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 greenhouse gases 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 climate change bill would double electric bills here in Indiana, working a severe hardship on low income families, 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 energy.
©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Apr 24, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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... :)
Americans have already lost over 6 million jobs just this year alone under their watch.