GOP attacks Democrats for climate proposal

May 30, 2009 By H. JOSEF HEBERT , Associated Press Writer
FILE -- In this Jan. 13, 2009 file photo, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels delivers the State of the State address to a joint session of the Legislature at the Statehouse in Indianapolis. Daniels, in the GOP's weekly radio and Internet address Saturday May 30, 2009, called the House climate bill "a classic example of unwise government." The address culminated a week of coordinated Republican attacks on the Democratic proposal which would require the first nationwide reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings, File)

(AP) -- Republicans on Saturday attacked the climate change proposal crafted by congressional Democrats and endorsed by President Barrack Obama as doing little to reduce global warming while saddling Americans with high energy costs.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, in the GOP's weekly radio and Internet address, called the House climate bill "a classic example of unwise government." The address culminated a week of coordinated Republican attacks on the Democratic proposal which would require the first nationwide reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

GOP House members used the weeklong Memorial Day congressional recess to drum up voter opposition to the Democratic bill. The governor's criticism echoed Republican lawmakers' arguments at "energy summits" in Pennsylvania, Indiana and California and at other forums during the week.

The proposal to cap greenhouse emissions "will cost us dearly in jobs and income and it stands no chance of achieving its objective of a cooler earth" because other nation's such as China and India will not have to follow, argues Daniels, according to a transcript of the Saturday address.

"The cost for all American taxpayers will be certain, huge, and immediate. Any benefits are extremely uncertain, minuscule, and decades distant," maintains Daniels.

The climate bill would require a 17 percent reduction in by 2020 and 83 percent reduction by mid-century. It advanced from the House Energy and Commerce Committee shortly before lawmakers left Washington for their holiday break, getting only one GOP vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants to take up the measure in the full House this summer.

"The national energy tax imposed by Speaker Pelosi's bill would double electric bills here in Indiana, working a severe hardship on , but that's only where the damage starts," says Daniels. "In a state where we like to make things, like steel and autos and RVs, it would cost us countless jobs. ... Our farmers and livestock producers would see their costs skyrocket. and our coal miners would be looking for new work."

Daniels made no mention of compromises crafted by the bill's chief Democratic sponsors - Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts - aimed at easing the economic costs on energy-intensive industries such as steel and automobiles, and on regions heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation.

Under a so-called cap-and-trade provision, polluters would be able to buy and sell emission allowances to ease the cost of the reduction. Initially free emission allowances would be provided to electric utilities and other energy-intensive industries facing unfair competition from abroad.

Waxman and Markey have argued much of the higher fuel costs would be offset by increased energy efficiency and rebates - using money from the sale of emission allowances - to people facing higher energy costs.

But Daniels says there's a better approach than the cap-and-trade government mandate and "protect the environment, lower energy costs and create jobs at the same time all without raising taxes." He cited Indiana's production of ethanol and biodiesel, efforts to develop less polluting coal plants, expansion of wind power and conservation programs.

Congressional Republicans said that instead of a mandatory cap on pollution, they want to expand domestic oil and gas development, using some of the proceeds for renewable energy development, expansion of nuclear energy and more support for research into ways to capture carbon from coal burning.

The Democratic bill also would devote billions of dollars to carbon capture research and would require utilities to generate at least 12 percent of their power from renewable .

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Obama readies climate change push at UN summit

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gingrich says climate bill will punish Americans

Apr 24, 2009

(AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher energy costs and lost jobs. Gingrich appeared before a ...

Warner: Climate change a national security issue

Apr 24, 2009

(AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice on climate change, urged lawmakers Friday to overcome partisan differences and pass legislation to curb greenhouse gases.

Poll: People want to battle climate change

Nov 05, 2007

A BBC poll indicated most people around the world said they would make personal sacrifices -- including higher energy bills -- to address climate change.

