Cap and Trade

Today, Crazy Ed Martin blasted out the following in an email to supporters: "Senator Claire McCaskill voted in favor of Cap and Trade, signaling a rote hostility toward business by agreeing to increased energy prices."

False.  McCaskill didn't vote for the American Clean Energy and and Security Act because it never came up for a vote in the Senate.  It passed the House in June 2009, but died in the Senate.  It didn't even make it out of committee in the Senate. 

More than a few progressive types (like me) wish the Senator would be more aggressive in pushing for an energy policy that would create more green jobs and begin to address our unsustainable pollution problem.  But she hasn't.  

On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).

Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.

Once upon a time, "cap-and-trade" wasn't an object of conservative Republican opprobrium (e.g., as a "big government cap-and-tax scheme that will destroy our economy and end our way of life as we know it"). Actually, once up on a time, "cap-and-trade" was...wait for it...a conservative Republican idea! That's right, let's head to the "way back machine" and briefly review the Political History of Cap and Trade.

The two recipients of "Big Oil's Six Figure Love" on the House Energy & Commerce Committee: Blunt and BP apologist Joe Barton

On FM NewsTalk 97.1 this morning, esteemed environmentalist climate change denier Roy Blunt informed us that stopping clean energy legislation is actually the right thing to do for the environment.

Cap and trade is a terrible thing for our state, it's a terrible thing for the country, and it's a terrible thing for the environment.  Because when we lose the jobs, those jobs go to somewhere that cares a whole lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do. And you know, America is a lot of great things, but it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not a planet. So we can't solve this problem ourselves. 

We can make it worse by ourselves by saying we want to penalize American jobs and Missouri jobs, and we'd just assume those jobs -- we understand those jobs are gonna go to Mexico or Brazil or India or China. And we really don't care because we wanna lead the world in doing the quote right thing, and of course, all the whole time we'd be doing exactly the wrong thing.

Listen:

Only in the GOP fantasy world could reducing carbon pollution be the bad thing to do for the planet. In Blunt's mind, the United States should not reduce its carbon output in any way, because, well, other countries might continue to pollute too. God forbid the USA might show some leadership, or have some credibility in negotiating with other countries. 

But hey -- what do you expect from a man who believes "there isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”

Impressive stuff from Kit Bond at a Tuesday press conference about the EPA's conclusion that greenhouse gases endanger human health:

It doesn’t help [Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's] case that the press conference she called on the measure Tuesday featured some of the Senate's all-stars of climate denial. There was Inhofe, who reaffirmed his belief that global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." There was Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, who noted that, "Without carbon, my trees would die. Carbon occurs naturally." And there was Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, whose contribution was, "People are breathing out CO2 all the time. Would that be a violation of the Clean Air Act under this law?"

What a dumb comment.

Bond has fought hard to muddy the waters and mislead the public about climate change and clean energy legislation.  Last summer, he told KY3 that "there is not a crisis in global warming."  He's also been called out by the Star for "wildly overestimat[ing]" the costs Missouri farmers would see under the House-passed clean energy bill. 

World-renowned scientist Jerry Nolte (R-Gladstone) sponsored a forward-thinking and well-researched resolution last week (HCR 32) calling for Congress to reject any cap-and-trade legislation to reduce climate changing emissions. 

In addition to expressing concern with the modest increases in energy costs that would come from such a system -- costs that would be nowhere near what Republican leaders and their industry allies have promised -- Nolte's resolution follows the lead of Missouri's top climate change denier, Blaine Luetkemeyer, in criticizing the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Roy Blunt in today's News-Leader:

Before addressing the attacks on me that were obviously designed to help the liberal candidate in the U.S. Senate race, permit me to make a general point about the economic and energy policies of the one-party Congress directed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

If the League of Conservation Voters' "Stain" ad is "obviously designed to help" Robin Carnahan's Senate campaign, then Roy Blunt's response mail piece was "obviously designed" to help him in the U.S. Senate race. 

Obviously.

Just in case you were wondering about the importance of Gary Forsee's letter to Republican efforts to undermine federal energy legislation, this should clear it up for you:

Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, today [December 8] backed University of Missouri President Gary D. Forsee’s contention that the "proposed cap and trade model will significantly increase the energy expenditures for all four of our campuses" in a letter to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.).

Never mind that Forsee isn't actually contesting Waxman's analysis of his bill -- Forsee is actually expressing relief that he was wrong. 

And never mind that the chairman of the MU Environmental Affairs and Sustainability Committee said their misunderstanding of the facts about the bill is a "little embarrassing" and "We've been wrangling with an issue we didn’t quite understand. We need to really get our facts straight and get the details of the bill fully under control before making any statement about opposing or supporting the legislation." 

Never mind all that -- Blunt is 'backing' Forsee in the dispute.

I really don't understand this argument from UM System President Gary Forsee (also articulated last week by Rep. Chris Kelly):

[Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry] Waxman’s rebuttal was "in some ways" beside the point, Forsee said Monday. His letter was intended to convey the message that a cash-strapped public university system would be hard pressed to handle new unfunded energy mandates — whatever the costs...

