quicker, and more comfortable, while at the same time retaining decent fuel economy. Consider the following table[1] that compares today’s cars to the same version from 25 years ago. In every case, the fuel economy is similar even though the 2010 version of each car is larger, the engines are larger, the cars have more passenger volume, and provide more luggage volume. Interestingly, the 2010 versions generally get slightly worse city fuel economy and slightly better highway fuel economy.

Moreover, when the government mandates fuel economy improvements, car makers are forced to make sacrifices in other areas, such as comfort, size, or power. What’s wrong with automakers building cars that the American people want? Should auto manufacturers really be forced to produce the cars the Obama Administration thinks we should have?

This mandate will increase the cost per vehicle between $1,100 and $5,000 per vehicle

It certainly is possible to build cars that meet the president’s mandate with similar features—but they will be more expensive. Automakers have the technology to build cars out of exotic materials that make them lighter and more fuel efficient, but those materials are very costly. In a best-case scenario, the Obama Administration says that its regulation will increase the price of a car by $1,100 per vehicle. [2] Other estimates are much higher—a study by Global Insight found that this kind of regulation would increase power-train costs by $1,000 for small cars and $5,000 for larger vehicles. [3]

This mandate will likely destroy 50,000 jobs in the auto industry

During the Bush Administration, the National Highway Transportation Administration estimated that imposing a mandate similar to Obama’s would destroy 50,000 jobs in the automotive industry.[4] The reason is simple—if cars are more expensive, people will hold on to the cars they already have longer. That means, overall, car companies will sell fewer new cars.

This mandate will likely result in more deaths in traffic accidents

In addition to killing American jobs, this mandate will come at a cost of American lives. A 2002 study from the National Research Council found that the federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandate contributed to 2,000 deaths per year.

This may sound shocking, but the fact is this: there is a tradeoff between fuel economy and safety. Smaller, lighter cars are generally more fuel efficient than larger, heavier cars. Cars have become safer, but today’s small, fuel efficient cars are still more dangerous than other cars in two-car frontal offset collisions, even against medium sized cars.

To meet President Obama’s fuel economy regulations, automakers will likely make their cars smaller, and, in turn, less safe. As Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety told USA Today, “leave the automakers the option of downsizing, clearly we’re going to have some safety consequences,” Lund says. “Smaller vehicles do not protect their occupants as well as large ones.”

President Obama didn’t have to choose between safety and fuel economy when it came to his 8-mile-per gallon Presidential limo. Just the same, he shouldn’t force the American people to drive small, more fuel efficient and less-safe cars.

According to EPA, this mandate will have no impact on global warming—the supposed reason EPA needed to regulate GHG emissions from vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency is breaking new ground with this regulation. Technically, they are regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This is because in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from cars due to what they perceived as a dire threat from global warming and increased sea level rise. On the surface, it seems reasonable to believe that these regulations would have an impact on global warming. But when we dig a little deeper, it is clear that this regulation is not based on reason.

According to EPA, the regulations will have—at the most—minimal impacts on global warming. EPA itself states that their regulations will lead to a reduction in global temperature by “0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100” and “sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06cm-0.14cm by 2100.”[5]

In sum, the Obama Administration is forcing people to pay at least $1,100 more for their vehicles to avoid an immeasurable temperature change—90 years from now.

This regulation unleashes a regulatory cascade that will not stop until Congress intervenes to protect the American people

It would be bad enough for the Administration to force the price of cars to rise with little to no positive benefits. But, sadly, vehicle regulation is just the beginning. The structure of the Clean Air Act will allow EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from many other sources, including hospitals, farms, manufacturing operations, nursing homes, churches, hotels, and office buildings. EPA will also regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which will finally allow President Obama to meet his goal of making electricity prices from coal-fired power plants “necessarily skyrocket.”

Conclusion

The Obama Administration thinks it can do a better job choosing cars for families than the families themselves. The cars the Administration chose are significantly more expensive than those currently on the market. And although the Administration is allegedly making these choices to protect us from the threat of global warming, EPA itself has admitted that its new rule will have no meaningful impact on global temperature or sea level. And even worse, this is only the beginning. EPA is going to regulate the economy in any way it can until Congress steps in and protects the American people from EPA’s bureaucratic power grab.

[2] 74 Federal Register 49343 at 49260 (Sept. 28, 2009).