Experts say cap and trade not enough

Apr 13, 2009

A team of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University report in a new policy brief that cap and trade climate policies alone will not be sufficient to put the nation on track to achieve a 50 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse ...

Recommended for you

Obama readies climate change push at UN summit

2 hours ago

President Barack Obama will seek to galvanize international support in the fight against climate change on Tuesday when he addresses the United Nations, with time running out on his hopes of leaving a lasting ...

New toxic spill traced to Mexico mine

3 hours ago

Civil protection authorities have confirmed new toxic spills in northwestern Mexico, where a massive acid spill from a copper mine contaminated waterways.

World greenhouse emissions threaten warming goal

17 hours ago

Emissions of greenhouse gases are rising so fast that within one generation the world will have used up its margin of safety for limiting global warming to 2°C (3.6°F), an international team of scientists ...

Tens of thousands join London climate march

18 hours ago

Tens of thousands of people in London joined a global day of protest Sunday to demand action on climate change, among them British actress Emma Thompson who said the challenge to save the planet was like ...

User comments : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2009
Neither side of the political coin is handling the issue properly. Waxman-Markley will be just as damaging, if not moreso, than the recent economic contraction. I can't speak on the topic as an expert, but, to bring forward cleaner energy, a redaction or modification of the current regulation involving nuclear power use, namely thorium-based self-sustained fission platforms. Without the current uninformed regulations against the FBR design, proper research and refinement could continue, employing thousands, if not millions in economically destitute regions like Detroit. Energy costs would fall as well as freeing America from our current Middle Eastern fossil fuel addiction through a Hydrogen locomotion infrastructure, utilizing existing pump architecture married to (American designed) electrolyzation systems. It's a simple path that will take anywhere from 15 to 20 years (on an agressive timetable) to make function with very minimal impact on our society and way of life while maximizing the economic and environmental benefits.
Birger
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2009
Velanarris, the US (and other western) nuclear power operators should work together with India to get their slow-neutron Thorium breeder reactor going. See Wikipedia for details.
Unfortunately, nuclear energy has very great investment costs in the start-up phase, and therefore all industrialized nations need to invest in a very broad technology portfolio, doing research into cheaper power-cell catalysts, cellulosic ethanol production, and many other forms of energy production. For instance, Iceland was doing research on economically feasible super-deep geothermal boreholes, but the project was halted by the economic collapse of the nation. This is an example of where American R&D investments could make a big difference for the global energy budget.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2009
Unfortunately, nuclear energy has very great investment costs in the start-up phase
The start up investment causes are almost purely due to the lengthy permit process in the US. A process which is overseen by coal and oil interests who would prefer no competition from nuclear, as they realize their fate when combating a far cleaner and more stable platform.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2009
WHY DO NSF, DOE, NASA, etc PROMOTED FALSE INFORMATION?

I usually vote Democratic, but I am deeply troubled by the actions of federal research agencies (DOE, NSF, NASA etc.) in distributing this misinformation to the public as scientific facts:

1.) CO2 from the tail pipes of our economic engines caused global warming.

2.) Earth's climate is immune from cyclic changes in the Sun.

3.) Earth enjoys a constant heat source - steady fusion of hydrogen (H) into helium (He) at the core of a giant ball of hydrogen - the Sun.
[I.e, in the Sun's core: 4 H --> He 2 Solar Neutrinos.]

4.) The data say 4 H --> He 0.7 Solar Neutrinos, but federal agencies claim the SOLAR NEUTRINO PUZZLE is solved! Only 35% of the expected number of Solar Neutrinos were observed so they claim the measurements confirmed the model of a hydrogen-filled Sun and report that 1.3 Solar Neutrinos magically "oscillated away" before reaching the detectors.

What is the motive for giving such fairy tales to the public as "scientific facts?"