For all the fuss his letter stirred up, Forsee may have partly accomplished his goal. The university system now has Waxman’s written assurance that its power plant in Columbia isn’t a “covered entity” under the legislation. That sounds a lot like the exemption Forsee was seeking.

The factual problems with his letter are not beside the point.  Unless I'm missing something, Forsee didn't secure an exemption with his letter – the exemption existed all along, and he just didn't know what he was talking about.

Imagine Forsee wrote a letter to Congress expressing concern about the Martians living in his brain.  If he's politely informed that there aren't actually Martians inside his skull, his letter would not be hailed as an "incredible success" -– it would still have been a silly letter. 

The Tribune reports this afternoon that U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has responded to UM System President Gary Forsee's letter opposing federal clean energy and climate bill.  It turns out that Forsee's calculations, put together by the Director of Energy Management at MU, are based on an inaccurate understanding the the proposed legislation.

The numbers were based on Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration estimates and calculated based on the assumption MU would have to initially buy up to 30 percent of the greenhouse gas allowances, according to information from Paul Hoemann, director of university energy management.

University of Missouri students, faculty and alumni joined together in Columbia this afternoon to rally for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation outside of UM System President Gary Forsee’s University Hall office. A few photos:

A new cartoon from John Darkow, posted yesterday at ColumbiaTribune.com. 

Following up on my post from Sunday, Janese Heavin has a story today for the Daily Tribune outlining UM System President Gary Forsee's various stock holdings and ties to corporations.  Essentially, Forsee's response to questions about his financial interest in Great Plains Energy -- an energy holding company that is actively opposing federal climate legislation --  is that he'll still be rich no matter what happens.  I don't doubt that a bit, but this quote from his official spokesman has me scratching my head:

Forsee serves on the board of Great Plains Energy, the holding company of Kansas City Power & Light, which opposes the bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not a conflict of interest, Hollingshead said, because board members do not lobby on legislative matters.

Why does it matter if Forsee lobbies while wearing his Great Plains hat?  The point is that he's using his official position to advance a position that would benefit Great Plains stockholders and boardmembers, like himself.  And the larger point is that his public advocacy against the legislation contradicts his previous commitments regarding clean energy, and is effectively a call to maintain the status quo.  

The Tribune: 

Faculty members were taken by surprise when they read in the Tribune that [University of Missouri System President Gary] Forsee sent a letter opposing the bill, said Dan Hooley, a professor of classical studies and chairman of MU’s Environmental Affairs and Sustainability Committee.

“He seems to be speaking unilaterally but did not consult with faculty members or the community and with no explanation of his process of thinking,” Hooley said. “It seems to me he does have every right to speak for himself, but he simply can’t speak for the community. That’s not how this campus operates.”

The Beacon's Jo Mannies spoke with the office of Rep. Todd Akin (R-You Serious) about his Thanksgiving lecture series (first noted in this space yesterday).  Apparently, the Congressman is quite serious when he says the Pilgrims can help us understand the horrors of Democratic health care reform proposals. Quoth official spokesman Steve Taylor:

Akin "believes that the principles expressed in the Mayflower Compact ... are definitely relevant to the Medicare debates and to a lot of debates [in Washington], including cap and trade."

Happy to spar with Roy Blunt about their "Stain" ad, the League of Conservation Voters launched a new radio ad today titled "Forgot." Listen:

With the new spot, the LCV also breaks down Blunt's opposition to meaningful climate legislation in Congress: 

Contrary to Rep. Blunt’s claims, the American Clean Energy & Security Act, which the congressman voted against when it passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year, would help create nearly 36,000 clean energy jobs in Missouri. [2] The legislation would also reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and place limits on harmful carbon pollution. (Rep. Blunt also voted against in the American Clean Energy & Security Act when it passed out of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.)

Speaking with KSPR and KY3 last week week, Roy Blunt expressed grave concern with a recent ad from the League of Conservation Voters criticizing his ties to big oil and energy interests and opposition to the clean energy legislation before Congress this year. In both interviews, Blunt suggested that the issue ads circumvented campaign finance laws that limit total donations to a candidate campaign.  On KSPR, he said:

The money you can spend on ads like this are unlimited, so it's an interesting way to kind of get around the campaign finance law...

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

Repower America began a new ad on national cable yesterday to highlight the national security concerns of veterans and national security leaders about destabilizing climate change.

The ad features Iraq War veterans alongside General Brent Scowcroft and General Wesley Clark. 

VoteVets.org has new ads up today supporting their "fight to get a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill through the Senate and on to the President."

Our new ad is blunt and to the point.  Featuring Iraq War Veterans, it makes the case that oil profits to the Middle East fund the same terrorists we're fighting, and closes with the line that "It's not just a question of American energy, it's a question of American power."

Watch the Missouri version:

The Pew Environment Group published a new statewide survey today looking at likely voters' opinions on global warming and proposed Congressional action to reduce carbon emissions.

The findings from the poll are clear:

• A large majority believe global warming constitutes a serious threat
• A solid majority favor action to reduce carbon emissions
• A plurality believe that reducing global warming will create new jobs
• A sizeable majority say they would feel more favorably towards a senator who voted for the clean energy plan
• Most say they would feel more favorably towards a senator for supporting an emissions cap