[3] http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTAwZjUwYTBmZjc4ZGYyODc2NGE0MThkYWM2N2UyMmE=

[4] See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Model Years 2011-2015, available at http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/nhtsa_analysis.pdf. The NHTSA looked at six options in their report. The TC = TB option (Total Cost = Total Benefit) is a very close analogue to President Obama’s proposed plan. (See VII-2 Average Required CAFE levels, p. 608). The TC = TB option raised CAFE to 34.6 in 2015, while the Obama plan increased the average fleet fuel economy standard to 35.5 in 2016.

[5] Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule, p. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/ldv-ghg-final-rule.pdf.

WASHINGTON – Citing the intransigence of Mother Earth and the increasingly irreconcilable differences between the dictates of U.S. energy policy and the ethereal realities of the celestial universe, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) announced today a first-of-its-kind legal effort that, in cooperation with the Sierra Club and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), will seek to compel the wind to blow when it’s needed most, allowing publicly funded but privately owned turbines to generate low-cost, baseload power during times of peak demand. A companion suit will be filed against the sun.

“American taxpayers and energy consumers deserve a national energy policy that leverages the dynamic forces of the market to deliver affordable, reliable and secure sources of essential energy,” said IER president Thomas J. Pyle. “But in the absence of that policy, Americans deserve to know that the billions of taxpayer dollars being spent to prop up unreliable, intermittent sources of energy such as wind and solar aren’t just being thrown down a rat hole. With public money comes the obligation of public accountability, and it’s about time we start seeing more of that from the natural world.”

As it relates to wind, Pyle cited inconsistencies with static friction coefficients and a lack of credible data associated with a phenomenon known as “convection mixing” as issues in need of immediate redress from the court. Recent IER analysis has confirmed that wind-related pressure gradients tend to be at their strongest when demand for wind-generated electricity is at its lowest – and at their weakest during times of increased need. That reality has caused some to question why the White House continues to spend billions to subsidize the operations of largely foreign wind manufacturers – especially in absence of a serious plan to alter the rotational axis of the earth.

“For us, this issue fundamentally boils down to one of access,” AWEA president Denise Bode said. “Thanks to the current administration, we now have in place the infrastructure we need to make a real difference – and the business certainty that comes from endless supplies of taxpayer funds stacked up alongside a policy that guarantees our markets, and awards us top dollar for ‘serving’ them. All we need now is greater access to the raw materials in question. Dragging the universe to court to make it cough up more wind in the future may seem like a dramatic step, but I can assure you, it’s an effort we intend to win.”

Top Sierra Club lobbyist Athan Manuel dismissed suggestions that jurisprudential authority of U.S. courts doesn’t extend to the cosmos. “If the Congress of the United States can legislate the climate, there’s absolutely no reason why the judicial branch can’t adjudicate the precession of the equinoxes,” Manuel confirmed.

The suit was filed today in federal court in San Francisco.

April Fools!

The Good News—the Air is Getting Cleaner

The report can be summed up with this graphic from EPA:

GDP, vehicle miles traveled, population, and energy consumption have all increased since 1990. But despite the fact that more people are using more energy to produce more goods and services, air pollution emissions have decreased.

EPA reports that air quality has improved for the six main air pollutants:

Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2008 than in 1990 for:

• 8-hour ozone, by 14 percent
• annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 19 percent
• PM10 , by 31 percent
• Lead, by 78 percent
• NO2 , by 35 percent
• 8-hour CO, by 68 percent
• annual SO2 , by 59 percent

The below graphic, from EPA’s website, (but not in the actual air trends report) shows air quality trends since 1970. These trends are even more dramatic than the 1990 to 2008 numbers.

The Bad News: the Press Does Not Seem Interested in Telling the American People Our Air Quality has Dramatically Increased

This is good news that air quality continues to improve and even more so because the American people do not know it. According to a 2004 poll from the Foundation for Clean Air Progress, only 29 percent of people thought that “America’s air quality is better than . . . it was in 1970.”

One reason that the American people do not know this is because the press does not report on it.  So far not one major newspaper has written a story about the good news in this air trends report—there’s nothing from the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or any of the other major news outlets. The only story we could find is from E&E News (a subscription-based environment and energy news service) and even then it was the 12^th story in their afternoon publication.

It’s tough for the American people to lean to the truth about air quality when the media does not report the good news.

Our Air is Getting Cleaner

Today we can breathe easier knowing that our air is much cleaner than in the past. Even though the media is not reporting this good news to the American people, our air quality has substantially improved and will continue to improve. The data shows the truth.