Federal research agencies will destroy public support for science if they are used to promote the agenda of any political group.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel,
Emeritus Professor
http://www.omatumr.com
jcrow
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2009
GOP is not considering the adjustments we would make in our energy sources. Yea if we stuck to the same old quick and dirty formula then everything would be more expensive.
THERE ARE OTHER CLEAN SOURCES OF ENERGY.
Companies are capable of filtering pollution.
Like Velanarris says, there will be many jobs for people inventing and building new tech. Are multi billion dollar companies with steady income that incapable of adapting?
Does the government need to "socialize" everything because capitalists are helpless?
theophys
not rated yet May 31, 2009
The GOP has really gone downhill in the last couple decades. It doesn't take much reasoning power to understand that the long term benefits of restructuring the energy grid significantly outweigh the short term costs (which really aren't that serious).
Investing in solar, wind, and nuclear energy reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Reducing our reliance on coal will reduce environmental impact, relieve lowe overall meical costs due to mining related respiratory complications, and ensure that we don't loose all the coal related jobs at once when we eventually run out of that particular resource. Incresing production of renewable resources would give us the opportunity to further localize power grids, eliminating the massive black outs caused by tiny malfunctions hundreds or thousands of miles away.
There isn't a single job in the dirty energy industry that can't be replaced by a clean energy job. The cost of gathering sunlight is less than the coat of finding, collecting, and burning fossil fuels.
We are better off restructuring. I wish the leaders of the GOP were willing to embrace reason and offer productive input rather than setting their heels in against anything that could be seen as a touch liberal. Frankly, they're being a tad immature.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2009
The GOP has really gone downhill in the last couple decades. It doesn't take much reasoning power to understand that the long term benefits of restructuring the energy grid significantly outweigh the short term costs (which really aren't that serious).
Doing nothing is less costly than going forward with a bill that shows bias toward the very industries it supposedly combats. All the solar and wind interests are coal and oil interests. When solar and wind fail, which they will once subsidization is removed, there will be people clamouring for oil and coal to come back, (albeit at a significantly higher cost). The green movement has always been an oil scam. Look at the history, and look at the comming legislation.
lengould100
not rated yet Jun 01, 2009
He cited Indiana's production of ethanol and biodiesel
Anybody who thinks burning bio-ethanol in cars can significantly reduce CO2 emissions simply hasen't a single clue. We should all ignore the purely political machinations of the Bush party.
lengould100
2.5 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2009
Velanarris:
Doing nothing is less costly than going forward with a bill that shows bias toward the very industries it supposedly combats.
1) When did any proponent of action to fight climate change claim that doing so was the "cheapest" option? Of course it will cost a little more, but is a moral responsibility to future generations. 2) Your casting of the issue overall (GW scare has been initiated by conspiracy of coal-petroleum industries), is simply paranoid senility, at best.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jun 01, 2009
Len,

Did you read Waxman-Markley?

I see you're looking at ethanol as the political machinations of the Bush party, however, you don't see that a model of business and protocol for emissions was developed by oil magnates?

Enron started the whole neo green movement. Why don't you do some deeper reading before insulting me.
GrayMouser
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2009
Enron started the whole neo green movement. Why don't you do some deeper reading before insulting me.

Don't forget BP. Enron and BP went to Bush advocating "green" laws. Enron stopped being a natural gas company once they found out how much money they could make trading pollution cap-n-trade credits. When the bottom dropped out of it so did they.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
lengould100,

Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons ranging from C6H14 to C12H26 with high concentrations (between 85%-92% depending upon grade) of C8H18.

Ethanol's chemical formula is C2H6O.

If you cannot see how CO2 emissions would be cut by using more ethanol than gasoline, gallon for gallon, I guess you are not as scientifically inclined as you try to lead us to believe you are. :)

And if you cannot understand the science it is no wonder that you are so easily swayed by the AGW/AGCC crowd. No wonder at all... :)
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
And, yes, this legislation WILL hurt the economy further. The hardest hit will be the poor. But what does Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress care?

Americans have already lost over 6 million jobs just this year alone under their watch.