The Obama Administration’s recently released “Economic Report of the President” devoted an entire chapter to “Transforming the Energy Sector and Addressing Climate Change” [.pdf]. Whenever the government promises to transform an entire sector of the economy, we know to watch out. Upon a simple reading it is obvious that the president’s fancy economic rhetoric doesn’t justify the $60 billion in “stimulus” funds and the proposed new mandates on the private sector. Even the report’s own analysis shows that the likely damages from climate change are comparable to the economic damages of more government regulation.

The Official Economic Argument for Intervention

Frequently when governments want to increase their power, money, and influence they justify their schemes with a scientific appeal. Standard economic theory provides just such a justification in the form of “market failure,” where the Invisible Hand breaks down because of “externalities.” Most people are familiar with the alleged negative externality of greenhouse gas emissions—which then justify either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade—but the president’s report introduces us to a new market failure, this time from a positive externality:

A market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gases [i.e. cap-and-trade] will provide incentives for research and development (R&D) into new clean energy technologies as firms search for ever cheaper ways to address the negative externality associated with their emissions. However…there is a separate externality in the area of R&D. Because it is difficult for the person or firm doing research to capture all of the returns, the private market supplies too little R&D—particularly for more basic forms of R&D…In this case, government R&D policies can complement the use of a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and yield large benefits to society. A policy that broadly incentivizes energy R&D is more likely to maximize social returns than a narrow one targeted at a specific technology because it allows the market, rather than the government, to pick winners. Likewise, funding efforts in support of basic R&D are less likely to crowd out private investment because differences between private and social returns to innovation are largest for basic R&D. (Economic Report, p. 243, bold added)

Rhetoric versus Reality

Given the textbook justification for government spending, we would now expect the Obama Administration to tout its expenditures on, say, math and science Ph.D. students, or a superconducting supercollider. As the report itself stresses, the economic rationale for such investments is that the social returns spill out across many sectors, so that individual companies would not be expected to spend the optimal level when we consider the costs and benefits to society as a whole. Since the report says the stimulus package provided “$60 billion in direct spending and $30 billion in tax credits” to “jump-start” the transition to a “clean energy economy,” there is a whole lot of ‘splainin’ that the administration must do.

Yet look at the programs the president’s report touts as fulfilling the requirements of “basic R&D,” without the government “picking winners”:

In its 2011 proposed budget, the Administration has stated a commitment to fund R&D as part of its comprehensive approach to transform the way we use and produce energy while addressing climate change. The Recovery Act investments begun in 2009 are a first step in this clean energy transformation. They fall into eight categories that are briefly described here.

Energy Efficiency. The Recovery Act promotes energy efficiency through investments that reduce energy consumption in many sectors of the economy. For instance, the Act appropriates $5 billion to the Weatherization Assistance Program to pay up to $6,500 per dwelling unit for energy efficiency retrofits in low-income homes…

Renewable Generation. The Recovery Act investments in renewable energy generation also are leading to the installation of wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy sources…

Traditional Transit and High-Speed Rail. Grants from the Recovery Act also will help upgrade the reliability and service of public transit and conventional intercity railroad systems. For example, $8 billion is going to improve existing, or build new, high-speed rail in 100- to 600-mile intercity corridors…

Clean Energy Equipment Manufacturing. The Recovery Act investments are increasing the Nation’s capacity to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, batteries, and other clean energy components domestically. As the United States transitions away from fossil fuels, demand for advanced energy products will grow, and these investments in clean energy will help American manufacturers participate in supplying the needed goods. (pp. 243-245)

In the quotation above, we have omitted some of the items—such as research on batteries—that could plausibly be classified as “basic R&D.” But as the list above shows, much of the spending programs are the furthest things from basic R&D, and are quite obviously examples of the government shoveling money to favored constituencies. Engineers already know how to weatherize homes and build traditional transit systems; there is no “market failure” here from spillover benefits from R&D spending.

The Costs of Inaction?

After sketching some of the major components of the $90 billion in total government assistance for “clean energy” in the stimulus package, the president’s report goes on to describe the administration’s plans to push for a government cap on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as new mandates on energy efficiency and renewable electricity generation.

In order to stifle voter skepticism over the costs of these proposed interventions into the energy sector, proponents will usually say, “Sure the costs are high, but the costs of inaction are much higher. We can’t afford to not act when it comes to global warming.”

In this context, the reader might be surprised to examine the report’s charts which show that the actual scientific literature—even the “consensus” as codified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report—shows that the case for alarmism is dubious:

[T]he projected losses for the most likely range of temperature changes are relatively modest. For example, at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most likely temperature increase of 3˚C for a doubling of CO₂ concentration (concentrations in 2100 are likely to be higher), the projected decline is 1.5 percent of GDP. (Box 9-2, page 242, emphasis added)

That is worth repeating: The Administration’s own report, in a chapter devoted to the need to “transform the energy sector,” admits that doing absolutely nothing would “most likely” lead to a “relatively modest” impact. This is consistent with the CBO’s modeling which showed that a “pessimistic” estimate of the damages from inaction are lower than the high-end estimate of the economic cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill by the year 2050.

Of course, it’s always possible that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions will lead to disaster. After letting the cat out of the bag regarding the “most likely” impacts from letting the market and nature run their course, the president’s report tells us:

The projected relationship between temperature changes and consumption losses is nonlinear—that is, the projected losses grow more rapidly as temperature increases. For example, while the projected loss for the first 3˚C is 1.5 percent, the loss at 6˚C is five times higher. And the estimated loss associated with an increase of 9˚C is about 20 percent [of consumption’s share of GDP]…Overall, it is evident that policy based on the most likely outcomes may not adequately protect society because such estimates fail to reflect the harms at higher temperatures. (ibid, bold added)

Those are scary numbers, it’s true. But how likely is it that human activities will cause the world to increase 9˚C, when the total warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution has been about 0.7˚C? As this graph from the IPCC’s latest report shows—across three different emission scenarios and five different modeling teams—the probability of such a rapid warming is virtually zero. Once the government gets permission to transform entire sectors of the economy because of the dangers posed by extremely unlikely outcomes, the sky’s the limit.

Conclusion

The proposals to transform the energy sector are so audacious that they can’t even be justified according to the government’s own rhetoric. A simple reading of the president’s own economic report reveals that the billions in handouts violate their own alleged rationale, and the government’s own numbers show that the likely threat of climate change is less damaging than the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan.

Washington, DC – Earlier this morning, President Obama promised that over the next 10 years, the federal government will reduce its carbon emissions by 28 percent – and issued an executive order to make it so. “Actions taken under this Executive Order,” the White House declared today, “will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries …”

Following the announcement’s release, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) conducted its own fact-check of key assertions contained in the statement. What follows is what we found:

WH Presser: “Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.  This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.”

IER: While it’s not entirely clear from where the 646 trillion BTU number was derived (no citation given), the notion that this initiative will result in the “cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020” is difficult to substantiate. What will this initiative cost? Will expected costs exceed “avoided” costs? To argue that this is a cost savings measure is not only disingenuous, it is misleading.  A proper accounting of costs and benefits would include a recognition that there’s no such thing as a free lunch – especially when dealing with renewable energy resources that are, by their very nature, expensive, unreliable and intermittent.

WH Presser: “As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

IER: That the U.S. Government is the largest consumer of energy in America is accurate; beyond that, very little of this statement seems to reflect the reality of the present world. It is indeed easy to cast demagogic aspersions on oil – and then leave the podium to board an aircraft that runs entirely on fuels derived from it. More difficult – but more representative of the actions of a leader – is to admit that any attempt to radically restructure the means by which the federal government secures it energy will necessarily require higher costs, higher taxes, and the potential for significant disruption owing to the use of an unreliable, but politically correct, product. Framed in that context, some Americans may still support the broader program – but at least none would be deluded into thinking it can be secured without cost.

WH Presser: “Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.”

IER: At its core, this initiative is nothing more than a renewable electricity mandate and a cash for caulkers program wrapped into one, sweet-sounding cipher. While the President cites “avoided” costs, he fails to mention the untold additional costs such a program like this will cost the taxpayer. According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) statistics, wind and solar energy will continue to be the most expensive way of generating electricity for years to come. Click HERE for a levelized cost analysis of all generating technologies.

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Senator McCain called “the agreement to take note of the accord” reached by the United States and a handful of developed nations a “nothing burger.” Senator Kerry, on the other hand, believes the accord is important and called China’s participation “the most critical thing” to ensuring Senate passage of the national energy tax, even though few observers believe China will actually do anything to curtail their growing use of carbon-based energy.  Meanwhile, the question of whether the outcome in Denmark was enough to advance international efforts to control emissions can best be summarized by Henry Derwent, president of the Geneva-based International Emissions Trading Association, who noted that the climate talks were a “step backward” in terms of a signal that will support carbon prices.

While the Copenhagen Accord does not represent a major change from the status quo, there are a few troubling aspects of the U.S. effort in Copenhagen worth noting.   

First, U.S. negotiators opposed efforts from China and India to ban the use of border tariffs on energy-intensive exports.  That means the U.S. actively fought to leave the prospect of Smoot-Hawley-type trade wars on the table for Senate cap-and-trade negotiators. The United States has benefited greatly from free trade; now the U.S. government is opposing free trade. 

Second, unlike China and other developing countries, the U.S. will allow “international consultations and analysis” of our greenhouse gas emissions. It is not clear how intrusive these international consultations will be, but with millions of sources of greenhouse gas emissions, it’s hard to believe that they won’t in some way encroach on U.S. sovereignty.

Third, the U.S.’s commitment to hand over billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money was a premature gesture that will only serve as the new floor for developing nations in the next round of international talks.  Why would nations in the third world operate under this agreement if they can now see that the starting point for COP 16’s bargaining talks is $30 billion?

Fourth, we must consider the sheer size of the U.S. delegation; press accounts reveal that in addition to the President, five cabinet officials, four other high ranking officials, one czar, over thirty Members of Congress and a host of staff attended all or part of the conference. The United States spent millions to send a small army to Copenhagen to forge a non-binding “accord” that very few Americans view as a priority.

Finally, contrary to Senator Kerry’s hopes, China’s willingness to sit at a non-binding negotiating table will not ease the pain a national energy rationing cap-and-trade tax will cause for American families and is certainly not a sufficient gesture to justify its passage.

Ultimately, Copenhagen will have no impact on the outcome of the cap-and-trade legislation moving through Congress.  As we have just seen in the health care debate, Senate passage of this increasingly unpopular measure will depend on how much taxpayer money Majority Leader Reid is willing to give away to his fence-sitting colleagues to reach the 60 votes necessary to move this bill forward.

“What was offered today was nothing more than more of the same. Bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship may make for good headlines, but the proposal outlined today is a tripartisan bad idea for the American people – paving the way for a job-killing cap-and-trade system that will increase the price of energy across the board.

“The Senators claim that their approach is a ‘market-based’ one. More government mandates, regulations and huge amounts of taxpayer subsidies to unreliable, expensive energy forms – a key component of their plan – will not put our nation on a path toward energy and economic security and is the furthest thing from ‘market-based’. This is a ‘government-mandated’ approach that creates a ‘market’ out of thin air.

“As for the nominal attempts to expand domestic offshore energy exploration, nothing has changed. Commonsense action from the Obama Administration – not Congress – is what now stands between the American people and the vast job-creating energy resources on taxpayer owned lands. The Senators should spend their time urging the Obama Administration to stop its administrative embargo against America’s domestic energy supplies.

“Unfortunately, American families facing economic hardships are strikingly absent from this debate. And they realize that this proposal – like others being considered by Congress and by the EPA – will increase their energy bills, keep more American energy off-limits and cost even more jobs.”

Note: Click here to read the Senator’s framework.

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a global warming bill. Following the panel’s vote, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan, pro-market Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement:

“The winners today are rent-seeking corporations, Washington special interests and our global competitors, especially China. The timing of this vote – which will weaken America’s ability to compete in the global economy – is particularly ironic, given that just yesterday a U.S. global warming envoy official told Congress that ‘No country holds the fate of the Earth in its hands more than China.’

“Enacting burdensome policies – such as cap-and-trade – will drive energy prices up and make it more difficult to create jobs, wealth and prosperity here in the U.S. China’s hand, however, will only grow stronger, as they continue to aggressively access and develop all forms of energy in their country and across the world. This, in large part, is what has enabled their enormous economic growth and expansion.

“While the members of this committee who voted to advance this legislation may attempt to downplay their vote to increase energy costs for American families, seniors and small businesses as an inside-the-beltway procedural motion, the fact remains that job-killing, carbon regulating legislation has cleared a major hurtle and is a major step closer to becoming law.”

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Unlike previous versions, this one spells out which groups are politically-favored enough to receive preferential treatment in the form of free carbon dioxide emissions allowances. This draft also includes “Increased Investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.” In other words, increased subsidies for politically-favored forms of energy. The premise of this section of the bill seems to be that the American people need the federal government to tell them how to use energy cost-effectively.

Like Waxman-Markey, this bill is shaping up to be incredibly costly and incredibly intrusive into all aspects our energy use.